instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S., at 358, 360.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Pee Cukiam.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider whether the United States may be held liable for breach of an implied contract of bailment when goods are lost while held by the United States Customs Service (USCS) following their seizure for customs violations. 441 U. S. 942 (1979). The Court of Claims granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment, finding that petitioner had failed to state a claim upon which the court could grant relief. 217 Ct. Cl. 423, 579 F. 2d 617 (1978). We vacate the Court of Claims’ judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
Petitioner imported camera supplies and other items which USCS seized upon their arrival in port and declared forfeited for customs violations. On petitioner’s appropriate procedure for relief, USCS agreed to return the forfeited materials upon petitioner’s payment of a $40,000 penalty. When the shipment was returned to petitioner, however, merchandise valued in excess of $165,000 was missing. Petitioner brought suit under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491, for the value of the missing merchandise, alleging breach of an implied contract of bailment.
The Court of Claims initially conceded that “the statutes cited by the plaintiff, along with the action of the USCS in agreeing to return the seized goods upon payment of a $40,000 fine by Hatzlaehh, could make a strong case for the existence of an implied-in-fact contract properly to preserve and redeliver all the goods to Hatzlaehh.” 217 Ct. Cl., at 428, 579 F. 2d, at 620. The court noted, however, that 28 U. S. C. § 2680 (c) excepts from the tort liability of the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act any claim “arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs.” Because in its view this provision would bar a tort claim for the loss that occurred in this case, the court thought that it “would certainly be a trespass on congressional prerogatives for this court now to hold that, by seizing subject to forfeiture certain merchandise, the Government assented to, or agreed to be bound by, an implied-in-fact contract to return the merchandise whole.” 217 Ct. Cl., at 430, 579 F. 2d, at 621. The Court of Claims accordingly declined to find an implied-in-fact contract, remarking that it could not “judicially allow by the back door a claim which was, rather clearly and explicitly, legislatively barred at the front.” Ibid.
We cannot agree with the Court of Claims that § 2680 (c) is such a major obstacle to awarding judgment against the Government on an implied contract. Section 2680, which is entitled “Exceptions,” declares that “[t]he provisions of this chapter . . . shall not apply to” certain kinds of claims, which are then described. Among the excepted claims are those specified in § 2680 (c) — claims “arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods or merchandise” by any customs officer. The section, although excluding certain claims from the statutory waiver Of immunity from tort liability, does not limit or otherwise affect immunity waivers contained in other statutes such as the Tucker Act, which invests the Court of Claims with jurisdiction to render judgment “upon any claim against the United States founded . . . upon any express or implied contract with the United States.”
Neither does its legislative history support the view that § 2680 (c), first passed in 1946 as part of the Federal Tort Claims Act, was intended to declare the immunity of the United States from express or implied contracts with customs officers that would, or might, otherwise be within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act. On the contrary, it appears that in exempting from the Tort Claims Act those claims described in § 2680 (c), Congress did not further intend to disturb other existing statutory remedies. H. R. Rep. No. 2245, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1196, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1942); H. R. Rep, No. 1287, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1945); S. Rep. No. 1400, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 33 (1946); Tort Claims Against the United States: Hearings on S. 2690 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 38 (1940); Tort Claims: Hearings on H. R. 5373 and H. R. 6463 before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 28, 44 (1942). Nothing in these sources, nor anything else called to our attention, indicates that the Tort Claims Act withdrew to any extent existing remedies for the breach of express or implied contracts. Others have read the statute and its legislative history to this effect. See 2 L. Jayson, Personal Injury: Handling Federal Tort Claims § 256 (1979); Gellhom & Schenck, Tort Actions Against the Federal Government, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 722, 729-730 (1947); Gottlieb, The Federal Tort Claims Act—A Statutory Interpretation, 35 Geo. Law J. 1, 45 (1946); Comment, The Federal Tort Claims Act, 42 Ill. L. Rev. 344, 360 (1947); Note, The Federal Tort Claims Act, 56 Yale L. J. 534, 547-548 (1947).
The Court of Claims relied on Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. United States, 431 U. S. 666 (1977), where it was held that the United States is not liable under the Tort Claims Act to indemnify a third party for damages paid to a member of the Armed Forces who was injured in military training. Recognizing that the Veterans’ Benefits Act provided compensation to injured servicemen, which we understood Congress intended to be the sole remedy for service-connected injuries, we declined to construe the Tort Claims Act to permit third-party indemnity suits that in effect would expose the Government to greater liability than that contemplated under the statutory compensation scheme. In Stencel, Congress had provided a remedy, which we thought to be exclusive. Here, however, § 2680 (c) denies a tort remedy for certain claims; and we fail to see how the Stencel holding that the existence of an exclusive statutory compensation remedy negates tort liability supports the conclusion that if the Tort Claims Act bars a tort remedy, neither is there a contractual remedy.
The absence of Government tort liability has not been thought to bar contractual remedies on implied-in-fact contracts, even in those cases also having elements of a tort. In Keifer & Keifer v. RFC, 306 U. S. 381 (1939), the Government argued that because a Government corporation could not be sued for negligence, neither could it be sued for breach of contract of bailment. The Court rejected the argument, holding that even if there was tort immunity, the waiver of immunity with respect to contract claims was not limited to “suits on contract, express or implied, not sounding in tort.” See also Aleutco Corp. v. United States, 244 F. 2d 674, 679 (CA3 1957); New England Helicopter Service, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 938, 939 (RI 1955).
The United States does not now defend the reasoning of the Court of Claims that § 2680 (c) forecloses a remedy on an implied-in-fact contract of bailment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38. It does support the judgment on a ground concededly not urged in the Court of Claims: that the contractual remedy should be rejected because individual customs officers are subject to tort liability and because 28 U. S. C. § 2006 provides that judgments against customs officers for negligent loss of goods, where seizure was made with probable cause, shall be paid by the United States. The existence of this private recourse, it is urged, counsels against recognizing a contractual remedy under the Tucker Act. We find the argument unpersuasive. There is no inconsistency between a contractual remedy against the Government and a tort remedy against customs officers. Cf. Keifer & Keifer, supra. Without more, neither the existence of a tort remedy nor the lack of one is relevant to determining whether there is an implied-in-fact contract of bailment upon which the United States is liable in the Court of Claims pursuant to its waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Tucker Act.
Because the Court of Claims’ judgment rested heavily on a mistaken view of the legal significance of § 2680 (c) and because the Court of Claims should first address the question of an implied-in-fact contract without regard to that section, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Claims and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Petitioner also sought damages, no longer in issue, for loss of “face and good will.”
As a second cause of action, petitioner alleged a capricious and arbitrary seizure, “unreasonable detainer” of property, and “deprivation without due process.” Petitioner does not challenge the dismissal of this cause of action.
We proceed in the text on the assumption, but without deciding, that the Court of Claims was correct in holding that the loss alleged in this case was a claim arising from the detention of goods by a customs officer and hence within the exception carved out by §2680 (e). Petitioner disputes this holding, claiming that the section is limited to wrongful detentions and does not deal with losses and that the courts are divided on the interpretation of the section. A-Mark, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 593 F. 2d 849 (CA9 1978), and Alliance Assurance Co. v. United States, 252 F. 2d 529 (CA2 1958), it is said, permit recovery under the Tort Claims Act for the loss of goods detained by customs officers; whereas this case, United States v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, FL844SAY, 501 F. 2d 1327 (CA5 1974), and S. Schonfeld Co. v. S. S. Akra Tenaron, 363 F. Supp. 1220 (SC 1973), construe §2680 (c) to except such losses from the Tort Claims Act.
We need not resolve the conflict. If petitioner is correct in its interpretation, § 2680 (c) would itself present no barrier to either contractual or tort liability. Nor would the existence of a Tort Claims Act remedy in this case be preclusive of pre-existing contractual remedies under the Tucker Act, at least absent some reasonably clear evidence that Congress intended to foreclose contractual remedies in the circumstances obtaining here.
When Congress first considered the exception in 1940, Judge Alexander Holtzoff, then a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee considering the bill. As the then Mr. Holtzoff described the intended effect of the various exemptions, certain of them, such as the loss or miscarriage of postal matter and certain intentional torts, were included because they related to activities for which, as a policy matter, the Government should be free from tort claims. Other exemptions, such as the assessment or collection of taxes or customs duties, the detention of goods by customs officers, and admiralty or maritime torts, were included because various other laws provided the machinery for recovery on these claims and “[t]here was no purpose in interfering with that machinery.” Tort Claims Against the United States: Hearings on S. 2690 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 38-39 (1940). The purpose was to avoid duplication; there was no indication that existing remedies, if’any, were withdrawn.
The Tucker Act itself is only a jurisdictional statute, of course, an# does not create a substantive'right to money damages. United States v. Testan, 424 U. S. 392, 398 (1976). The enforceable claim in this case must arise from the alleged contract. Moreover, the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction with respect to contracts extends only to actual contracts, either express or implied in fact; it does not reach claims on contracts implied in law. Alabama v. United States, 282 U. S. 502, 507 (1931); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 287, 292-293 (1928); United States v. Minnesota Mutual Investment Co., 271 U. S. 212, 217 (1926); Hill v. United States, 149 U. S. 593, 598 (1893).
We indicate no view, one way or the other, as to whether an implied-in-fact contract could be found on the record in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 327, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq., like other federal antidiscrimination legislation, is inapplicable to very small businesses. Under the ADA an “employer” is not covered unless its work force includes “15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” § 12111(5). The question in this case is whether four physicians actively engaged in medical practice as shareholders and directors of a professional corporation should be counted as “employees.”
I
Petitioner, Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P. C., is a medical clinic in Oregon. It employed respondent, Deborah Anne Wells, as a bookkeeper from 1986 until 1997. After her termination, she brought this action against the clinic alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability under Title I of the ADA. Petitioner denied that it was covered by the Act and moved for summary judgment, asserting that it did not have 15 or more employees for the 20 weeks required by the statute. It is undisputed that the accuracy of that assertion depends on whether the four physician-shareholders who own the professional corporation and constitute its board of directors are counted as employees.
The District Court, adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, granted the motion. Relying on an “economic realities” test adopted by the Seventh Circuit in EEOC v. Dowd & Dowd, Ltd., 736 F. 2d 1177, 1178 (1984), the District Court concluded that the four doctors were “more analogous to partners in a partnership than to shareholders in a general corporation” and therefore were “not employees for purposes of the federal antidiscrimination laws.” App. 89.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Noting that the Second Circuit had rejected the economic realities approach, the majority held that the use of any corporation, including a professional corporation, “ ‘precludes any examination designed to determine whether the entity is in fact a partnership.’” 271 F. 3d 903, 905 (2001) (quoting Hyland v. New Haven Radiology Associates, P. C., 794 F. 2d 793, 798 (CA2 1986)). It saw “no reason to permit a professional corporation to secure the ‘bést of both possible worlds’ by allowing it both to assert its corporate status in order to reap the tax and civil liability advantages and to argue that it is like a partnership in order to avoid liability for unlawful employment discrimination.” 271 F. 3d, at 905. The dissenting judge stressed the differences between an Oregon physicians’ professional corporation and an ordinary business corporation, and argued that Congress’ reasons for exempting small employers from the coverage of the Act should apply to petitioner. Id., at 906-909 (opinion of Graber, J.).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict in the Circuits, which extends beyond the Seventh and the Second Circuits. 536 U. S. 990 (2002).
I — l I — (
“We have often been asked to construe the meaning of ‘employee’ where the statute containing the term does not helpfully define it.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U. S. 318, 322 (1992). The definition of the term in the ADA simply states that an “employee” is “an individual employed by an employer.” 42 U. S. C. § 12111(4). That surely qualifies as a mere “nominal definition” that is “completely circular and explains nothing.” Darden, 503 U. S., at 323. As we explained in Darden, our cases construing similar language give us guidance on how best to fill the gap in the statutory text.
In Darden we were faced with the question whether an insurance salesman was an independent contractor or an “employee” covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Because ERISA’s definition of “employee” was “completely circular,” 503 U. S., at 323, we followed the same general approach that we had previously used in deciding whether a sculptor was an “employee” within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976, see Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U. S. 730 (1989), and we adopted a common-law test for determining who qualifies as an “employee” under ERISA. Quoting Reid, 490 U. S., at 739-740, we explained that “‘when Congress has used the term “employee” without defining it, we have concluded that Congress intended to describe the conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine.’ ” Darden, 503 U. S., at 322-323.
Rather than looking to the common law, petitioner argues that courts should determine whether a shareholder-director of a professional corporation is an “employee” by asking whether the shareholder-director is, in reality, a “partner.” Brief for Petitioner 9,15-16, 21 (arguing that the four shareholders in the clinic are more analogous to partners in a partnership than shareholders in a corporation and that “those who are properly classified as partners are not ‘employees’ for purposes of the anti-discrimination statutes”). The question whether a shareholder-director is an employee, however, cannot be answered by asking whether the shareholder-director appears to be the functional equivalent of a partner. Today there are partnerships that include hundreds of members, some of whom may well qualify as “employees” because control is concentrated in a small number of managing partners. Cf. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 79, n. 2 (1984) (Powell, J., concurring) (“[A]n employer may not evade the strictures of Title VII simply by labeling its employees as ‘partners’”); EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 315 F. 3d 696, 709 (CA7 2002) (Easterbrook, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Strother v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 79 F. 3d 859 (CA9 1996). Thus, asking whether shareholder-directors are partners — rather than asking whether they are employees — simply begs the question.
Nor does the approach adopted by the Court of Appeals in this case fare any better. The majority’s approach, which paid particular attention to “the broad purpose of the ADA,” 271 F. 3d, at 905, is consistent with the statutory purpose of ridding the Nation of the evil of discrimination. See 42 U. S. C. § 12101(b). Nevertheless, two countervailing considerations must be weighed in the balance. First, as the dissenting judge noted below, the congressional decision to limit the coverage of the legislation to firms with 15 or more employees has its own justification that must be respected— namely, easing entry into the market and preserving the competitive position of smaller firms. See 271 F. 3d, at 908 (opinion of Graber, J.) (“Congress decided ‘to spare very small firms from the potentially crushing expense of mastering the intricacies of the antidiscrimination laws, establishing procedures to assure compliance, and defending against suits when efforts at compliance fail’ ” (quoting Papa v. Katy Industries, Inc., 166 F. 3d 937, 940 (CA7), cert. denied, 528 U. S. 1019 (1999))). Second, as Darden reminds us, congressional silence often reflects an expectation that courts will look to the common law to fill gaps in statutory text, particularly when an undefined term has a settled meaning at common law. Congress has overridden judicial decisions that went beyond the common law in an effort to correct “ ‘the mischief’ ” at which a statute was aimed. See 503 U. S., at 324-325.
Perhaps the Court of Appeals’ and the parties’ failure to look to the common law for guidance in this case stems from the fact that we are dealing with a new type of business entity that has no exact precedent in the common law. State statutes now permit incorporation for the purpose of practicing a profession, but in the past “the so-called learned professions were not permitted to organize as corporate entities.” 1A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations §112.10 (rev. ed. 1997-2002). Thus, professional corporations are relatively young participants in the market, and their features vary from State to State. See generally 1 B. Bittker & J. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶ 2.06 (7th ed. 2002) (explaining that States began to authorize the creation of professional corporations in the late 1950’s and that the momentum to form professional corporations grew in the 1970’s).
Nonetheless, the common law’s definition of the master-servant relationship does provide helpful guidance. At common law the relevant factors defining the master-servant relationship focus on the master’s control over the servant. The general definition of the term “servant” in the Restatement (Second) of Agency §2(2) (1957), for example, refers to a person whose work is “controlled or is subject to the right to control by the master.” See also id., § 220(1) (“A servant is a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other’s control or right to control”). In addition, the Restatement’s more specific definition of the term “servant” lists factors to be considered when distinguishing between servants and independent contractors, the first of which is “the extent of control” that one may exercise over the details of the work of the other. Id., § 220(2)(a). We think that the common-law element of control is the principal guidepost that should be followed in this case.
This is the position that is advocated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that has special enforcement responsibilities under the ADA and other federal statutes containing similar threshold issues for determining coverage. It argues that a court should examine “whether shareholder-directors operate independently and manage the business or instead are subject to the firm’s control.” Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 8. According to the EEOC’s view, “[i]f the shareholder-directors operate independently and manage the business, they are proprietors and not employees; if they are subject to the firm’s control, they are employees.” Ibid.
Specific EEOC guidelines discuss both the broad question of who is an “employee” and the narrower question of when partners, officers, members of boards of directors, and major shareholders qualify as employees. See 2 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Compliance Manual §§605:0008-605:00010 (2000) (hereinafter EEOC Compliance Manual). With respect to the broad question, the guidelines list 16 factors — taken from Darden, 503 U. S., at 323-324 — that may be relevant to “whether the employer controls the means and manner of the worker’s work performance.” EEOC Compliance Manual §605:0008, and n. 71. The guidelines list six factors to be considered in answering the narrower question, which they frame as “whether the individual acts independently and participates in managing the organization, or whether the individual is subject to the organization’s control.” Id., §605:0009.
We are persuaded by the EEOC’s focus on the common-law touchstone of control, see Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944), and specifically by its submission that each of the following six factors is relevant to the inquiry whether a shareholder-director is an employee:
“Whether the organization can hire or fire the individual or set the rules and regulations of the individual’s work
“Whether and, if so, to what extent the organization supervises the individual’s work
“Whether the individual reports to someone higher in the organization
“Whether and, if so, to what extent the individual is able to influence the organization
“Whether the parties intended that the individual be an employee, as expressed in written agreements or contracts
“Whether the individual shares in the profits, losses, and liabilities of the organization.” EEOC Compliance Manual §605:0009.
As the EEOC’s standard reflects, an employer is the person, or group of persons, who owns and manages the enterprise. The employer can hire and fire employees, can assign tasks to employees and supervise their performance, and can decide how the profits and losses of the business are to be distributed. The mere fact that a person has a particular title — such as partner, director, or vice president — should not necessarily be used to determine whether he or she is an employee or a proprietor. See ibid. (“An individual’s title . . . does not determine whether the individual is a partner, officer, member of a board of directors, or major shareholder, as opposed to an employee”). Nor should the mere existence of a document styled “employment agreement” lead inexorably to the conclusion that either party is an employee. See ibid, (looking to whether “the parties intended that the individual be an employee, as expressed in written agreements or contracts”). Rather, as was true in applying common-law rules to the independent-contractor-versus-employee issue confronted in Darden, the answer to whether a shareholder-director is an employee depends on “ ‘all of the incidents of the relationship . . . with no one factor being decisive.’ ” 503 U. S., at 324 (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America, 390 U. S. 254, 258 (1968)).
III
Some of the District Court’s findings — when considered in light of the EEOC’s standard — appear to weigh in favor of a conclusion that the four director-shareholder physicians in this case are not employees of the clinic. For example, they apparently control the operation of their clinic, they share the profits, and they are personally liable for malpractice claims. There may, however, be evidence in the record that would contradict those findings or support a contrary conclusion under the EEOC’s standard that we endorse today. Accordingly, as we did in Darden, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See, e. g., 29 U. S. C. § 630(b) (setting forth a 20-employee threshold for coverage under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)); 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(b) (establishing a 15-employee threshold for coverage under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
The dissenting judge summarized Oregon’s treatment of professional corporations as follows:
“In Oregon, a physicians’ professional corporation, like this one, preserves the professional relationship between the physicians and their patients, as well as the standards of conduct that the medical profession requires. Or. Rev. Stat. §58.185(2). Further, ‘a shareholder of the corporation is personally liable as if the shareholder were rendering the service or services as an individual’ with respect to all claims of negligence, wrongful acts or omissions, or misconduct committed in the rendering of professional services. Or. Rev. Stat. § 58.185(3) (emphasis added). A licensed professional also is jointly and severally liable for such claims, albeit with some dollar limitations. Or. Rev. Stat. §58.185(4)-(9). Ordinary business corporation rules apply only to other aspects of the entity, apart from the provision of professional services. Or. Rev. Stat. § 58.185(11). A professional corporation’s activities must remain consistent with the requirements of the type of license in question, Or. Rev. Stat. § 58.205, and it may merge only with other professional corporations, Or. Rev. Stat. § 58.196, so the provision of professional services — with its attendant liabilities — must remain at the heart of a R C. like this defendant.
“Additional special rules apply to professional corporations that are organized to practice medicine, none of which apply to ordinary business corporations. A majority of the directors, the holders of the majority of shares, and all officers except the secretary and treasurer must be Oregon-licensed physicians. Or. Rev. Stat. §58.375(l)(a)-(c). The Board of Medical Examiners is given express statutory authority to require more than a majority of shares, and more than a majority of director positions, to be held by Oregon-licensed physicians. Or. Rev. Stat. § 58.375(l)(d) & (e). The Board of Medical Examiners also may restrict the corporate powers of a professional corporation organized for the purpose of practicing medicine, beyond the restrictions imposed on ordinary business corporations. Or. Rev. Stat. §58.379. Lastly, Or. Rev. Stat. §§58.375 through 58.389 contain impediments to the transfer of shares and other corporate activities.” 271 F. 3d, at 907-908 (opinion of Graber, J.) (footnote omitted).
The disagreement in the Circuits is not confined to the particulars of the ADA. For example, the Seventh Circuit’s decision in EEOC v. Dowd & Dowd, Ltd., 736 F. 2d 1177 (1984), concerned Title VII, and the Second Circuit’s opinion in Hyland v. New Haven Radiology Associates, R C., 794 F. 2d 793 (1986), involved the ADEA. See also Devine v. Stone, Leyton & Gershman, P. C., 100 F. 3d 78 (CA8 1996) (Title VII case).
In Reid, 490 U. S., at 738, the ownership of a copyright in a statue depended on whether it had been ‘“prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment’ ” within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976.
Darden described the common-law test for determining whether a hired party is an employee as follows:
“‘[W]e consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumen-talities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.’” 503 U. S., at 323-324 (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U. S. 730, 751-752 (1989), and citing Restatement (Second) of Agency §220(2) (1958)).
These particular factors are not directly applicable to this case because we are not faced with drawing a line between independent contractors and employees. Rather, our inquiry is whether a shareholder-director is an employee or, alternatively, the kind of person that the common law would consider an employer.
The meaning of the term “employee” comes into play when determining whether an individual is an “employee” who may invoke the ADA’s protections against discrimination in “hiring, advancement, or discharge,” 42 U. S. C. § 12112(a), as well as when determining whether an individual is an “employee” for purposes of the 15-employee threshold. See § 12111(5)(A); see also Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 10-11; Schmidt v. Ottawa Medical Center, P. C., 322 F. 3d 461 (CA7 2003). Consequently, a broad reading of the term “employee” would — consistent with the statutory purpose of ridding the Nation of discrimination — tend to expand the coverage of the ADA by enlarging the number of employees entitled to protection and by reducing the number of firms entitled to QVornnfi An
The EEOC’s manual states that it applies across the board to other federal antidiscrimination statutes. See EEOC Compliance Manual § 605:0001 (“This Section discusses coverage, timeliness, and other threshold issues to be considered when a charge is first filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), or the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)” (footnote omitted)).
For example, the EEOC considers whether the work requires a high level of skill or expertise, whether the employer furnishes the tools, materials, and equipment, and whether the employer has the right to control when, where, and how the worker performs the job. Id., § 605:0008.
As the Government has acknowledged, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 19, the EEOC’s Compliance Manual is not controlling — even though it may constitute a “body of experience and informed judgment” to which we may resort for guidance. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S., at 140; see also Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U. S. 576, 587 (2000) (holding that agency interpretations contained in “policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law[,] do not warrant Chevron-style deference”).
The EEOC asserts that these six factors need not necessarily be treated as “exhaustive.” Brief for United States et al. as Amici Curiae 9. We agree. The answer to whether a shareholder-director is an employee or an employer cannot be decided in every case by a ‘“shorthand formula or magic phrase.’” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U. S. 318, 324 (1992) (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America, 390 U. S. 254, 258 (1968)).
For example, the record indicates that the four director-shareholders receive salaries, Tr. of Oral Arg. 8, that they must comply with the standards established by the clinic, App. 66, and that they report to a personnel manager, ibid.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is how unearned premium reserves for accident and health (A&H) insurance policies should be allocated between a primary insurer and a reinsurer for federal tax purposes. We granted certiorari in these three cases to resolve a conflict between the Circuits and the Court of Claims. 425 U. S. 990 (1976).
I
An insurance company is considered a life insurance company under the Internal Revenue Code if its life insurance reserves constitute more than 50% of its total reserves, IRC of 1954, § 801 (a), 26 U. S. C. § 801 (a), and qualifying companies are accorded preferential tax treatment. A company close to the 50% line will ordinarily achieve substantial tax savings if it can increase its life insurance reserves or decrease nonlife reserves so as to come within, the statutory definition.
The taxpayers here are insurance companies that assumed both life insurance risks and A&H—nonlife—risks. The dispute in these cases is over the computation for tax purposes of nonlife reserves. The taxpayers contend that by virtue of certain reinsurance agreements—or treaties, to use the term commonly accepted in the insurance industry—they have maintained nonlife reserves below the 50% level. The Government argues that the reinsurance agreements do not have that effect, that the taxpayers fail to meet the 50% test, and that accordingly they do not qualify for preferential treatment.
Specifically the dispute is over the unearned premium reserve, the basic insurance reserve in the casualty insurance business and an important component of “total reserves,” as that term is defined in § 801 (c). A&H policies of the type involved here generally are written for a two- or three-year term. Since policyholders typically pay the full premium in advance, the premium is wholly “unearned” when the primary insurer initially receives it. See Rev. Rul. 61-167, 1961-2 Cum. Bull. 130, 132. The insurer’s corresponding liability can be discharged in one of several ways: granting future protection by promising to pay future claims; reinsuring the risk with a solvent reinsurer; or returning a pro rata portion of the premium in the event of cancellation. Each method of discharging the liability may cost money. The insurer thus establishes on the liability side of its accounts a reserve, as a device to help assure that the company will have the assets necessary to meet its future responsibilities. See O. Dickerson, Health Insurance 604-605 (3d ed. 1968) (hereafter Dickerson). Standard accounting practice in the casualty field, made mandatory by all state regulatory authorities, calls for reserves equal to the gross unearned portion of the premium. A simplified example may be useful: A policyholder takes out a three-year A&H policy for a premium, paid in advance, of $360. At first the total $360 is unearned, and the insurer’s books record an unearned premium reserve in the full amount of $360. At the end of the first month, one thirty-sixth of the term has elapsed, and $10 of the premium has become “earned.” The unearned premium reserve may be reduced to $350. Another $10 reduction is permitted at the end of the second month, and so on.
II
The reinsurance treaties at issue here assumed two basic forms. Under the first form, Treaty I, the taxpayer served as reinsurer, and the “other party” was the primary insurer or “ceding company,” in that it ceded part or all of its risk to the taxpayer. Under the second form, Treaty II, the taxpayer served as the primary insurer and ceded a portion of the business to the “other party,” that party being the reinsurer. Both types of treaties provided that the other party would hold the premium dollars derived from A&H business until such time as the premiums were earned—that is, attributable to the insurance protection provided during the portion of the policy term that already had elapsed. The other party also set up on its books the corresponding unearned premium reserve, relieving the taxpayer of that requirement. In each case, the taxpayer and the other party reported their affairs annually in this fashion to both the Internal Revenue Service and the appropriate state insurance departments. These annual statements were accepted by the state authorities without criticism. Despite this acceptance, the Government argues here that the unearned premium reserves must be allocated or attributed for tax purposes from the other parties, as identified above, to the taxpayers, thereby disqualifying each of the taxpayers from preferential treatment.
A
No. 75-1221, United States v. Consumer Life Ins. Co. In 1957 Southern Discount Corp. was operating a successful consumer finance business. Its borrowers, as a means of assuring payment of their obligations in the event of death or disability, typically purchased term life insurance and term A&H insurance at the time they obtained their loans. This insurance—commonly known as credit life and credit A&H—is usually coextensive in term and coverage with the term and amount of the loan. The premiums are generally paid in full at the commencement of coverage, the loan term ordinarily running for two or three years. Prohibited from operating in Georgia as an insurer itself, Southern served as a sales agent for American Bankers Life Insurance Co., receiving in return a sizable commission for its services.
With a view to participating as an underwriter and not simply as agent in this profitable credit insurance business, Southern formed Consumer Life Insurance Co., the taxpayer here, as a wholly owned subsidiary incorporated in Arizona, the State with the lowest capital requirements for insurance companies. Although Consumer Life's low capital precluded it from serving as a primary insurer under Georgia law, it was nonetheless permitted to reinsure the business of companies admitted in Georgia.
Consumer Life therefore negotiated the first of two reinsurance treaties with American Bankers. Under Treaty I, Consumer Life served as reinsurer and American Bankers as the primary insurer or ceding company. Consumer Life assumed 100% of the risks on credit life and credit A&H business originating with Southern, agreeing to reimburse American Bankers for all losses as they were incurred. In return Consumer Life was paid a premium equivalent to 87½% of the premiums received by American Bankers. But the mode of payment differed as between life and A&H policies. With respect to life insurance policies, American Bankers each month remitted to the reinsurer—Consumer Life—the stated percentage of all life insurance premiums collected during the prior month. With respect to A&H coverage, however, American Bankers each month remitted, the stated percentage of the A&H premiums earned during the prior month, the remainder to be paid on a pro rata basis over the balance of the coverage period.
Again an example might prove helpful. Assume that a policyholder buys from American Bankers on January 1 a three-year credit life policy and a three-year credit A&H policy, paying on that date a $360 premium for each policy. On February 1, under Treaty I, American Bankers would be obligated to pay Consumer Life 87½ % of $360 for reinsurance of life risks. This represents the total life reinsurance premium; there would be no further payments for life reinsurance. But for A&H reinsurance, American Bankers would remit on February 1 only the stated percentage of $10, since only $10 would have been earned during the prior month. It would remit the same amount on March 1 for A&H coverage provided during February, and so on for a total of 36 months.
Treaty I permitted either party to terminate the agreement upon 30 days’ notice. But termination was to be prospective; reinsurance coverage would continue on the same terms until the policy expiration date for all policies already executed. This is known as a "runoff provision.”
Because it held the unearned A&H premium dollars, and also under an express provision in Treaty I, American Bankers set up an unearned premium reserve equivalent to the full value of the premiums. Meantime Consumer Life, holding no unearned premium dollars, established on its books no unearned premium reserve for A&H business. Annual statements filed with the state regulatory authorities in Arizona and Georgia reflected this treatment of reserves, and the statements were accepted without challenge or disapproval.
By 1962 Consumer Life had accumulated sufficient surplus to qualify under Georgia law as a primary insurer. Treaty I was terminated, and Southern began placing its credit insurance business directly with Consumer Life. The parties then negotiated Treaty II, under which American Bankers served as reinsurer of the A&H policies issued by Consumer Life. Ultimately Consumer Life retained the lion’s share of the risk, but Treaty II was set up in such a way that American Bankers held the premium dollars until they were earned. This required rather complicated contractual provisions, since Consumer Life as primary insurer did receive the A&H premium dollars initially.
Roughly described, Treaty II provided as follows: Consumer Life paid over the A&H premiums when they were received. American Bankers immediately returned 50% of this sum as a ceding commission meant to cover Consumer Life’s initial expenses. Then, at the end of each quarter, American Bankers paid to Consumer Life “experience refunds” based on claims experience. If there were no claims, American Bankers would refund 47% of the total earned premiums. If there were claims (and naturally there always were), Consumer Life received 47% less the sums paid to meet claims. It is apparent that American Bankers would never retain more than 3% of the total earned premiums for the quarter. Only if claims exceeded 47% would this 3% be encroached, but even in that event Treaty II permitted American Bankers to recoup its losses by reducing the experience refund in later quarters. Actual claims experience never approached the 47% level.
Again, since American Bankers held the unearned premiums, it set up the unearned premium reserve on its books. Consumer Life, which initially had set up such a reserve at the time it received the premiums, took credit against them for the reserve held by American Bankers. Annual statements filed by both companies consistently reflected this treatment of reserves under Treaty II, and at no time did state authorities take exception.
The taxable years 1958 through 1960, and 1962 through 1964, are at issue here. For each of those years Consumer Life computed its § 801 ratio based on the reserves shown on its books and accepted by the state authorities. According to those figures, Consumer Life qualified for tax purposes as a life insurance company. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined, however, that the A&H reserves held by American Bankers should be attributed to Consumer Life, thereby disqualifying the latter from favorable treatment. Consumer Life paid the deficiency assessed by the Commissioner and brought suit for a refund. The Court of Claims, disagreeing with its trial judge, held for the taxpayer.
B
No. 75-1260, First Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia v. United States. The relevant taxable entity in this case is First of Georgia Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of the petitioner First Railroad & Banking Co. of Georgia. Georgia Life was party to a Treaty II type agreement, reinsuring its A&H policies with an insurance company, another subsidiary of First Railroad. On the basis of the reserves carried on its books and approved by state authorities, Georgia Life qualified as a life insurance company for the years at issue here, 1961-1964. Consequently First Railroad excluded Georgia Life's income from its consolidated return, pursuant to § 1504 (b)(2) of the Code. The Commissioner determined that Georgia Life did not qualify for life insurance company status or exclusion from the consolidated return, and so assessed a deficiency. First Railroad paid and sued for a refund. It prevailed in the District Court, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, relying heavily on Economy Finance Corp. v. United States, 501 F. 2d 466 (CA7 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 947, rehearing denied, 421 U. S. 922 (1975), motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing pending, No. 74-701.
C
No. 75-1285, United States v. Penn Security Life Ins. Co. Penn Security Life Insurance Co., a Missouri corporation, is, like Consumer Life, a subsidiary of a finance company. Under three separate Treaty I type agreements, it reinsured the life and A&H policies of three unrelated insurers during the years in question, 1963-1965. The other companies reported the unearned premium reserves, and the Missouri authorities approved this treatment. Because one of the three treaties did not contain a runoff provision like that present in Consumer Life, the Government conceded that the reserves held by that particular ceding company should not be attributed to the taxpayer. But the other two treaties were similar in all relevant respects to Treaty I in Consumer Life. After paying the deficiencies assessed by the Commissioner, Penn Security sued for a refund in the Court of Claims. Both the trial judge and the full Court of Claims ruled for the taxpayer.
III
The Government commences its argument by suggesting that these reinsurance agreements were sham transactions without economic substance and therefore should not be recognized for tax purposes. See, e. g., Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 465, 470 (1935); Knetsch v. United States, 364 U. S. 361 (1960). We do not think this is an accurate characterization.
Both taxpayers who were parties to Treaty I agreements entered into them only after arm’s-length negotiation with unrelated companies. The ceding companies gave up a large portion of premiums, but in return they had recourse against the taxpayers for 100% of claims. The ceding companies were not just doing the taxpayers a favor by holding premiums until earned. This delayed payment permitted the ceding companies to invest the dollars, and under the treaties they kept all resulting investment income. Nor were they mere “paymasters,” as the Government contends, for indemnity reinsurance of this type does not relieve the ceding company of its responsibility to policyholders. Had the taxpayers become insolvent, the insurer still would have been obligated to meet claims.
Treaty II also served most of the basic business purposes commonly claimed for reinsurance treaties. See W. Hammond, Insurance Accounting Fire & Casualty 86 (2d ed. 1965); Dickerson 563-564. It reduced the heavy burden on the taxpayer’s surplus caused by the practice of computing casualty reserves on the basis of gross unearned premiums even though the insurer may have paid out substantial sums in commissions and expenses at the commencement of coverage. By reducing this drain on surplus, the taxpayer was able to expand its business, resulting in a broader statistical base that permitted more accurate loss predictions. Through Treaty II each taxpayer associated itself with a reinsurance company more experienced in the field. Moreover, under Treaty II the taxpayers were shielded against a period of catastrophic losses. Even though the reinsurer would eventually recapture any such deep losses, it would be of substantial benefit to the ceding company to spread those payments out over a period of months or years. Both courts below that passed on Treaty II agreements found expressly that the treaties served valid and substantial nontax purposes. Tax considerations well may have had a good deal to do with the specific terms of the treaties, but even a “major motive” to reduce taxes will not vitiate an otherwise substantial transaction. United States v. Cumberland Pub. Serv. Co., 338 U. S. 451, 455 (1950).
IV
Whether or not these were sham transactions, however, the Government would attribute the contested unearned premium reserves to the taxpayers because it finds in § 801 (c) (2) a rule that “insurance reserves follow the insurance risk.” Brief for United States 34. This assertion, which forms the heart of the Government’s case, is based on the following reasoning. Section 801 provides a convenient test for determining whether a company qualifies for favorable tax treatment as a life insurance company, a test determined wholly by the ratio of life reserves to total reserves. Reserves, under accepted accounting and actuarial standards, represent liabilities. Although often carelessly referred to as “reserve funds,” or as being available to meet policyholder claims, reserves are not assets; they are entered on the liability side of the balance sheet. Under standard practice they are mathematically equivalent to the gross unearned premium dollars already paid in, but conceptually the reserve—a liability—is distinct from the cash asset. This much of the argument is indisputably sound.
The Government continues: Since a reserve is a liability, it is simply an advance indicator of the final liability for the payment of claims. The company that finally will be responsible for paying claims—the one that bears the ultimate risk—should therefore be the one considered as having the reserves. In each of these cases, the Government argues, it was the taxpayer that assumed the ultimate risk. The other companies were merely paymasters holding on to the premium dollars until earned in return for a negligible percentage of the gross premiums.
A
We may assume for present purposes that the taxpayers did take on all substantial risks under the treaties. And in the broadest sense reserves are, of course, set up because of future risks. Cf. Helvering v. Le Gierse, 312 U. S. 531, 539 (1941). The question before us, however, is not whether the Government’s position is sustainable as a matter of abstract logic. Rather it is whether Congress intended a “reserves follow the risk” rule to govern determinations under § 801.
There is no suggestion in the plain language of the section that this is the case. See nn. 1 and 4, supra. If anything, the language is a substantial obstacle to accepting the Government’s position. The word “risk” does not occur. Moreover, in § 801 (c) (2) Congress used the phrase “unearned premiums” rather than “unearned premium reserve.” The Government argues that, taken in context, “unearned premiums” must be regarded as referring to reserves—to the liability account for unearned premium reserves and not the asset represented by the premium dollars. We agree that the reference is to reserves, but still the use of the truncated phrase suggests that Congress intended a mechanical application of the concept. In other words, this phrase suggests that in Congress’ view unearned premium reserves always would be found in the same place as the unearned premiums themselves. If so, reserves would follow mechanically the premium dollars, as taxpayers contend, and would not necessarily follow the risk.
B
The rather sparse legislative history furnishes no better support for the Government’s position. Under the early Revenue Acts, all insurance companies were taxed on the same basis as other corporations. Both investment income and premium or underwriting income were included in gross income, although there was a special deduction for additions to reserves. See, e. g., Revenue Act of 1918, § 234 (a) (10), 40 Stat. 1079.
By 1921 Congress became persuaded that this treatment did not accurately reflect the nature of the life insurance enterprise, since life insurance is often a form of savings for policyholders, similar in some respects to a bank deposit. See Hearings on H. R. 8245 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 83 (1921) (testimony of Dr. T. S. Adams, Tax Adviser to Treasury Department). Under this view, premium receipts “were not true income [to the life insurance company] but were analogous to permanent capital investment.” Helvering v. Oregon Mutual Life Ins. Co., 311 U. S. 267, 269 (1940). The 1921 Act therefore provided, for the first time, that life insurance companies would be taxed on investment income alone and not on premium receipts. Revenue Act of 1921, §§ 242-245, 42 Stat. 261. The same rationale did not apply to other forms of insurance, and Congress continued to tax insurance companies other than life on both underwriting and investment income. §§ 246-247.
The 1921 Act was thus built on the assumption that important differences between life and nonlife insurance called for markedly different tax treatment. Strict adherence to this policy rationale would dictate that any company insuring both types of risks be required to segregate its life and non-life business so that appropriate tax rules could be applied to each. Congress considered this possibility but chose instead a more convenient rule of thumb, the 50% reserve ratio test. The Treasury official primarily responsible for the 1921 Act explained:
“Some companies mix with their life business accident and health insurance. It is not practicable for all companies to disassociate those businesses so that we have assumed that if this accident and health business was more than 50 per cent of their business, as measured by their reserves, it could not be treated as a life insurance company. On the other hand, if their accident and health insurance were incidental and represented less than 50 per cent of their business we treated them as a life insurance company.” 1921 Hearings, supra, at 85 (testimony of Dr. T. S. Adams).
This passage constitutes the only significant reference to the test in the 1921 deliberations.
In succeeding years controversy developed over the preferential treatment enjoyed by life insurance companies. There were claims that they were not carrying their fair share of the tax burden. There were charges that stock companies were favored over mutuals, or vice versa. There was a nagging question over just how to compute a proper deduction for additions to reserves. Congress tried a host of different formulas to ameliorate these problems. See H. R. Rep. No. 34, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-7 (1959); S. Rep. No. 291, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 3-11 (1959); Alinco Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 813, 831-837, 373 F. 2d 336, 345-349 (1967). But throughout these years the 50% test was not significantly changed.
In 1959 Congress passed legislation that finally established a permanent tax structure for life insurance companies. Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 112. For the first time since 1921, not only investment income but also a portion of underwriting income was made subject to taxation. But even as Congress was rewriting the substantive provisions for taxing life insurance companies, it did not, despite occasional calls for change, make any relevant alterations in § 801. Moreover, the few references to that provision in the committee reports shed little light on the issue presented here. They contain no explicit or implicit support for a rule that reserves follow the risk.
C
More important than anything that appears in hearings, reports, or debates is a provision added in 1959, § 820, concerning modified coinsurance contracts between life insurance companies. This section, although designed to deal with a problem different from the one presented here, is simply unintelligible if Congress thought that § 801 embodied an unvarying rule that reserves follow the risk.
A conventional coinsurance contract is a particular form of indemnity reinsurance. The reinsurer agrees to reimburse the ceding company for a stated portion of obligations arising out of the covered policies. In return, the reinsurer receives a similar portion of all premiums received by the insurer, less a ceding commission to cover the insurer’s overhead. The reinsurer sets up the appropriate reserve for its proportion of the obligation and, as is customary, the ceding company takes credit against its reserves for the portion of the risks reinsured.
A modified coinsurance contract is a further variation in this esoteric area of insurance. As explained before the Senate Finance Committee, a modified form of coinsurance developed because some major reinsurers were not licensed to do business in New York, and New York did not permit a ceding company to take credit against its reserves for business reinsured with unlicensed companies. Hearings on H. R. 4245 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 608 (1959) (statement of Henry F. Rood). Denial of credit places the ceding company in an undesirable position. It has depleted its assets by paying to the reinsurer the latter’s portion of premiums, but its liability account for reserves remains unchanged. Few companies would accept the resulting drain on surplus, and unlicensed reinsurers wishing to retain New York business began offering a modified form of coinsurance contract. Obligations would be shared as before, but the ceding company, which must in any event maintain 100% of the reserves, would be permitted to retain and invest the assets backing the reserves. As consideration for this right of retention, modified coinsurance contracts require the ceding company to pay to the reinsurer, under a complicated formula, the investment income on the reinsurer’s portion of the investments backing the reserve. See id., at 609; E. Wightman, Life Insurance Statements and Accounts 150-151 (1952); D. McGill, Life Insurance 435-440 (rev. ed. 1967).
The 1959 legislation, as it passed the House, contained no special treatment for these modified contracts. The income involved therefore would have been taxed twice, once as investment income to the ceding company and then as underwriting income to the reinsurer. The Senate thought this double taxation inequitable, and therefore added § 820, to which the House agreed. That section provides that for tax purposes modified coinsurance contracts shall be treated the same as conventional coinsurance contracts, if the contracting parties consent to such treatment. For consenting companies Congress not only provided that gross investment income shall be treated as if it were received directly (in appropriate share) by the reinsurer, § 820 (c) (1), but also expressly declared that the reserves “shall be treated as a part of the reserves of the reinsurer and not of the reinsured.” § 820 (c)(3).
Under a modified coinsurance contract the reinsurer bears the risk on its share of the obligations. Thus, if § 801 mandates that reserves follow the risk, the reinsurer could not escape being considered as holding its share of the reserve. Section 820 (c)(3), providing for attribution of the reserves to the reinsurer, would be an elaborate redundancy. And although § 820 (a) (2) specifies that attribution under § 820 is optional, requiring the consent of the parties, the parties would in fact have no option at all. Plainly § 820 is incompatible with a view that § 801 embodies a rule that reserves follow the risk.
The Commissioner himself, interpreting § 801 in light of § 820, has implicitly acknowledged that reserves do not follow the risk. Rev. Rul. 70-508, 1970-2 Cum. Bull. 136. Advice was requested by the parties to a modified coinsurance contract who had not elected the special treatment available under § 820. The ceding company had carried the life insurance reserves on its books, although the reinsurer bore the ultimate risk. The ceding company wanted to know whether it could count those reserves in its ratio for purposes of § 801. Relying on § 801 (b) and the Treasury Regulations implementing it, the Commissioner ruled that it could. A “reserves follow the risk” rule would have dictated precisely the opposite result.
D
Section 820 affords an unmistakable indication that § 801 does not impose the “reserves follow the risk” rule. Instead, Congress intended to rely on customary accounting and actuarial practices, leaving, as § 820 makes evident, broad discretion to the parties to a reinsurance agreement to negotiate their own terms. This does not open the door to widespread abuse. “Congress was aware of the extensive, continuing supervision of the insurance industry by the states. It is obvious that subjecting the reserves to the scrutiny of the state regulatory agencies is an additional safeguard against overreaching by the companies.” Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 488 F. 2d 1101, 1108 (CA3 1973), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 882 (1974). See Lamana-Panno-Fallo Industrial Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 127 F. 2d 56, 58-59 (CA5 1942); Alinco Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl., at 831, 373 F. 2d, at 345. See also Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408, 429-433 (1946); 15 U. S. C. §1011 (McCarran-Ferguson Act). In presenting the 1959 legislation to the full House, members of the committee that drafted the bill were careful to underscore the continuing primacy of state regulation, with specific reference to the question of reserves.
In two of the cases before us the courts below expressly found that the reserves were held in accordance with accepted actuarial and accounting standards, while the third court did not address the issue. In all three, it was found that no state insurance department required any change in the way the taxpayers computed and reported their reserves. Since the taxpayers neither held the unearned premium dollars nor set up the corresponding unearned premium reserves, and since that treatment was in accord with customary practice as policed by the state regulatory authorities, we hold that § 801 (c) (2) does not permit attribution to the taxpayers of the reserves held by the other parties to the reinsurance treaties.
V
The Government argues that even if attribution of reserves is not required under § 801 (c) (2), attribution is required under § 801 (c) (3), counting in total reserves “all other insurance reserves required by law.” See n. 4, supra. Under state statutory law, the Government suggests, these taxpayers were required to set up and maintain the full unearned premium reserves.
Our attention is drawn to no statute in any of the affected States that expressly requires this result. Instead the Government returns to its main theme and asserts, in essence, that certain general state statutory provisions embody the doctrine that reserves follow the risk. We would find it difficult to infer such a doctrine from the statutory provisions relied on by the Government even if there were no other indications to the contrary. But other indications are compelling. The insurance departments of the affected States consistently accepted annual reports showing reserves held as the taxpayers claim they should be. It is well established that the consistent construction of a statute “by the agency charged with its enforcement is entitled to great deference by the courts.” NLRB v. Boeing Co., 412 U. S. 67, 75 (1973). See Traficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205, 210 (1972); Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1, 16-18 (1965); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 139-140 (1944). This is no less the rule when federal courts are interpreting state law administered by state regulatory officials, at least where, as here, there is no reason to think that the state courts would construe the statute differently. We find no basis for holding that taxpayers were required by law, within the meaning of § 801 (c)(3), to maintain the disputed unearned premium reserves.
VI
For the reasons stated, we hold for the taxpayers. The judgments in Nos. 75-1221 and 75-1285 are affirmed. The judgment in No. 75-1260 is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 801 (a) provides:
“ (a) Life insurance company defined.
“For purposes of this subtitle, the term “life insurance company” means an insurance company which is engaged in the business of issuing life insurance and annuity contracts (either separately or combined with health and accident insurance), or noncancellable contracts of health and accident insurance, if—
“(1) its life insurance reserves (as defined in subsection (b)), plus
“(2) unearned premiums, and unpaid losses (whether or not ascertained), on noncancellable life, health, or accident policies not included in life insurance reserves,
“comprise more than 50 percent of its total reserves (as defined in subsection (c)).”
As may be seen, the statement in the text is somewhat oversimplified. Reserves for noncancellable life, health, or accident policies are added to life insurance reserves for purposes of computing the ratio. See generally Alinco Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 813, 831-847, 373 F. 2d 336, 345-355 (1967). Since none of these cases, as they reach us, involves any issue concerning noncancellable policies, we may ignore this factor.
Statutory citations, unless otherwise indicated, are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
The major benefit is that only 50% of underwriting income is taxed in the year of receipt, the balance being taxed only when made available to stockholders. The scheme for taxing life insurance companies is described in United States v. Atlas Life Ins. Co., 381 U. S. 233 (1965), and Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 408 F. 2d 842, 844-846 (CA4), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 828 (1969).
Stock companies that fail to qualify as life insurance companies are taxed under the less favorable provisions of § 831. Most mutual insurance companies other than life are taxed under § 821, a section not implicated here since taxpayers are all stock companies.
In two of the cases, the Court of Claims held for the taxpayer. Con sumer Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 638, 524 F. 2d 1167 (1975); Penn Security Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 594, 524 F. 2d 1155 (1975). In the third case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the Government. First Railroad & Banking Co. of Georgia v. United States, 514 F. 2d 675 (1975). It relied on an earlier holding to the same effect in Economy Finance Corp. v. United States, 501 F. 2d 466 (CA7 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 947, rehearing denied, 421 U. S. 922 (1975), motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing pending, No. 74-701.
Section 801 (c) provides in relevant part:
“(c) Total reserves defined.
“For purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘total reserves’ means—
“(1) life insurance reserves,
“(2) unearned premiums, and unpaid losses (whether or not ascertained), not included in life insurance reserves, and
“(3) all other insurance reserves required by law.”
“Life insurance reserves” is defined in § 801 (b).
See Treas. Reg. §1.801-3 (e) (1960) (defining unearned premiums), explained in Rev. Rul. 69-270, 1969-1 Cum. Bull. 185; Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 64 F. 2d 763 (CA10), cert. denied, 290 U. S. 679 (1933); nn. 16 and 20, infra. See generally Massachusetts Protective Assn. v. United States, 114 F. 2d 304 (CA1 1940); Commissioner v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 114 F. 2d 314 (CA1 1940).
This figure is derived from a straight-line or pro rata method of computing earned premiums
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners each pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. They reserved their right to appeal the District Court’s denial of their motion to suppress the cocaine found in their car. The District Court had found reasonable suspicion to stop and question petitioners as they entered their car, and probable cause to remove one of the interior panels where a package containing two kilograms of cocaine was found. The Court of Appeals opined that the findings of reasonable suspicion to stop, and probable cause to search, should be reviewed “deferentially,” and “for clear error.” We hold that the ultimate questions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo.
The facts are not disputed. In the early morning of a December day in 1992, Detective Michael Pautz, a 20-year veteran of the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department with 2 years specializing in drug enforcement, was conducting drug-interdiction surveillance in downtown Milwaukee. Pautz noticed a 1981 two-door Oldsmobile with California license plates in a motel parking lot. The car attracted Pautz’s attention for two reasons: because older model, two-door General Motors cars are a favorite with drug couriers because it is easy to hide things in them; and because California is a “source State” for drugs. Detective Pautz radioed his dispatcher to inquire about the car’s registration. The dispatcher informed Pautz that the owner was either Miguel Ledesma Ornelas or Miguel Ornelas Ledesma from San Jose, California; Pautz was unsure which name the dispatcher gave. Detective Pautz checked the motel registry and learned that an Ismael Ornelas accompanied by a second man had registered at 4 a.m., without reservations.
Pautz called for his partner, Donald Hurrle, a detective with approximately 25 years of law enforcement experience, assigned for the past 6 years to the drug enforcement unit. When Hurrle arrived at the scene, the officers contacted the local office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and asked DEA personnel to run the names Miguel Ledesma Ornelas and Ismael Ornelas through the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System (NADDIS), a federal database of known and suspected drug traffickers. Both names appeared in NADDIS. The NADDIS report identified Miguel Ledesma Ornelas as a heroin dealer from El Centro, California, and Ismael Ornelas, Jr., as a cocaine dealer from Tucson, Arizona. The officers then summoned Deputy Luedke and the department’s drug-sniffing dog, Merlin. Upon their arrival, Detective Pautz left for another assignment. Detective Hurrle informed Luedke of what they knew and together they waited.
Sometime later, petitioners emerged from the motel and got into the Oldsmobile. Detective Hurrle approached the car, identified himself as a police officer, and inquired whether they had any illegal drugs or contraband. Petitioners answered “No.” Hurrle then asked for identification and was given two California driver’s licenses bearing the names Saul Ornelas and Ismael Ornelas. Hurrle asked them if he could search the car and petitioners consented. The men appeared calm, but Ismael was shaking somewhat. Deputy Luedke, who over the past nine years had searched approximately 2,000 cars for narcotics, searched the Oldsmobile’s interior. He noticed that a panel above the right rear passenger armrest felt somewhat loose and suspected that the panel might have been removed and contraband hidden inside. Luedke would testify later that a screw in the door-jam adjacent to the loose panel was rusty, which to him meant that the screw had been removed at some time. Luedke dismantled the panel and discovered two kilograms of cocaine. Petitioners were arrested.
Petitioners filed pretrial motions to suppress, alleging that the police officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights when the officers detained them in the parking lot and when Deputy Luedke searched inside the panel without a warrant. The Government conceded in the court below that when the officers approached petitioners in the parking lot, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave, so the encounter was an investigatory stop. See 16 F. 3d 714, 716 (CA7 1994). An investigatory stop is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if supported by reasonable suspicion, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), and a warrantless search of a car is valid if based on probable cause, California v. Acevedo, 500 U. S. 565, 569-570 (1991).
After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the circumstances gave the officers reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause. The Magistrate found, as a finding of fact, that there was no rust on the screw and hence concluded that Deputy Luedke had an insufficient basis to conclude that drugs would be found within the panel. The Magistrate nonetheless recommended that the District Court deny the suppression motions because he thought, given the presence of the drug-sniffing dog, that the officers would have found the cocaine by lawful means eventually and therefore the drugs were admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431 (1984).
The District Court adopted the Magistrate’s recommendation with respect to reasonable suspicion, but not its reasoning as to probable cause. The District Court thought that the model, age, and source-State origin of the car, and the fact that two men traveling together checked into a motel at 4 o’clock in the morning without reservations, formed a drug-courier profile and that this profile together with the NADDIS reports gave rise to reasonable suspicion of drug-trafficking activity; in the court’s view, reasonable suspicion became probable cause when Deputy Luedke found the loose panel. Accordingly, the court ruled that the cocaine need not be excluded.
The Court of Appeals reviewed deferentially the District Court’s determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause; it would reverse only upon a finding of “clear error.” 16 F. 3d, at 719. The court found no clear error in the reasonable-suspicion analysis and affirmed that determination. Ibid. With respect to the probable-cause finding, however, the court remanded the case for a determination on whether Luedke was credible when testifying about the loose panel. Id., at 721-722.
On remand, the Magistrate Judge expressly found the testimony credible. The District Court accepted the finding, and once again ruled that probable cause supported the search. The Seventh Circuit held that determination not clearly erroneous. Judgt. order reported at 52 F. 3d 328 (1995).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Circuits over the applicable standard of appellate review. 516 U. S. 963 (1996).
Articulating precisely what “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” mean is not possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with “ The factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.’” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 231 (1983) (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175 (1949)); see United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1989). As such, the standards are “not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Gates, supra, at 232. We have described reasonable suspicion simply as “a particularized and objective basis” for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 417-418 (1981), and probable cause to search as existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found, see Brinegar, supra, at 175-176; Gates, supra, at 238. We have cautioned that these two legal principles are not “finely-tuned standards,” comparable to the standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Gates, supra, at 235. They are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed. Gates, supra, at 232; Brinegar, supra, at 175 (“The standard of proof [for probable cause] is . . . correlative to what must be proved”); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 33 (1963) (“This Cour[t] [has a] long-established recognition that standards of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment are not susceptible of Procrustean application”; “[e]ach case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 29 (the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment “will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases”).
The principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause. The first part of the analysis involves only a determination of historical facts, but the second is a mixed question of law and fact: “[T]he historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant] statutory [or constitutional] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 289, n. 19 (1982).
We think independent appellate review of these ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause is consistent with the position we have taken in past cases. We have never, when reviewing a probable-cause or reasonable-suspicion determination ourselves, expressly deferred to the trial court’s determination. See, e. g., Brinegar, supra (rejecting District Court’s conclusion that the police lacked probable cause); Alabama v. White, 496 U. S. 325 (1990) (conducting independent review and finding reasonable suspicion). A policy of sweeping deference would permit, “[i]n the absence of any significant difference in the facts,” “the Fourth Amendment’s incidence [to] tur[n] on whether different trial judges draw general conclusions that the facts are sufficient or insufficient to constitute probable cause.” Brinegar, supra, at 171. Such varied results would be inconsistent with the idea of a unitary system of law. This, if a matter-of-course, would be unacceptable.
In addition, the legal rules for probable cause and reasonable suspicion acquire content only through application. Independent review is therefore necessary if appellate courts are to maintain control of, and to clarify, the legal principles. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 114 (1985) (where the “relevant legal principle can be given meaning only through its application to the particular circumstances of a case, the Court has been reluctant to give the trier of fact’s conclusions presumptive force and, in so doing, strip a federal appellate court of its primary function as an expositor of law”).
Finally, de novo review tends to unify precedent and will come closer to providing law enforcement officers with a defined “ ‘set of rules which, in most instances, makes it possible to reach a correct determination beforehand as to whether an invasion of privacy is justified in the interest of law enforcement.’” New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 458 (1981); see also Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99, 115 (1995) (“[T]he law declaration aspect of independent review potentially may guide police, unify precedent, and stabilize the law,” and those effects “serve legitimate law enforcement interests”).
It is true that because the mosaic which is analyzed for a reasonable-suspicion or probable-cause inquiry is multifaceted, “one determination will seldom be a useful ‘precedent’ for another,” Gates, supra, at 238, n. 11. But there are exceptions. For instance, the circumstances in Brinegar, supra, and Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), were so alike that we concluded that reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision in Brinegar was necessary to be faithful to Carroll. Brinegar, supra, at 178 (“Nor . . . can we find in the present facts any substantial basis for distinguishing this case from the Carroll case”). We likewise recognized the similarity of facts in United States v. Sokolow, supra, and Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491 (1983) (in both cases, the defendant traveled under an assumed name; paid for an airline ticket in cash with a number of small bills; traveled from Miami, a source city for illicit drugs; and appeared nervous in the airport). The same was true both in United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982), and California v. Acevedo, 500 U. S. 565 (1991), see id., at 572 (“The facts in this case closely resemble the facts in Ross”); and in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (1980), and Reid v. Georgia, 448 U. S. 438 (1980), see id., at 443 (Powell, J., concurring) (“facts [in Men-denhall] [are] remarkably similar to those in the present case”). And even where one case may not squarely control another one, the two decisions when viewed together may usefully add to the body of law on the subject.
The Court of Appeals, in adopting its deferential standard of review here, reasoned that de novo review for warrantless searches would be inconsistent with the “ ‘great deference’ ” paid when reviewing a decision to issue a warrant, see Illi nois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213 (1983). See United States v. Spears, 965 F. 2d 262, 269-271 (CA7 1992). We cannot agree. The Fourth Amendment demonstrates a “strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant,” Gates, supra, at 236, and the police are more likely to use the warrant process if the scrutiny applied to a magistrate’s probable-cause determination to issue a warrant is less than that for warrantless searches. Were we to eliminate this distinction, we would eliminate the incentive.
We therefore hold that as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal. Having said this, we hasten to point out that a reviewing court should take care both to review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.
A trial judge views the facts of a particular case in light of the distinctive features and events of the community; likewise, a police officer views the facts through the lens of his police experience and expertise. The background facts provide a context for the historical facts, and when seen together yield inferences that deserve deference. For example, what may not amount to reasonable suspicion at a motel located alongside a transcontinental highway at the height of the summer tourist season may rise to that level in December in Milwaukee. That city is unlikely to have been an overnight stop selected at the last minute by a traveler coming from California to points east. The 85-mile width of Lake Michigan blocks any further eastward progress. And while the city’s salubrious summer climate and seasonal attractions bring many tourists at that time of year, the same is not true in December. Milwaukee’s average daily high temperature in that month is 31 degrees and its average daily low is 17 degrees; the percentage of possible sunshine is only 38 percent. It is a reasonable inference that a Californian stopping in Milwaukee in December is either there to transact business or to visit family or friends. The background facts, though rarely the subject of explicit findings, inform the judge’s assessment of the historical facts.
In a similar vein, our cases have recognized that a police officer may draw inferences based on his own experience in deciding whether probable cause exists. See, e. g., United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891, 897 (1975). To a layman the sort of loose panel below the back seat armrest in the automobile involved in this case may suggest only wear and tear, but to Officer Luedke, who had searched roughly 2,000 cars for narcotics, it suggested that drugs may be secreted inside the panel. An appeals court should give due weight to a trial court’s finding that the officer was credible and the inference was reasonable.
We vacate the judgments and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to review de novo the District Court’s determinations that the officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause in this case.
It is so ordered.
Petitioners also alleged that they had not given their consent to search the interior of the car. The Magistrate Judge rejected this claim, finding that the record “clearly established] consent to search the Oldsmobile” and that “neither [petitioner] placed any restrictions on the areas the officers could search.” App. 21. The Magistrate ruled that this consent did not give the officers authority to search inside the panel, however, because under Seventh Circuit precedent the police may not dismantle the car body during an otherwise valid search unless the police have probable cause to believe the car’s panels contain narcotics. See United States v. Garcia, 897 F. 2d 1413, 1419-1420 (1990). We assume correct the Circuit’s limitation on the scope of consent only for purposes of this decision.
The District Court emphasized twice that it did not reject the Magistrate’s recommendation with respect to the inevitable discovery doctrine. App. 30-31, and n. 2; id., at 43-44. But on appeal the Government did not defend the seizure on this alternative ground and the Seventh Circuit considered the argument waived. Id., at 71-72.
While the Seventh Circuit uses the term “clear error” to denote the deferential standard applied when reviewing determinations of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, we think the preferable term is “abuse of discretion.” See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 558 (1988). “Clear error” is a term of art derived from Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and applies when reviewing questions of fact.
Compare, e. g., United States v. Puerta, 982 F. 2d 1297, 1300 (CA9 1992) (de novo review); United States v. Ramos, 933 F. 2d 968, 972 (CA11 1991) (same), cert. denied, 503 U. S. 908 (1992); United States v. Patrick, 899 F. 2d 169, 171 (CA2 1990) (same), with United States v. Spears, 965 F. 2d 262, 268-271 (CA7 1992) (clear error).
The United States, in accord with petitioners, contends that a de novo standard of review should apply to determinations of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. We therefore invited Peter D. Isakoff to brief and argue this ease as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below. 516 U. S. 1008 (1996). Mr. Isakoff accepted the appointment and has well fulfilled his assigned responsibility.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are called upon in these appeals to resolve several questions arising out of a conflict between the asserted taxing power of the State of Montana and the immunity claimed by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (Tribe) and its members living on the tribal reservation. Convened as a three-judge court, the District Court for the District of Montana considered separate attacks on the State’s cigarette sales and personal property taxes as applied to reservation Indians. After finding that the suits were not barred by the prohibition of 28 U. S. C. § 1341, the District Court entered final judgments which, with one exception, sustained the Tribe's challenges, and from which the State has appealed (No. 74-1656). The Tribe has cross-appealed from that part of the judgments upholding tax jurisdiction over on-reservation sales of cigarettes by members of the Tribe to non-Indians. We noted probable jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253 and consolidated the appeal and cross-appeal. 423 U. S. 819 (1975). Concluding that the District Court had the power to grant injunctive relief in favor of the Tribe, and that it was correct on the merits, we affirm in both cases.
I
In 1855 an expanse of land stretching across the Bitter Root River Valley and within the then Territory of Washington was reserved for “the use and occupation” of the “confederated tribes of the Flathead, Kootenay, and Upper Pend d’Oreilles Indians,” by the Treaty of Hell Gate, which in 1859 was ratified by the Senate and proclaimed by President Buchanan. 12 Stat. 975. Slightly over half of its 1.25 million acres is now owned in fee, by both Indians and non-Indians; most of the remaining half is held in trust by the United States for the Tribe. Approximately 50% of the Tribe’s current membership of 5,749 resides on the reservation and in turn composes 19% of the total reservation population. Embracing portions of four Montana counties — Lake, Sanders, Missoula, and Flathead — the present reservation was generally described by the District Court:
“The Flathead Reservation is a well-developed agricultural area with farms, ranches and communities scattered throughout the inhabited portions of the Reservation. While some towns have predominantly Indian sectors, generally Indians and non-Indians live together in integrated communities. Banks, businesses and professions on the Reservation provide services to Indians and non-Indians alike.
“As Montana citizens, members of the Tribe are eligible to vote and do vote in city, county and state elections. Some hold elective and appointed state and local offices. All services provided by the state and local governments are equally available to Indians and non-Indians. The only schools on the Reservation are those operated by school districts of the State of Montana. The State and local governments have built and maintain a system of state highways, county roads and streets on the Reservation which are used by Indians and non-Indians without restriction.” 392 F. Supp. 1297, 1313 (1975).
Joseph Wheeler, a member of the Tribe, leased from it two tracts of trust land within the reservation whereon he operated retail “smoke shops.” Deputy sheriffs arrested Wheeler and an Indian employee for failure to possess a cigarette retailer’s license and for selling non-tax-stamped cigarettes, both misdemeanors under Montana law. These individuals, joined by the Tribe and the tribal chairmen, then sued in the District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State’s cigarette tax and vendor-licensing statutes as applied to tribal members who sold cigarettes within the reservation. That court by a divided vote held that our decision in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164 (1973), barred Montana’s efforts to impose its cigarette tax statutes on the Tribe’s retail cigarette sales with one exception: it may require a precollection of the tax imposed by law upon the non-Indian purchaser of the cigarettes.
In a later action, the Tribe and four enrolled members, all residents of the reservation, challenged Montana’s statutory scheme for assessment and collection of personal property taxes, in particular the imposition of such taxes on motor vehicles owned by tribal members residing on the reservation. The District Court, again by a divided vote, found its earlier decision interpreting Mc-Clanahan controlling in the Tribe’s favor. While recognizing, as did the Tribe, that a fee required for registration and issuance of state license plates for a motor vehicle could be exacted from Indians residing on the reservation, the court held that the additional personal property tax which was likewise made a condition precedent for lawful registration of the vehicle could not be imposed on reservation Indians.
II
The important threshold question in both cases is whether the District Court was prohibited from entertaining jurisdiction over these suits to restrain Montana’s taxing authority, inasmuch as Congress has provided that
“[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U. S. C. § 1341.
By enacting this jurisdictional rule, Congress gave explicit sanction to the pre-existing federal equity practice: because interference with a State’s internal economy is inseparable from a federal action to restrain state taxation,
“ 'the mere illegality or unconstitutionality of a state . . . tax is not in itself a ground for equitable relief in the courts of the United States. If the remedy at law is plain, adequate, and complete, the aggrieved party is left to that remedy in the state courts, from which the cause may be brought to this Court for review if any federal question be involved.’ Matthews v. Rodgers, [284 U. S. 521, 525-526 (1932)].” Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 298 (1943).
This broad jurisdictional barrier, however, has been held by this Court to be inapplicable to suits brought by the United States “to protect itself and its instrumen-talities from unconstitutional state exactions.” Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355, 358 (1966).
The District Court, citing Department of Employment and cases from other' courts, concluded:
“While the exceptions to § 1341 have been expressed most often in terms of the Federal instrumentality doctrine, we do not view the exceptions as limited to cases where this doctrine is clearly applicable. It seems clear [that § 1341] does not bar federal court jurisdiction in cases where immunity from state taxation is asserted on the basis of federal law with respect to persons or entities in which the United States has a real and significant interest.” 392 F. Supp., at 1303 (emphasis added).
In its brief the State argues that any reliance on the federal-instrumentality doctrine, either as such or as expanded by the District Court, for purposes of finding jurisdiction in these cases is contrary to the substantive decisions of this Court which “cut to the bone the proposition that restricted Indian lands and the proceeds from them were — as a matter of constitutional law— automatically exempt from state taxation.” Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 150 (1973). See McClanahan, 411 U. S., at 170 n. 5; Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342 (1949); Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. United States, 319 U. S. 598 (1943).
We have indeed recently declined “the invitation to resurrect the expansive version of the intergovernmental-immunity doctrine that has been so consistently rejected” in this kind of case. Mescalero, supra, at 155. While the concept of a federal instrumentality may well have greater usefulness in determining the applicability of § 1341, Department of Employment v. United States, supra, than in providing the touchstone for deciding whether or not Indian tribes may be taxed, Mescalero, supra, we do not believe that the District Court’s expanded version of this doctrine, quoted above, can by itself avoid the bar of § 1341.
The District Court, however, also relied on a more recent jurisdictional statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1362, which provides:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, brought by any Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Sections 1341 and 1362 do not cross-reference each other. Since presumably all actións properly within the jurisdiction of the United States district courts are authorized by one or another of the statutes conferring jurisdiction upon those courts, the mere fact that a jurisdictional statute such as § 1362 speaks in general terms of “all” enumerated civil actions does not itself signify that Indian tribes are exempted from the provisions of § 1341.
Looking to the legislative history of § 1362 for whatever light it may shed on the question, we find an indication of a congressional purpose to open the federal courts to the kind of claims that could have been brought by the United States as trustee, but for whatever reason were not so brought. Section 1362 is characterized by the reporting House Judiciary Committee as providing “the means whereby the tribes are assured of the same judicial determination whether the action is brought in their behalf by the Government or by their own attorneys.” While this is hardly an unequivocal statement of intent to allow such litigation to proceed irrespective of other explicit jurisdictional limitations, such as § 1341, it would appear that Congress contemplated that a tribe’s access to federal court to litigate a matter arising “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties” would be at least in some respects as broad as that of the United States suing as the tribe’s trustee.
That the United States could have brought these actions, by itself or as coplaintiff, seems reasonably clear. In Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413 (1912), the United States sued to cancel numerous conveyances by Cherokee allottees-grantors, who were not parties, as vio-lative of federal restrictions upon the Indians’ power of alienation. In the course of concluding that the United States had the requisite interest in enforcing these restrictions for the Indians’ benefit, the Court discussed United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 (1903), which upheld the right of the Government to seek injunctive relief against county taxation directed at improvements on and tools used to cultivate land allotted to and occupied by the Sioux Indians. Of Rickert, the Court in Heckman stated:
“But the decision [that the United States had the requisite interest] rested upon a broader foundation than the mere holding of a legal title to land in trust, and embraced the recognition of the interest of the United States in securing immunity to the Indians from taxation conflicting with the measures it had adopted for their protection.” 224 U. S., at 441.
Here the United States could have made the same attack on the State’s assertion of taxing power as was in fact made by the Tribe. Heckman v. United States, supra. We think that the legislative history of § 1362, though by no means dispositive, suggests that in certain respects tribes suing under this section were to be accorded treatment similar to that of the United States had it sued on their behalf. Since the United States is not barred by § 1341 from seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a state tax law, Department of Employment v. United States, supra, we hold that the Tribe is not barred from doing so here.
Ill
In McClanahan this Court considered the question whether the State had the power to tax a reservation Indian, a Navajo, for income earned exclusively on the reservation. We there looked to the language of the Navajo treaty and the applicable federal statutes “which define the limits of state power.” 411 U. S., at 172. Reading them against the “backdrop” of the Indian sovereignty doctrine, the Court concluded “that Arizona ha[d] exceeded its lawful authority” by imposing the tax at issue. Id., at 173. In Mescolero, the companion case, the import of McClanahan was summarized:
“[I]n the special area of state taxation, absent cession of jurisdiction or other federal statutes permitting it, there has been no satisfactory authority for taxing Indian reservation lands or Indian income from activities carried on within the boundaries of the reservation, and McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, supra, lays to rest any doubt in this respect by holding that such taxation is not permissible absent congressional consent.” 411 U. S., at 148.
Aligning itself with the dissenting opinion below, the State first seeks to avoid McClanahan on two grounds: (1) the manner in which the Flathead Reservation has developed to its present state distinguishes it from the Navajo Reservation; (2) there does exist a federal statutory basis permitting Montana to tax.
The State pointed below to a variety of factors: reservation Indians benefited from expenditures of state revenues for education, welfare, and other services, such as a sewer system; the Indians had the right to vote and to hold local and state office; and the Indian and non-Indian residents within the reservation were substantially integrated as a business and social community. The District Court also found, however, that the Federal Government “likewise made substantial payments for various purposes,” and that the Tribe’s own income contributed significantly to its economic well-being. 392 F. Supp., at 1314. Noting this Court’s rejection of a substantially identical argument in McClanahan, see 411 U. S., at 173, and n. 12, and the fact that the Tribe, like the Navajos, had not abandoned its tribal organization, the District Court could not accept the State’s proposition that the tribal members “are now so completely integrated with the non-Indians . . . that there is no longer any reason to accord them different treatment than other citizens.” 392 F. Supp., at 1315. In view of the District Court’s findings, we agree that there is no basis for distinguishing McClanahan on this ground.
As to the second ground, we note that the State does not challenge the District Court's overall conclusion that the treaty and statutes upon which the Tribe relies in asserting the lack of state taxing authority “are essentially the same as those involved in McClanahan.” We agree, and it would serve no purpose to retrace our analysis in this respect in McClanahan, 411 U. S., at 173-179. The State instead argues that the District Court failed to properly consider the effect of the General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388, and a later enactment in 1904, 33 Stat. 302, applying that Act to the Flathead Reservation. Section 6 of the General Allotment Act, 24 Stat. 390, as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 349, provides in part:
“At the expiration of the trust period and when the lands have been conveyed to the Indians by patent in fee . . . then each and every allottee shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside ...
The State relies on Goudy v. Meath, 203 U. S. 146 (1906), where the Court, applying the above section, rejected the claim of an Indian patentee thereunder that state taxing jurisdiction was not among the “laws” to which he and his land had been made subject. Building on Goudy and the fact that the General Allotment Act has never been explicitly “repealed,” the State claims that Congress has never intended to withdraw Montana’s taxing jurisdiction, and that such power continues to the present.
We find the argument untenable for several reasons. By its terms § 6 does not reach Indians residing or producing income from lands held in trust for the Tribe, which make up about one-half of the land area of the reservation. If the General Allotment Act itself establishes Montana’s jurisdiction as to those Indians living on “fee patented” lands, then for all jurisdictional purposes — civil and criminal — the Flathead Reservation has been substantially diminished in size. A similar claim was made by the State in Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S. 351 (1962), to which we responded:
“ [The] argument rests upon the fact that where the existence or nonexistence of an Indian reservation, and therefore the existence or nonexistence of federal jurisdiction, depends upon the ownership of particular parcels of land, law enforcement officers operating in the area will find it necessary to search tract books in order to determine whether criminal jurisdiction over each particular offense, even though committed within the reservation, is in the State or Federal Government.” Id., at 358.
We concluded that “[s]ueh an impractical pattern of checkerboard jurisdiction,” ibid., was contrary to the intent embodied in the existing federal statutory law of Indian jurisdiction. See also United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 554-555 (1975).
The State’s argument also overlooks what this Court has recently said of the present effect of the General Allotment Act and related legislation of that era:
“Its policy was to continue the reservation system and the trust status of Indian lands, but to allot tracts to individual Indians for agriculture and grazing. When all the lands had been allotted and the trust expired, the reservation could be abolished. Unallotted lands were made available to non-Indians with the purpose, in part, of promoting interaction between the races and of encouraging Indians to adopt white ways. See § 6 of the General Allotment Act, 24 Stat. 390 . . . .” Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S. 481, 496 (1973).
“The policy of allotment and sale of surplus reservation land was repudiated in 1934 by the Indian Reorganization Act, 48 Stat. 984, now amended and codified as 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seg.” Id., at 496 n. 18.
The State has referred us to no decisional authority— and we know of none — giving the meaning for which it contends to § 6 of the General Allotment Act in the face of the many and complex intervening jurisdictional statutes directed at the reach of state law within reservation lands — statutes discussed, for example, in McClanahan, 411 U. S., at 173-179. See also Kennerly v. District Court of Montana, 400 U. S. 423 (1971). Congress by its more modem legislation has evinced a clear intent to eschew any such “checkerboard” approach within an existing Indian reservation, and our cases have in turn followed Congress’ lead in this area.
A second, discrete claim advanced by the State is that the tax immunity extended by the District Court in applying federal law constitutes an invidious discrimination against non-Indians on the basis of race, contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It is said that the Federal Government has forced this racially based exemption onto Montana so as to create a state statutory classification violative of the latter’s duty under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We need not dwell at length on this constitutional argument, for assuming that the State has standing to raise it on behalf of its non-Indian citizens and taxpayers, we think it is foreclosed by our recent decision in Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535 (1974). In reviewing the variety of statutes and decisions according special treatment to Indian tribes and reservations, we stated, id., at 552-555:
“Literally every piece of legislation dealing with Indian tribes and reservations . . . single [s] out for special treatment a constituency of tribal Indians living on or near reservations. If these laws, derived from historical relationships and explicitly designed to help only Indians, were deemed invidious racial discrimination, an entire Title of the United States Code (25 U. S. C.) would be effectively erased and the solemn commitment of the Government toward the Indians would be jeopardized.
“On numerous occasions this Court specifically has upheld legislation that singles out Indians for particular and special treatment.”
The test to be applied to these kinds of statutory preferences, which we said were neither “invidious” nor “racial” in character, governs here:
“As long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians, such legislative judgments will not be disturbed.” Id., at 555.
For these reasons, the personal property tax on personal property located within the reservation; the vendor license fee sought to be applied to a reservation Indian conducting a cigarette business for the Tribe on reservation land; and the cigarette sales tax, as applied to on-reservation sales by Indians to Indians, conflict with the congressional statutes which provide the basis for decision with respect to such impositions. McClanahan, supra; Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145 (1973).
IY
The Tribe would carry these cases significantly further than we have done, however, and urges that the State cannot impose its cigarette tax on sales by Indians to non-Indians because “[i]n simple terms, [the Indian retailer] has been taxed, and . . . has suffered a measurable out-of-pocket loss.” But this claim ignores the District Court’s finding that “it is the non-Indian consumer or user who saves the tax and reaps the benefit of the tax exemption.” 392 F. Supp., at 1308. That finding necessarily follows from the Montana statute, which provides that the cigarette tax “shall be conclusively presumed to be [a] direct [tax] on the retail consumer precollected for the purpose of convenience and facility only.” Since nonpayment of the tax is a misdemeanor as to the retail purchaser, the competitive advantage which the Indian seller doing business on tribal land enjoys over all other cigarette retailers, within and without the reservation, is dependent on the extent to which the non-Indian purchaser is willing to flout his legal obligation to pay the tax. Without the simple expedient of having the retailer collect the sales tax from non-Indian purchasers, it is clear that wholesale violations of the law by the latter class will go virtually unchecked.
The Tribe asserts that to make the Indian retailer an “involuntary agent” for collection of taxes owed by non-Indians is a “gross interference with [its] freedom from state regulation,” and cites Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685 (1965), as controlling. However, that case involved a gross income tax imposed on the on-reservation sales by the trader to reservation Indians. Unlike the sales tax here, the tax was imposed directly on the seller, and, in contrast to the Tribe’s claim, there was in Warren no claim that the State could not tax that portion of the receipts attributable to on-reservation sales to non-Indians. Id., at 686 n. 1. Our conclusion in Warren that assessment and collection of that tax “would to a substantial extent frustrate the evident congressional purpose of ensuring that no burden shall be imposed upon Indian traders for trading with Indians on reservations,” id., at 691, does not apply to the instant case.
The State’s requirement that the Indian tribal seller collect a tax validly imposed on non-Indians is a minimal burden designed to avoid the likelihood that in its absence non-Indians purchasing from the tribal seller will avoid payment of a concededly lawful tax. Since this burden is not, strictly speaking, a tax at all, it is not governed by the language of Mescalero, quoted supra, at 475-476, dealing with the “special area of state taxation.” We see nothing in this burden which frustrates tribal self-government, see Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 219-220 (1959), or runs afoul of any congressional enactment dealing with the affairs of reservation Indians, United States v. McGowan, 302 U. S. 535, 539 (1938): “Enactments of the Federal Government passed to protect and guard its Indian wards only affect the operation, within the colony, of such state laws as conflict with the federal enactments.” See also Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, 273 (1898). We therefore agree with the District Court that to the extent that the “smoke shops” sell to those upon whom the State has validly imposed a sales or excise tax with respect to the article sold, the State may require the Indian proprietor simply to add the tax to the sales price and thereby aid the State’s collection and enforcement thereof.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the District Court are
Affirmed.
See 28 U. S. C. § 2281.
See Part II, infra, for the discussion of the jurisdictional question.
For ease of reference, the various parties involved in the appeal and cross-appeal will be referred to simply as the State and the Tribe, except as otherwise noted.
The defendants-appellants in the cigarette tax case are Montana's Department of Revenue, its director, and the sheriffs of the counties in which the "smoke shops” were located. No monetary-relief has been sought in this action.
Suit was brought shortly after the arrests. The record does not indicate whether criminal proceedings were instituted in state court, and in any case the State has made no claim as to the propriety of the District Court’s entry of relief under Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), and related decisions Of this Court.
The District Court noted that the State’s present statutory Scheme contemplates advance payment or “precollection” of the sales tax by the retailer when he purchases his inventory from the wholesaler. Recognizing that its holding — a distinction between sales to Indians and to non-Indians — would result in “complicated problems” of enforcement by the State, the District Court deferred passing on these problems pending a decision by this Court. We, of course, express no-opinion on this question.
Named as defendants were various county officials, the State’s Department of Revenue and its director, and the State itself. In contrast to the cigarette tax case, however, the plaintiffs, suing as representatives of all other members of the Tribe residing on the reservation, demanded a refund of personal property taxes paid to the date of the District Court’s final judgment. In the opinion accompanying the District Court’s judgment entering the requested declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of the Tribe and the individual Indians, it stated that “any further questions” were reserved pending this Court’s final determination of the constitutionality of the personal property tax statutes. Our conclusions in Parts II and III, infra, that the District Court, with subject-matter jurisdiction over the Tribe’s claims, properly entered injunctive relief in its favor implicitly embrace a finding that the Tribe, qua Tribe, has a discrete claim of injury with respect to these forms of state taxation so as to confer standing upon it apart from the monetary injury asserted by the individual Indian plaintiffs. Since the substantive interest which Congress has sought to protect is tribal self-government, such a conclusion is quite consistent with other doctrines of standing. See, e. g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498-499 (1975). Whether in like fashion standing rests in the Tribe to litigate the pending individual refimd claims is a question properly left for the District Court as and when these claims are pursued, and we express no opinion thereon. We note, however, that if only the individual Indians have standing to sue for refunds, their claims must be properly grounded jurisdictionally. See, e. g., Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U. S. 291, 294 (1973).
The Tribe and the individual members had earlier filed an identical attack against Montana’s personal income tax as applied to income earned by tribal members on the reservation. Shortly after this Court’s decision in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164 (1973), the State stipulated that McClanahan barred its taxing jurisdiction in this respect and agreed to cease voluntarily its collection efforts and make refunds. Relying on this settlement, the Tribe thereafter requested the State’s Attorney General to order a similar cessation with respect to personal property taxes. Advised that its request was rejected, the Tribe instituted this action.
The Tribe has from the beginning expressly disclaimed any immunity from this nondiseriminatory vehicle registration fee.
There the United States sought injunctive relief against certain state taxation of its coplaintiff, the American National Red Cross, which on the merits this Court held was immune from same as a federal instrumentality.
Section 1341 itself, of course, includes a proviso that the remedy in state court must be "plain, speedy and efficient.” The Tribe does not claim that it would not have had such a remedy under Montana law.
H. R. Rep. No. 2040, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1966).
Heckman and Bickert were both eases in which the protection asserted by the United States on behalf of the Indians was grounded in the federal-instrumentality doctrine. Since Mescalero, as we have noted, effectively eliminated that doctrine as a basis for immunizing Indians from state taxation, there might appear to be a certain inconsistency in our reliance on Heckman. But the question of whether the United States has standing (Heckman used the term “capacity”) to sue on behalf of others is analytically distinct from the question of whether the substantive theory on which it relies will prevail, and each is in turn separate from whether in-junctive relief can issue at the United States' behest irrespective of § 1341. Department of Employment, see supra, at 470, and n. 10, did not hold that the United States had standing only in actions falling within the federal-instrumentality doctrine. Cases in the lower federal courts cited therein (385 U. S., at 358 n. 6), e. g., United States v. Arlington County, Virginia, 326 F. 2d 929, 931-933 (CA4 1964), and other cases from this Court, see In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 584 (1895); United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273, 284-286 (1888), indicate otherwise. The proper basis for the protection asserted here, of course, is not the federal-instrumentality doctrine eschewed in Mescalero, but is that which McClanahan identified, i. e., that state taxing jurisdiction has been pre-empted by the applicable treaties and federal legislation. While not deciding what limits there are upon the United States’ standing to' sue absent enabling legislation, we conclude that the relationship between the United States and the .Tribe — grounded in the Hell Gate Treaty and a century of subsequent legislation — would have established the former’s standing to raise the pre-emption claim on behalf of the latter, and that an injunctive remedy to enforce that claim would not have been barred by § 1341.
The District Court went on to find jurisdiction over the individual Indian plaintiffs in both actions on the basis of 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), together with their allegation that these taxes deprived them of a right secured by the Commerce Clause. Noting that § 1362 by its terms goes only to an “Indian tribe or band,” the State has argued that to hold § 1341 inapplicable merely because the state tax is attacked on constitutional grounds virtually strips it of force and is contrary to other federal-court decisions: Bland v. McHann, 463 F. 2d 21 (CA5 1972), cert. denied, 410 U. S. 966 (1973); American Commuters Assn., Inc. v. Levitt, 405 F. 2d 1148 (CA2 1969). Cf. Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538, 542 n. 6 (1972). The Tribe’s brief does not discuss this aspect of the District Court’s holding. We need not decide this question, however, since all of the substantive issues raised on appeal can be reached by deciding the claims of the Tribe alone, which did bring this action in the District Court under § 1362. See n. 7, supra. Cf. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21 (1974). Any further proceedings with respect to refund claims by or on behalf of individual Indians, see n. 7, supra, would not appear to implicate § 1341.
The quotation is taken from the first (unpublished) opinion of the District Court, Civ. No. 2145 (Mont., Oct. 10, 1073), Jurisdictional Statement, App. 73, 81 n. 9, the conclusions of which with respect to McClanahan were reaffirmed in the later opinions filed May 10, 1974, February 4, 1975, and March 19, 1975, published at 392 F. Supp. 1297, 1312; 392 F. Supp. 1325.
The District Court noted two further distinctions within its ruling. It extended its holding to sales of cigarettes to Indians living on the Flathead Reservation irrespective of their actual membership in the plaintiff Tribe. The State has not challenged this holding, and we therefore do not disturb it. Secondly, while recognizing that different rules may apply “where Indians have left the reservation and become assimilated into the general community,” McClanahan, 411 U. S., at 171, the District Court on the present record did not decide whether the cigarette sales tax would apply to on-reservation sales to Indians who resided off the Flathead Reservation. That question, too, is therefore not before us.
It is thus clear that the basis for the invalidity of these taxing measures, which we have found to be inconsistent with existing federal statutes, is the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, and not any automatic exemptions “as a matter of constitutional law” either under the Commerce Clause or the intergovernmental-immunity doctrine as laid down originally in M‘Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). If so, then the basis for convening a three-judge court in this type of case has effectively disappeared, for this Court has expressly held that attacks on state statutes raising only Supremacy Clause invalidity do not fall within the scope of 28 U. S. C. § 2281. Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111 (1965). Here, however, the District Court properly convened a § 2281 court, because at the outset the Tribe’s attack asserted unconstitutionality of these statutes under the Commerce Clause, a not insubstantial claim since Mescaiero and McClanahan had not yet been decided. See Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512 (1973).
Mont. Rev. Code Ann. § 84-5606 (1) (1947).
§§ 84-5606.18, 84-5606.31 (Supp, 1975).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1951, Congress amended the Railway Labor Act (Act or RLA) to permit what it had previously prohibited — the union shop. Section 2, Eleventh of the Act permits a union and an employer to require all employees in the relevant bargaining unit to join the union as a condition of continued employment. 45 U. S. C. § 152, Eleventh. In Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740 (1961), the Court held that the Act does not authorize a union to spend an objecting employee’s money to support political causes. The use of employee funds for such ends is unrelated to Congress’ desire to eliminate “free riders” and the resentment they provoked. Id., at 768-769. The Court did not express a view as to “expenditures for activities in the area between the costs which led directly to the complaint as to ‘free riders,’ and the expenditures to support union political activities.” Id., at 769-770, and n. 18. Petitioners challenge just such expenditures.
I
In 1971, respondent Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (union or BRAC) and Western Airlines implemented a previously negotiated agreement requiring that all Western’s clerical employees join the union within 60 days of commencing employment. As the agreement has been interpreted, employees need not become formal members of the union, but must pay agency fees equal to members’ dues. Petitioners are present or former clerical employees of Western who objected to the use of their compelled dues for specified union activities. They do not contest the legality of the union shop as such, nor could they. See Railway Employees v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225 (1956). They do contend, however, that they can be compelled to contribute no more than their pro rata share of the expenses of negotiating agreements and settling grievances with Western Airlines. Respondents — the national union, its board of adjustment, and three locals — concede that the statutory authorization of the union shop does not permit the use of petitioners’ contributions for union political or ideological activities, see Machinists v. Street, supra, and have adopted a rebate program covering such expenditures. The parties disagree about the adequacy of the rebate scheme, and about the legality of burdening objecting employees with six specific union expenses that fall between the extremes identified in Hanson and Street: the quadrennial Grand Lodge convention, litigation not involving the negotiation of agreements or settlement of grievances, union publications, social activities, death benefits for employees, and general organizing efforts.
The District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment to petitioners on the question of liability. Relying entirely on Street, it found that the six expenses at issue here, among others, were all “non-collective bargaining activities” that could not be supported by dues collected from protesting employees. After a trial on damages, the court concluded that with regard to political and ideological activities, the union’s existing rebate program, under which objecting employees were ultimately reimbursed for their share of union expenditures on behalf of political and charitable causes, was a good-faith effort to comply with legal requirements and adequately protected employees’ rights. Relying on exhibits presented by respondents, the court ordered refunds of approximately 40% of dues paid for the expenditures at issue here. It also required that protesting employees’ annual dues thereafter be reduced by the amount spent on activities not chargeable to them during the prior year. The court seems to have envisioned that this scheme would supplant the already-existing rebate scheme, for it included political expenditures among those to be figured into the dues reduction.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. 685 F. 2d 1065 (1982). It held that the union’s rebate plan was adequate even though it allowed the union to collect the full amount of a protesting employee’s dues, use part of the dues for objectionable purposes, and only pay the rebate a year later. It found suggestions in this Court’s cases that such a method would be acceptable, and had itself approved the rebate approach in an earlier case. The opinion did not address the dues reduction scheme imposed by the District Court. Id., at 1069-1070. Turning to the question of permissible expenditures, the Court of Appeals framed “the relevant inquiry [a]s whether a particular challenged expenditure is germane to the union’s work in the realm of collective bargaining.... [That is, whether it] can be seen to promote, support or maintain the union as an effective collective bargaining agent.” Id., at 1072, 1074-1075. The court found that each of the challenged activities strengthened the union as a whole and helped it to run more smoothly, thus making it better able to negotiate and administer agreements. Because the six activities ultimately benefited the union’s collective-bargaining efforts, the union was free to finance them with dues collected from objecting employees. One judge dissented, arguing that these were all “institutional expenses” that objecting employees cannot be forced to pay. Id., at 1075-1076.
Petitioners sought review of the Court of Appeals’ ruling on permissible expenses and the adequacy of the rebate scheme. We granted certiorari. 460 U. S. 1080 (1983). We hold that the union’s rebate scheme was inadequate and that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the RLA authorizes a union to spend compelled dues for its general litigation and organizing efforts.
II
A
There is some question as to whether petitioners’ challenge to the rebate program is properly before us. In 1980, within a month of the entry of the District Court’s judgment, the union was decertified as the bargaining representative of Western Airlines’ clerical employees. Thus, none of the petitioners is presently represented by the union or required to pay dues to it. Petitioners’ claim for an injunction against the rebate scheme would therefore appear to be moot. But petitioners also sought money damages, and damages for an illegal rebate program would necessarily have been in the form of interest on money illegally held for a period of time. That claim for damages remains in the case. The amount at issue is undeniably minute. But as long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 496-498 (1969).
Respondents argue that the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the validity of the union’s rebate scheme because it had been supplanted by the District Court’s order, from which the union had not appealed. They also contend that, for the same reason, the adequacy of the old system is “not justiciable” and “academic.” Brief for Respondents 11, and n. 5. We disagree. The District Court specifically held that the rebate scheme vindicated the dissenting employees’ rights with regard to political and ideological activities, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals also held that the expenditures the union had included in the rebate scheme were the only ones to which protesting employees could not be compelled to contribute, thereby eliminating the basis for the District Court’s additional order that the union reduce dues prospectively. In any event, even though the District Court required a dues reduction scheme for the future, petitioners did not receive damages for the prior allegedly inadequate rebate program, precisely because both lower courts upheld it. In these circumstances, the issue is properly before us.
B
As the Court of Appeals pointed out, there is language in this Court’s cases to support the validity of a rebate program. Street suggested “restitution to each individual employee of that portion of his money which the union expended, despite his notification, for the political causes to which he had advised the union he was opposed.” 367 U. S., at 775. See also Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209, 238 (1977). On the other hand, we suggested a more precise advance reduction scheme in Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S. 113, 122 (1963), where we described a “practical decree” comprising a refund of exacted funds in the proportion that union political expenditures bore to total union expenditures and the reduction of future exactions by the same proportion. Those opinions did not, nor did they purport to, pass upon the statutory or constitutional adequacy of the suggested remedies. Doing so now, we hold that the pure rebate approach is inadequate.
By exacting and using full dues, then refunding months later the portion that it was not allowed to exact in the first place, the union effectively charges the employees for activities that are outside the scope of the statutory authorization. The cost to the employee is, of course, much less than if the money was never returned, but this is a difference of degree only. The harm would be reduced were the union to pay interest on the amount refunded, but respondents did not do so. Even then the union obtains an involuntary loan for purposes to which the employee objects.
The only justification for this union borrowing would be administrative convenience. But there are readily available alternatives, such as advance reduction of dues and/or interest-bearing escrow accounts, that place only the slightest additional burden, if any, on the union. Given the existence of acceptable alternatives, the union cannot be allowed to commit dissenters’ funds to improper uses even temporarily. A rebate scheme reduces but does not eliminate the statutory violation.
Ill
Petitioners’ primary submission is that the use of their fees to finance the challenged activities violated the First Amendment. This argument assumes that the Act allows these allegedly unconstitutional exactions. When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, this Court first ascertains whether the statute can be reasonably construed to avoid the constitutional difficulty. E. g., Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 692-693 (1979); Ashwanderv. TV A, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (concurring opinion); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As the Court noted when faced with a similar claim in Street, “the restraints against unnecessary constitutional decisions counsel against” addressing petitioners’ constitutional claims “unless we must conclude that Congress, in authorizing a union shop under § 2, Eleventh also meant that the labor organization receiving an employee’s money should be free, despite that employee’s objection, to spend his money” for these activities. 367 U. S., at 749. We therefore first inquire whether the statute permits the union to charge petitioners for any of the challenged expenditures.
IV
Section 2, Eleventh contains only one explicit limitation to the scope of the union shop agreement: objecting employees may not be required to tender “fines and penalties” normally required of union members. 45 U. S. C. § 152, Eleventh. If there were nothing else, an inference could be drawn from this limited exception that all other payments obtained from voluntary members can also be required of those whose membership is forced upon them. Indeed, several witnesses appearing before the congressional Committees objected to the absence of any explicit limitation on the scope or amount of fees and dues that could be compelled. That Congress enacted the provision over these objections arguably indicates that it was willing to tolerate broad exactions from objecting employees.
Furthermore, Congress was well aware of the broad scope of traditional union activities. The hearing witnesses referred in general terms to the costs of “[activities of labor organizations resulting in the procurement of employee benefits,” House Hearings, at 10 (testimony of George Harrison), and the “policies and activities of labor unions,” id., at 50 (testimony of George Weaver). Indeed, it was pointed out that not only was the “securing and maintaining of a collective bargaining agreement... an expensive undertaking..., there are many other programs of a union” that require the financial and moral support of the workers. Id., at 275; Senate Hearings, at 236 (statement of Theodore Brown). In short, Congress was adequately informed about the broad scope of union activities aimed at benefiting union members, and, in light of the absence of express limitations in § 2, Eleventh it could be plausibly argued that Congress purported to authorize the collection from involuntary members of the same dues paid by regular members. This view, however, was squarely rejected in Street, over the dissents of three Justices, and the cases that followed it.
In Street, the Court observed that the purpose of § 2, Eleventh was to make it possible to require all members of a bargaining unit to pay their fair share of the costs of performing the function of exclusive bargaining agent. The union shop would eliminate “free riders,” employees who obtained the benefit of the union’s participation in the machinery of the Act without financially supporting the union. That purpose, the Court held, Congress intended to be achieved without “vesting the unions with unlimited power to spend exacted money.” 367 U. S., at 768. Undoubtedly, the union could collect from all employees what it needed to defray the expenses entailed in negotiating and administering a collective agreement and in adjusting grievances and disputes. The Court had so held in Railway Employees v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225 (1956). But the authority to impose dues and fees was restricted at least to the “extent of denying the unions the right, over the employee’s objection, to use his money to support political causes which he opposes,” 367 U. S., at 768, even though Congress was well aware that unions had historically expended funds in the support of political candidates and issues. Employees could be required to become “members” of the union, but those who objected could not be burdened with any part of the union’s expenditures in support of political or ideological causes. The Court expressed no view on other union expenses not directly involved in negotiating and administering the contract and in settling grievances.
Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S. 113 (1963), reaffirmed the approach taken in Street, and described the union expenditures that could fairly be charged to all employees as those “germane to collective bargaining.” Id., at 121, 122. Still later, 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 teachers’ 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. In neither Allen nor Abood, however, did the Court find it necessary further 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.
We remain convinced that Congress’ essential justification for authorizing the union shop was the desire to eliminate free riders — employees in the bargaining unit on whose behalf the union was obliged to perform its statutory functions, but who refused to contribute to the cost thereof. Only a union that is certified as the exclusive bargaining agent is authorized to negotiate a contract requiring all employees to become members of or to make contributions to the union. Until such a contract is executed, no dues or fees may be collected from objecting employees who are not members of the union; and by the same token, any obligatory payments required by a contract authorized by § 2, Eleventh terminate if the union ceases to be the exclusive bargaining agent. Hence, when employees such as petitioners object to being burdened with particular union expenditures, the test must be whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues. Under this standard, objecting employees may be compelled to pay their fair share of not only the direct costs of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining contract and of settling grievances and disputes, but also the expenses of activities or undertakings normally or reasonably employed to implement or effectuate the duties of the union as exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
With these considerations in mind, we turn to the particular expenditures for which petitioners insist they may not be charged.
V
1. Conventions. Every four years, BRAC holds a national convention at which the members elect officers, establish bargaining goals and priorities, and formulate overall union policy. We have very little trouble in holding that petitioners must help defray the costs of these conventions. Surely if a union is to perform its statutory functions, it must maintain its corporate or associational existence, must elect officers to manage and carry on its affairs, and may consult its members about overall bargaining goals and policy. Conventions such as those at issue here are normal events about which Congress was thoroughly informed and seem to us to be essential to the union’s discharge of its duties as bargaining agent. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, convention “activities guide the union’s approach to collective bargaining and are directly related to its effectiveness in negotiating labor agreements.” 685 F. 2d, at 1073. In fact, like all national unions, BRAC is required to hold either a referendum or a convention at least every five years for the election of officers. 29 U. S. C. § 481(a). We cannot fault it for choosing to elect its officers at a convention rather than by referendum.
2. Social Activities. Approximately 0.7% of Grand Lodge expenditures go toward purchasing refreshments for union business meetings and occasional social activities. 685 F. 2d, at 1074. These activities are formally open to nonmember employees. Petitioners insist that these expenditures are entirely unrelated to the union’s function as collective-bargaining representative and therefore could not be charged to them. While these affairs are not central to collective bargaining, they are sufficiently related to it to be charged to all employees. As the Court of Appeals noted, “[t]hese small expenditures are important to the union’s members because they bring about harmonious working relationships, promote closer ties among employees, and create a more pleasant environment for union meetings.” Ibid.
We cannot say that these de minimis expenses are beyond the scope of the Act. Like conventions, social activities at union meetings are a standard feature of union operations. In a revealing statement, Senator Thomas, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee, made clear his disinclination to have Congress define precisely what normal, minor union expenses could be charged to objectors; he did not want the bill to say that “the unions... must not have any of the... kinds of little dues that they take up for giving a party, or something of that nature.” Senate Hearings, at 173-174. There is no indication that other Members of Congress were any more inclined to scrutinize the minor incidental expenses incurred by the union in running its operations.
3. Publications. The Grand Lodge puts out a monthly magazine, the Railway Clerk/interchange, paid for out of the union treasury. The magazine’s contents are varied and include articles about negotiations, contract demands, strikes, unemployment and health benefits, proposed or recently enacted legislation, general news, products the union is boycotting, and recreational and social activities. See 685 F. 2d, at 1074; District Court’s Findings of Fact, 3 App. 236; Brief for Petitioners 22; Brief for Respondents 32, and n. 19. The Court of Appeals found that the magazine “is the union’s primary means of communicating information concerning collective bargaining, contract administration, and employees’ rights to employees represented by BRAC.” 685 F. 2d, at 1074. Under the union’s rebate policy, objecting employees are not charged for that portion of the magazine devoted to “political causes.” App. Exhibits 436. The rebate is figured by calculating the number of lines that are devoted to political issues as a proportion of the total number of lines. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38.
The union must have a channel for communicating with the employees, including the objecting ones, about its activities. Congress can be assumed to have known that union funds go toward union publications; it is an accepted and basic union activity. The costs of “worker education” were specifically mentioned during the hearings. House Hearings, at 275; Senate Hearings, at 236. The magazine is important to the union in carrying out its representational obligations and a reasonable way of reporting to its constituents.
Respondents’ limitation on the publication costs charged objecting employees is an important one, however. If the union cannot spend dissenters’ funds for a particular activity, it has no justification for spending their funds for writing about that activity. By the same token, the Act surely allows it to charge objecting employees for reporting to them about those activities it can charge them for doing.
4. Organizing. The Court of Appeals found that organizing expenses could be charged to objecting employees because organizing efforts are aimed toward a stronger union, which in turn would be more successful at the bargaining table. Despite this attenuated connection with collective bargaining, we think such expenditures are outside Congress’ authorization. Several considerations support this conclusion.
First, the notion that §2, Eleventh would be a tool for the expansion of overall union power appears nowhere in the legislative history. To the contrary, BRAC’s president expressly disclaimed that the union shop was sought in order to strengthen the bargaining power of unions. “Nor was any claim seriously advanced that the union shop was necessary to hold or increase union membership.” Street, 367 U. S., at 763, n. 13. Thus, organizational efforts were not what Congress aimed to enhance by authorizing the union shop.
Second, where a union shop provision is in place and enforced, all employees in the relevant unit are already organized. By definition, therefore, organizing expenses are spent on employees outside the collective-bargaining unit already represented. Using dues exacted from an objecting employee to recruit members among workers outside the bargaining unit can afford only the most attenuated benefits to collective bargaining on behalf of the dues payer.
Third, the free-rider rationale does not extend this far. The image of the smug, self-satisfied nonmember, stirring up resentment by enjoying benefits earned through other employees’ time and money, is completely out of place when it comes to the union’s overall organizing efforts. If one accepts that what is good for the union is good for the employees, a proposition petitioners would strenuously deny, then it may be that employees will ultimately ride for free on the union’s organizing efforts outside the bargaining unit. But the free rider Congress had in mind was the employee the union was required to represent and from whom it could not withhold benefits obtained for its members. Non-bargaining unit organizing is not directed at that employee. Organizing money is spent on people who are not union members, and only in the most distant way works to the benefit of those already paying dues. Any free-rider problem here is roughly comparable to that resulting from union contributions to pro-labor political candidates. As we observed in Street, that is a far cry from the free-rider problem with which Congress was concerned.
5. Litigation. The expenses of litigation incident to negotiating and administering the contract or to settling grievances and disputes arising in the bargaining unit are clearly chargeable to petitioners as a normal incident of the duties of the exclusive representative. The same is true of fair representation, litigation arising within the unit, of jurisdictional disputes with other unions, and of any other litigation before agencies or in the courts that concerns bargaining unit employees and is normally conducted by the exclusive representative. The expenses of litigation not having such a connection with the bargaining unit are not to be charged to objecting employees. Contrary to the view of the Court of Appeals, therefore, unless the Western Airlines bargaining unit is directly concerned, objecting employees need not share the costs of the union’s challenge to the legality of the airline industry mutual aid pact; of litigation seeking to protect the rights of airline employees generally during bankruptcy proceedings; or of defending suits alleging violation of the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
6. Death benefits. BRAC pays from its general funds a $300 death benefit to the designated beneficiary of any member or nonmember required to pay dues to the union. In Street, the Court did not adjudicate the legality under §2, Eleventh of compelled participation in a death benefit program, citing it as an example of an expenditure in the area between the costs which led directly to the complaint as to “free riders,” and the expenditures to support union political activities. 367 U. S., at 769-770, and n. 18. In Allen, the state trial court, like the District Court in this case, found that compelled payments to support BRAC’s death benefit system were not reasonably necessary or related to collective bargaining and could not be charged to objecting employees. See 373 U. S., at 117. We found it unnecessary to reach the correctness of that conclusion.
Here, the Court of Appeals said that death benefits have historically played an important role in labor organizations, that insurance benefits are a mandatory subject of bargaining, and that by providing such benefits itself rather than seeking them from the employer, BRAC is in a better position to negotiate for additional benefits or higher wages. The court added that the “provision of a death benefits plan, which tends to strengthen the employee’s ties to the union, is germane to the work of the union within the realm of collective bargaining.” 685 F. 2d, at 1074. This was consistent with the affidavit of one of the union’s expert witnesses to the effect that “death benefit funds do provide a desirable economic benefit to union members and, therefore, they do serve as an organizational aid and as a means of strengthening the union internally.” Affidavit of Lloyd Ulman, 2 App. 210. Petitioners, of course, press the view that death benefits have no connection with collective bargaining at all, let alone one that would warrant forcing them to participate in the system.
We find it unnecessary to rule on this question. Because the union is no longer the exclusive bargaining agent and petitioners are no longer involved in the death benefits system, the only issue is whether petitioners are entitled to a refund of their past contributions. We think that they are not so entitled, even if they had the right to an injunction to prevent future collections from them for death benefits. Although they objected to the use of their funds to support the benefits plan, they remained entitled to the benefits of the plan as long as they paid their dues; they thus enjoyed a form of insurance for which the union collected a premium. We doubt that the equities call for a refund of those payments.
< I — I
Petitioners’ primary argument is that for the union to compel their financial support of these six activities violates the First Amendment. We need only address this contention with regard to the three activities for which, we have held, the RLA allows the union to use their contributions. We perceive no constitutional barrier.
The First Amendment does limit the uses to which the union can put funds obtained from dissenting employees. See generally Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209 (1977). But by allowing the union shop at all, we have already countenanced a significant impingement on First Amendment rights. The dissenting employee is forced to support financially an organization with whose principles and demands he may disagree. “To be required to help finance the union as a collective-bargaining agent might well be thought... to 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.” Id., at 222. It has long been settled that such interference with First Amendment rights is justified by the governmental interest in industrial peace. Ibid.; Street, 367 U. S., at 776, 778 (Douglas, J., concurring); Hanson, 351 U. S., at 238. At a minimum, the union may constitutionally “expend uniform exactions under the union-shop agreement in support of activities germane to collective bargaining.” Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S., at 122. The issue is whether these expenses involve additional interference with the First Amendment interests of objecting employees, and, if so, whether they are nonetheless adequately supported by a governmental interest.
Petitioners do not explicitly contend that union social activities implicate serious First Amendment interests. We need not determine whether contributing money to such affairs is an act triggering First Amendment protection. To the extent it is, the communicative content is not inherent in the act, but stems from the union’s involvement in it. The objection is that these are union social hours. Therefore, the fact that the employee is forced to contribute does not increase the infringement of his First Amendment rights already resulting from the compelled contribution to the union. Petitioners may feel that their money is not being well-spent, but that does not mean they have a First Amendment complaint.
The First Amendment concerns with regard to publications and conventions are more serious; both have direct communicative content and involve the expression of ideas. Nonetheless, we perceive little additional infringement of First Amendment rights beyond that already accepted, and none that is not justified by the governmental interests behind the union shop itself. As the discussion of these expenses indicated, they “relat[e] to the work of the union in the realm of collective bargaining.” Hanson, supra, at 235. The very nature of the free-rider problem and the governmental interest in overcoming it require that the union have a certain flexibility in its use of compelled funds. “ ‘The furtherance of the common cause leaves some leeway for the leadership of the group.’ ” Abood, supra, at 221-222, quoting Street, supra, at 778 (Douglas, J., concurring). These expenses are well within the acceptable range.
< I — I
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondents were entitled to charge petitioners for their pro rata share of the union’s organizing and litigating expenses, and that the former rebate scheme adequately protected the objecting employees from the misuse of their contributions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 2, Eleventh provides in relevant part:
“Eleventh. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, or of any other statute or law of the United States, or Territory thereof, or of any State, any carrier or carriers as defined in this Act and a labor organization or labor organizations duly designated and authorized to represent employees in accordance with the requirements of this Act shall be permitted—
“(a) to make agreements, requiring, as a condition of continued employment, that within sixty days following the beginning of such employment, or the effective date of such agreements, whichever is the later, all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class: Provided, That no such agreement shall require such condition of employment with respect to employees to whom membership is not available upon the same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to any other member or with respect to employees to whom membership was denied or terminated for any reason other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties) uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
“(b) to make agreements providing for the deduction by such carrier or carriers from the wages of its or their employees in a craft or class and payment to the labor organization representing the craft or class of such employees, of any periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties) uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership-” 64 Stat. 1238, 45 U. S. C. § 152, Eleventh.
This case is the consolidation of two separate suits, one brought by present and former Western employees who did not join the union, Ellis v. Railway Clerks, the other a class action brought by employees who did, Fails v. Railway Clerks.
Each class member sent the following letter to the union:
“As an employee of Western Airlines, I feel that the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks does not properly represent my interests and I protest the compulsory ‘agency fee’ I must pay the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, in order to retain my job. In addition, I hereby protest the use of these fees for any purpose other than the cost of collective bargaining and specifically protest the support of Legislative goals, candidates for political office, political efforts of any kind or nature, ideological causes, and any other activity which is not a direct cost of collective bargaining on my behalf. I demand an accounting and refund from the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks of all fees exacted from me by the so-called ‘agency fee.’ ” 3 App. 234-235.
The court certified this ruling for interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not permit the appeal.
In their complaints, petitioners made a generalized claim for “monetary damages for injuries sustained as a result of defendants’ unlawful and unwarranted interference with and deprivation of their constitutional, civil, statutory and contractual rights.” 1 App. 13.
Not before us is the adequacy of the dues reduction scheme imposed by the District Court. The issue is not among the questions presented by the petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals did not address it, and the record does not reveal whether the scheme was ever implemented.
The courts that have considered this question are divided. Compare Robinson v. New Jersey, 547 F. Supp. 1297 (NJ 1982); School Committee v. Greenfield Education Assn., 385 Mass. 70, 431 N. E. 2d 180 (1982); Robbinsdale Education Assn. v. Robbinsdale Federation of Teachers, 307 Minn. 96, 239 N. W. 2d 437, vacated and remanded, 429 U. S. 880 (1976) (all holding or suggesting that such a scheme does not adequately protect the rights of dissenting employees), with Seay v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 533 F. 2d 1126, 1131 (CA9 1976); Opinion of the Justices, 401 A. 2d 135 (Me. 1979); Association of Capitol Powerhouse Engineers v. Division of Bldg. & Grounds, 89 Wash. 2d 177, 570 P. 2d 1042 (1977) (all upholding rebate programs). See generally Perry v. Local 2569, 708 F. 2d 1258, 1261-1262 (CA7 1983).
Senator Hill, one of the bill’s sponsors, explained on the Senate floor that “ ‘assessments’ is not to include ‘fines and penalties.’ Thus if an individual member is fined for some infraction of the union bylaws or constitution, the union cannot obtain his discharge under a union-shop agreement in the event that the member refuses or fails to pay the fine imposed.” 96 Cong. Rec. 15736 (1950).
Jacob Aronson, vice president of the New York Central Railroad, complained that “the proposal does not even limit the number, kind, or amount of dues, fees, and assessments that may be required by the particular union.” Hearings on H. R. 7789 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 121 (1950) (House Hearings). See also Hearings on S. 3295 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 173-174 (1950) (Senate Hearings). Daniel Loomis, appearing for the Association of Western Railways, objected that “[wjithout any limitation upon the right
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a federal tax lien, unrecorded as of the time of bankruptcy, is valid as against the trustee in bankruptcy.
On June 3, 1960, a District Director of Internal Revenue assessed more than $14,000 in withholding taxes and interest against the Kurtz Roofing Company. Demand for payment was made, and the taxpayer refused to pay. This gave rise to a federal tax lien. Notice of the lien was not filed either in the Office of the Recorder of Erie County, Ohio, where Kurtz had its principal place of business, or in the United States District Court, at least not before February of 1961. On June 20, 1960, Kurtz filed a petition in bankruptcy. In the ensuing proceedings the trustee took the position that the federal tax lien was invalid as to him. He relied upon § 70c of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 110 (c) (1964 ed.), which, he asserted, vested in him the rights of a “judgment creditor,” and upon 26 U. S. C. § 6323 (1964 ed.), which entitles a “judgment creditor” to prevail over an unrecorded federal tax lien. Section 70c provides in part:
“The trustee, as to all property, whether or not coming into possession or control of the court, upon which a creditor of the bankrupt could have obtained a lien by legal or equitable proceedings at the date of bankruptcy, shall be deemed vested as of such date with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a creditor then holding a lien thereon by such proceedings, whether or not such a creditor actually exists.”
Section 6323 provides in part:
“[T]he lien imposed by section 6321 shall not be valid as against any mortgagee, pledgee, purchaser, or judgment creditor until notice thereof has been filed by the Secretary or his delegate
The trustee’s position, in short, was that his statutory lien attached to all property of the bankrupt as of the date of filing of the petition; that he was a statutory “judgment creditor”; and that, under § 6323, the unrecorded tax lien of the United States was not valid against him. This position, if sustained, would reduce the Government’s claim for unpaid taxes to the status of an unsecured claim, sharing fourth-class priority with unsecured state and local tax claims under § 64a (4) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. §104 (a) (4) (1964 ed.), and ranking behind administrative expenses, certain wage claims, and specified creditors’ expenses. The result in the present case is that instead of recovering the full amount owing to it, the United States would receive only 53.48%.
The trustee’s position was affirmed by the referee, the District Court, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 335 F. 2d 311. Certiorari was granted, 379 U. S. 958, to resolve the conceded conflict between decisions of Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits and the decision below. We affirm.
Despite the language of the applicable statutory provisions, § 70c and § 6323, most of the Courts of Appeals passing on the question have sustained the validity of an unrecorded federal tax lien as against the trustee in bankruptcy. They have arrived at this result on the authority of a statement in United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc., 345 U. S. 361, 364, that the phrase “judgment creditor” in § 3672, the predecessor of § 6323, was used by Congress “in the usual, conventional sense of a judgment of a court of record . . . .”
It is clear, however, that this characterization was not intended to exclude a trustee in bankruptcy from the scope of the phrase “judgment creditor.” The issue before the Court in Gilbert was quite different.
Gilbert involved neither a bankruptcy proceeding nor the rights of a trustee in bankruptcy. Gilbert arose out of a state insolvency proceeding. The issue was whether an unrecorded federal tax lien was valid as against a municipal tax assessment which had neither been reduced to judgment nor accorded “judgment creditor” status by any statute. The asserted superior position of the local tax claim was based upon the fact that the New Hampshire court, in the Gilbert insolvency proceeding, had, for the first time, conveniently characterized the local tax claim as “in the nature of a judgment,” relying upon the procedures used by the taxing authorities. Because the effect of federal tax liens should not be determined by the diverse rules of the various States, the Court held that the municipality was not a “judgment creditor” for purposes of the federal statute. The Court said:
“A cardinal principle of Congress in its tax scheme is uniformity, as far as may be. Therefore, a ‘judgment creditor’ should have the same application in all the states. In this instance, we think Congress used the words ‘judgment creditor’ in § 3672 in the usual, conventional sense of a judgment of a court of record, since all states have such courts. We do not think Congress had in mind the action of taxing authorities who may be acting judicially as in New Hampshire and some other states, where the end result is something ‘in the nature of a judgment,’ while in other states the taxing authorities act quasi-judicially and are considered administrative bodies.” (Footnotes omitted.) 345 U. S., at 364.
In view of the nature of the claim for which superiority was asserted and because its dominant theme was the need for uniformity in construing the meaning of § 3672, Gilbert cannot be considered as governing the entirely different situation with respect to the rights conferred by Congress upon a trustee in bankruptcy. In the latter circumstance we are confronted with a specific congressional Act defining the status of the trustee. We have no problem of evaluating widely differing state laws. We have no possibility of unequal application of the federal tax laws, depending upon variances in the terms and phraseology of different state and local tax assessment statutes and judicial rulings thereon. Here-we are faced with a uniform federal scheme — the rights of the trustee in bankruptcy in light of an unequivocal statement by Congress that he shall have “all” the rights of a judicial lien creditor with respect to the bankrupt’s property.
The legislative history lends support to the conclusion drawn from the statutory language that the purpose of Congress was to invalidate an unrecorded federal tax lien as against the trustee in bankruptcy. It was in 1910 that Congress enacted the predecessor of § 70c, vesting the trustee “with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a judgment creditor.” Three years later, in 1913, Congress enacted the predecessor of § 6323, providing that an unrecorded federal tax lien was invalid as against a “judgment creditor.” These two statutes, with their corresponding references to “judgment creditor,” co-existed for nearly 40 years. During that period, and prior to our decision in Gilbert in 1953, the only Court of Appeals squarely to pass upon the question decided that the trustee was a “judgment creditor” for purposes of avoiding an unrecorded federal tax lien. United States v. Sands, 174 F. 2d 384, 385 (C. A. 2d Cir.), rejecting contrary dictum in In re Taylorcraft Aviation Corp., 168 F. 2d 808, 810 (C. A. 6th Cir.).
In amending the Bankruptcy Act in 1950, Congress deleted from § 70c the phrase “judgment creditor,” providing instead that whether or not the bankrupt’s property was in possession or control of the court, the trustee was to have “all the rights, remedies, and powers” of a creditor holding a judicial lien.’ Elsewhere in the same legislation it was recognized that the category of those holding judicial liens includes judgment creditors/ and a judicial lien holder generally has “greater rights than a judgment creditor.” It is clear, therefore, that, with respect to the present problem, it was not the purpose of the 1950 amendments to reduce the powers of the trustee. As the House report accompanying the legislation noted, the revision of § 70c “has been placed in the bill for the protection of trustees in bankruptcy . . . also to simplify, and to some extent expand, the general expression of the rights of trustees in bankruptcy.”
In 1954 Congress dealt explicitly with the question whether the trustee ought to prevail against unrecorded federal tax liens. An unsuccessful effort was made, reflected in the House version of the proposed § 6323, expressly to exclude “artificial” judgment creditors like the trustee in bankruptcy. At conference, the House conferees acceded to the views of the Senate, which deemed it “advisable to continue to rely upon judicial interpretation of existing law instead of attempting to prescribe specific statutory rules.” The Government suggests that the “existing law” sought to be preserved was this Court’s decision in Gilbert. But as of the date of the 1954 amendments, Gilbert had not yet been applied by any court to displace the rights of the trustee in bankruptcy as against an unrecorded federal tax lien. So far as that- issue is concerned, it is more likely that reference to “existing law” was to the specific and then unchallenged rule announced by the Second Circuit in United States v. Sands, supra, and by other courts in other cases holding the trustee to have the rights of a judgment creditor. As we have already noted, Gilbert is not inconsistent with the rule announced in Sands.
In recent years, and since the view began to spread that Gilbert compelled exclusion of the trustee from the benefits of § 6323, legislation has' been introduced expressly to reiterate the trustee’s power to upset unrecorded federal tax liens. Such legislation was proposed not to alter the statutory scheme, but to remove what was thought to be an erroneous gloss placed upon it by the courts. Thus, both Senate and House committee reports accompanying a recent bill, H. R. 394, 88th Cong., reflect the belief that those decisions upon which the Government now relies “would appear to be contrary to the legislative purpose which gave the trustee all the rights of an ideal judicial lien creditor.”
In light of these legislative materials — the adoption of the phrase “judgment creditor” in both statutes, the legislative broadening of § 70c in 1950, and the expressions of congressional discontent with recent decisions excluding the trustee from § 6323 — we are persuaded that, read together, § 6323 and § 70c entitle the trustee to prevail over unrecorded federal tax liens.
The Government seeks to ward off this result with the argument that so to read the statutes is to confer upon certain classes of creditors “windfalls” unwarranted by the equities of their situation. The question may, however, be stated less invidiously than the argument indicates: it is whether the Government, unlike other creditors, and contrary to the general policy against secret liens, should be given advantage of a lien which it has not recorded as of the date of bankruptcy. It is true that the consequence of depriving the United States of claimed priority for its secret lien is to improve the relative position of creditors — if there are any not already protected by § 6323 — whose security was obtained subsequent to the Government’s lien and who, once the federal lien is invalidated, have a prior claim to the secured assets. And our decision will enhance the possibility that there will be something in the bankrupt’s estate for those claimants whose priorities are higher than that afforded unsecured tax claims, as well as for state and local tax claims which share with the Federal Government the priority in § 64a (4), 11 U. S. C. §104 (a)(4). Whether this result is inadvisable need not detain us, for the question is one of policy which in our view has been decided by Congress in favor of the trustee. In any event, it is possible for the Government in cases which it deems appropriate, to avoid a result which it regards with unhappiness by promptly filing notice of its lien. Should experience indicate that in-elusion of the trustee within § 6323 is inadvisable, the fact will not be lost upon Congress.
The Government advances one last and quite novel argument predicated upon § 67b of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 107 (b) (1964 ed.), which provides:
“The provisions of section 60 of this Act to the contrary notwithstanding, statutory liens [including those] for taxes and debts owing to the United States or to any State or any subdivision thereof . . . may be valid against the trustee, even though arising or perfected while the debtor is insolvent and within four months prior to the filing of the petition .... Where by such laws such liens are required to be perfected and arise but are not perfected before bankruptcy, they may nevertheless be valid, if perfected within the time permitted by and in accordance with the requirements of such laws . . . .”
The contention is that the lower court’s reading of § 70c and § 6323 cannot be correct, for it precludes the possibility which appears to be contemplated by § 67b — that a federal tax lien not perfected until after bankruptcy may nevertheless be “valid against the trustee.” We find no such inconsistency. The purpose of § 67b, insofar as tax claims are concerned, is to protect them from §60, 11 U. S. C. §96 (1964 ed.), which permits the trustee to avoid transfers made within four months of bankruptcy. Thus § 67b permits an otherwise inchoate federal tax claim to be “perfected” by assessment and demand within the four months prior to bankruptcy or afterwards. It does not nullify or purport to nullify the consequences which flow from the Government’s failure to file its perfected lien prior to the date when the trustee’s rights as a statutory judgment creditor attach — namely, on filing of the petition in bankruptcy. There is no indication in the language of § 67b, in the legislative history, or in decisions of any court, that the subsection was intended to affect the construction or application of § 6323. In any event, we should hesitate to read § 67b as relevant to the relationship between § 70c and § 6323, for Congress in the very legislation proposed to clarify the trustee’s rights under § 6323 did consider § 67b, and evidenced no awareness of interrelationship or of inconsistency.
Affirmed.
26 U. S. C. §6321 (1964 ed.) provides: “If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.”
26 U. S. C. § 6322 (1964 ed.) provides: “Unless another date is specifically fixed by law, the lien imposed by section 6321 shall arise at the time the assessment is made and shall continue until the liability for the amount so assessed is satisfied or becomes unenforceable by reason of lapse of time.”
In its brief in the Court of Appeals the Government for the first time stated that notice of the lien was in fact filed with the Recorder on February 9, 1961. The statement in the referee’s certificate that notice of the lien was never filed was not controverted in the District Court and, as respondent contends, there is no proof of the February filing in the record.
See §§ 64a (1)-(3), 11 U. S. C. §§ 104 (a) (1)-(3) (1964 ed.). Secured creditors, including those whose security was obtained subsequent to creation of the Government’s lien, would have recourse to their security before any of the Bankruptcy Act priorities come into play. Goggin v. California Labor Div., 336 U. S. 118; City of Richmond v. Bird, 249 U. S. 174. Administrative expenses and wage claims precede all other statutory liens on personal property not accompanied by possession if not enforced by sale prior to bankruptcy. § 67c, 11 U. S. C. § 107 (c) (1964 ed.); Goggin, supra, 126-130.
See Brust v. Sturr, 237 F. 2d 135 (C. A. 2d Cir.); In re Fidelity Tube Corp., 278 F. 2d 776 (C. A. 3d Cir.) (Kalodner and Hastie, JJ., dissenting), cert. denied sub nom. Borough of East Newark v. United States, 364 U. S. 828; Simonson v. Granquist, 287 F. 2d 489 (C. A. 9th Cir.) (Hamley, J., expressing contrary views), rev’d on other grounds, 369 U. S. 38. See also United States v. England, 226 F. 2d 205 (C. A. 9th Cir.); In re Taylorcraft Aviation Corp., 168 F. 2d 808, 810 (C. A. 6th Cir.) (dictum).
345 U. S., at 363, quoting from Petition of Gilbert Associates, Inc., 97 N. H. 411, 414, 90 A. 2d 499, 502.
The Government's brief also emphasized this concern for uniformity in administration of the federal tax laws. See brief for petitioner in Gilbert, No. 440, 1952 Term, pp. 22-24, where the Government argued: “Congress did not intend to subordinate federal tax liens to local tax liens merely because by state statute or state court decisions the local tax assessments are for local purposes denominated ‘judgments’.... Moreover, in holding that under our ‘decisions’ and in ‘this jurisdiction’ the Town’s tax assessments are ‘judgments,’ the court below failed to give sufficient heed to the repeated declarations of this Court that the federal revenue laws should be interpreted ‘so as to give a uniform application to a nationwide scheme of taxation,’ and hence their provisions are not to be deemed subject to state law unless the language of the section involved, expresslj- or by nécessary implication, so requires.”
The Act of June 25, 1910, c. 412, 36 Stat. 840, § 8, provided in part: ‘‘such trustees, as to all property in the custody or coming into the custody of the bankruptcy court, shall be deemed vested with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a creditor holding a lien by legal or equitable proceedings thereon; and also, as to all property not in the custody of the bankruptcy court, shall be deemed vested with all the rights, remedies, and powers of a judgment creditor holding an execution duly returned unsatisfied.”
Act of March 4, 1913, c. 166, 37 Stat. 1016.
Act of March 18, 1950, c. 70, §2, 64 Stat. 26, now 11 U. S. C. §110 (c) (1964 ed.). Prior to the amendment, § 70c characterized the trustee as a lien holder as to property in the court’s possession or control and as a “judgment creditor” as to property not so reduced to possession. See n. 7, supra; Lewis v. Manufacturers National Bank, 364 U. S. 603, 605-606.
Act of March 18, 1950, c. 70, § 1, 64 Stat. 25, now 11 U. S. C. §96 (a)(4) (1964 ed.). See 4 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 70.49, n. 3, at 1415 (1964 ed.).
See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 745, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., to accompany H. R. 7242, p. 10: “As a matter of general law the holder of a lien by legal proceedings has greater rights than a judgment creditor .... It would seem anomalous to allow judgment creditors to prevail over secret tax liens and to deny that- right to a judicial lien holder.”
H. R. Rep. No. 1293, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., to accompany S. 88, p. 7. That this was the tenor of the amendment is generally conceded. See, e. g., In re Fidelity Tube Corp., 278 F. 2d 776, 781, 786-787 (both majority and dissenting opinions); 4 Collier, op. cit. supra, at 1415; Seligson, Creditors’ Rights, 32 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 708, 710 (1957).
The proposed legislation was to make clear that “such protection is not extended to a judgment creditor who does not have a valid judgment obtained in a court of record and of competent jurisdiction” and that “particular persons shall not be treated as judgment creditors because State or Federal law artificially provides or concedes such persons rights or privileges of judgment creditors, or even designates them as such, when they have not actually ob-tamed a judgment in the conventional sense.” H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., to accompany H. R. 8300, p. A407. See Treas. Reg. on Procedure and Administration (1954 Code) § 301.6323-1 (26 CFR §301.6323-1), incorporating the material rejected by the Eighty-third Congress.
. S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., to accompany H. R. 8300, p. 575; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2543, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., to accompany H. R. 8300, p. 78.
. E. g., Sampsell v. Straub, 194 F. 2d 228, 231 (C. A. 9th Cir.), cert. denied, 343 U. S. 927; McKay v. Trusco Finance Co., 198 F. 2d 431, 433 (C. A. 5th Cir.); In re Lustron Corp., 184 F. 2d 789 (C. A. 7th Cir.), cert denied sub nom. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Lustron Corp., 340 U. S. 946.
. On two occasions the proposed legislation was approved by the appropriate House and Senate committees, and one bill received the assent of both Houses. See H. R. 7242, 86th Cong., § 6, vetoed by President on September 8, 1960, 106 Cong. Rec. 19168; H. R. 394, 88th Cong., § 6; H. R. 136, 89th Cong., § 6.
H. R. Rep. No. 454, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 10; S. Rep. No. 1133, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 11.
In enacting the predecessor of § 6323 in 1913, Congress seems generally to have answered this question in the negative — and against secret liens. See H. R. Rep. No. 1018, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1-2.
See §§ 64a (1) — (3), 11 U. S. C. §§ 104 (a) (l)-(3), giving priority to claims for administrative expenses, wages, and certain creditors’ expenses. The claims of general creditors are, of course, in no way affected by our decision. And in some circumstances administrative expense and wage claimants would in any case prevail over the Government’s lien. See n. 3, swpra.
We note that failure of the Government to record its lien may work a hardship upon persons subsequently extending credit in ignorance of the unrecorded lien, and that nondisclosure may induce others to incur administrative or other expenses which they would not incur if there were no hope of repayment. Moreover, state and local governments might reduce their claims to judgment if they knew of the existence of a federal lien. See Memorandum of Chairman, Drafting Committee of National Bankruptcy Conference, contained in S. Rep. No. 1133, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., to accompany H. R. 394, pp. 24-25.
In its letter to Senator Eastland opposing H. R. 394, dated September 8, 1961, the Treasury asserted that “The Service has, as a matter of administrative practice, exercised forbearance as a creditor in cases when there exists a reasonable possibility that the business can regain financial stability. Enactment of the proposed amendments . . . could well force the service to change this practice, which it is believed has been proved by experience to be highly desirable.” S. Rep. No. 1133, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 18. This same argument was made to an earlier Congress and rejected. See letter from Treasury, dated Aug. 9, 1960, in opposition to H. R. 7242, contained in S. Rep. No. 1871, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 36.
In the Court of Appeals the Government advanced, as an alternative basis for disposition of the case, the contention that pursuant to § 67b the alleged filing of notice in February of 1961 retroactively validated the lien as against the trustee. The court declined to reach the merits of this claim, noting that it had not been presented either to the referee or to the District Court and that there was no proof of record with respect to the alleged February filing. 336 F. 2d, at 314.
The § 67b argument raised in this Court differs from that rejected below, for that subsection is now cited to us as an aid in construing the relationship between § 70c and § 6323. Insofar as it is relevant to the particular problem of statutory construction presented by this case, we regard the § 67b argument as properly before us, for “Where the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes every thing from which aid can be derived.” United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (Marshall, C. J.). See also United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219; Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner, 308 U. S. 39, 42-44; United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 429 (C. A. 2d Cir.) (L. Hand, J.).
See Simonson v. Granquist, 369 U. S. 38, 41; 4 Collier, op. cit. supra, ¶ 67.20, at 183; cf. Lewis v. Manufacturers National Bank, supra, at 609.
4 Collier, op. cit. supra, ¶ 67.26, at 283-286, and ¶ 70.48, at 1407.
See legislative materials cited at notes 11, 16, and 17, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease presents the question whether Congress stripped the State of Hawaii of its authority to alienate its sovereign territory by passing a joint resolution to apologize for the role that the United States played in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy in the late 19th century. Relying on Congress’ joint resolution, the Supreme Court of Hawaii permanently enjoined the State from alienating certain of its lands, pending resolution of native Hawaiians’ land claims that the court described as “unrelinquished.” We reverse.
I
A
In 1893, “[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawaii, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.” Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U. S. 495, 504-505 (2000). “That government sought annexation by the United States,” id., at 505, which the United States granted, see Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, No. 55, 30 Stat. 750 (hereinafter Newlands Resolution). Pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawaii “cede[d] absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind” and further “cede[d] and transfer[red] to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining” (hereinafter ceded lands). Ibid. The Newlands Resolution further provided that all “property and rights” in the ceded lands “are vested in the United States of America.” Ibid.
Two years later, Congress established a government for the Territory of Hawaii. See Act of Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, 31 Stat. 141 (hereinafter Organic Act). The Organic Act reiterated the Newlands Resolution and made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in “absolute fee” under that resolution. See §2, ibid. The Organic Act further provided:
“[T]he portion of the public domain heretofore known as Crown land is hereby declared to have been, on [the effective date of the Newlands Resolution], and prior thereto, the property of the Hawaiian government, and to be free and clear from any trust of or concerning the same, and from all claim of any nature whatsoever, upon the rents, issues, and profits thereof. It shall be subject to alienation and other uses as may be provided by law.” § 99, id., at 161; see also § 91, id., at 159.
In 1959, Congress admitted Hawaii to the Union. See Pub. L. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4 (hereinafter Admission Act). Under the Admission Act, with exceptions not relevant here, “the United States grant[ed] to the State of Hawaii, effective upon its admission into the Union, the United States’ title to all the public lands and other public property within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.” §5(b), id., at 5. These lands, “together with the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of [these] lands and the income therefrom, shall be held by [the] State as a public trust” to promote various public purposes, including supporting public education, bettering conditions of native Hawaiians, developing home ownership, making public improvements, and providing lands for public use. § 5(f), id., at 6. Hawaii state law also authorizes the State to use or sell the ceded lands, provided that the proceeds are held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of Hawaii. See, e. g., Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 171-45, 171-18 (1993).
In 1993, Congress enacted a joint resolution “to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians.” Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Pub. L. 103-150, 107 Stat. 1513 (hereinafter Apology Resolution). In a series of the preambular “whereas” clauses, Congress made various observations about Hawaii’s history. For example, the Apology Resolution states that “the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims ... over their national lands to the United States” and that “the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land.” Id., at 1512. In the same vein, the Apology Resolution’s only substantive section — entitled “Acknowledgement and Apology” — states that Congress:
“(1) . . . acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;
“(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
“(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17,1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
“(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
“(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.” Id., at 1513.
Finally, § 3 of the Apology Resolution states that “[n]othing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.” Id., at 1514.
B
This suit involves a tract of former crown land on Maui, now known as the “Leiali’i parcel,” that was ceded in “absolute fee” to the United States at annexation and has been held by the State since 1959 as part of the trust established by § 5(f) of the Admission Act. The Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) — Hawaii's affordable housing agency — received approval to remove the Leiali’i parcel from the §5(f) trust and redevelop it. In order to transfer the Leiali’i parcel out of the public trust, HFDC was required to compensate respondent Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), which was established to receive and manage funds from the use or sale of the ceded lands for the benefit of native Hawaiians. Haw. Const., Art. XII, §§4-6.
In this case, however, OHA demanded more than monetary compensation. Relying on the Apology Resolution, respondent OHA demanded that HFDC include a disclaimer preserving any native Hawaiian claims to ownership of lands transferred from the public trust for redevelopment. HFDC declined to include the requested disclaimer because “to do so would place a cloud on title, rendering title insurance unavailable.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 207a.
Again relying on the Apology Resolution, respondents then sued the State, its Governor, HFDC (since renamed), and its officials. Respondents sought “to enjoin the defendants from selling or otherwise transferring the Leiali’i parcel to third parties and selling or otherwise transferring to third parties any of the ceded lands in general until a determination of the native Hawaiians’ claims to the ceded lands is made.” Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii, 117 Haw. 174, 189, 177 P. 3d 884, 899 (2008). Respondents “alleged that an injunction was proper because, in light of the Apology Resolution, any transfer of ceded lands by the State to third-parties would amount to a breach of trust. . . .” Id., at 188, 177 P. 3d, at 898.
The state trial court entered judgment against respondents, but the Supreme Court of Hawaii vacated the lower court’s ruling. Relying on a “plain reading of the Apology Resolution,” which “dictate[d]” its conclusion, id., at 212, 177 R 3d, at 922, the State Supreme Court ordered “an injunction against the defendants from selling or otherwise transferring to third parties (1) the Leiali’i parcel and (2) any other ceded lands from the public lands trust until the claims of the native Hawaiians to the ceded lands have been resolved,” id., at 218, 177 P. 3d, at 928. In doing so, the court rejected petitioners’ argument that “the State has the undoubted and explicit power to sell ceded lands pursuant to the terms of the Admission Act and pursuant to state law.” Id., at 211, 177 P. 3d, at 921 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We granted certiorari. 554 U. S. 944 (2008).
II
Before turning to the merits, we first must address our jurisdiction. According to respondents, the Supreme Court of Hawaii “merely held that, in light of the ongoing reconciliation process, the sale of ceded lands would constitute a breach of the State’s fiduciary duty to Native Hawaiians under state law.” Brief for Respondents 17. Because respondents believe that this case does not raise a federal question, they urge us to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Although respondents dwell at length on that argument, see id., at 19-34, we need not tarry long to reject it. This Court has jurisdiction whenever “a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1040-1041 (1983). Far from providing a “plain statement” that its decision rested on state law, id., at 1041, the State Supreme Court plainly held that its decision was “dictatefd]” by federal law — in particular, the Apology Resolution, see 117 Haw., at 212, 177 P. 3d, at 922. Indeed, the court explained that the Apology Resolution lies “[a]t the heart of [respondents’] claims,” that respondents’ “current claim for injunctive relief is ... based largely upon the Apology Resolution,” and that respondents’ arguments presuppose that the Apology Resolution “changed the legal landscape and restructured the rights and obligations of the State.” Id., at 189-190, 177 P. 3d, at 899-900 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court noted that “[t]he primary question before this court on appeal is whether, in light of the Apology Resolution, this court should issue an injunction” against sale of the trust lands, id., at 210, 177 P. 3d, at 920, and it concluded, “[b]ased on a plain reading” of the Apology Resolution, that “Congress has clearly recognized that the native Hawaiian people have unrelinquished claims over the ceded lands,” id., at 191, 177 P. 3d, at 901.
Based on these and the remainder of the State Supreme Court’s 77 references to the Apology Resolution, we have no doubt that the decision below rested on federal law. We are therefore satisfied that this Court has jurisdiction. See 28 U. S. C. § 1257.
Ill
Turning to the merits, we must decide whether the Apology Resolution “strips Hawaii of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer,” Pet. for Cert, i, the lands that the United States held in “absolute fee,” 30 Stat. 750, and “grant[ed] to the State of Hawaii, effective upon its admission into the Union,” 73 Stat. 5. We conclude that the Apology Resolution has no such effect.
A
“We begin, as always, with the text of the statute.” Permanent Mission of India to United Nations v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193, 197 (2007). The Apology Resolution contains two substantive provisions. See 107 Stat. 1513-1514. Neither justifies the judgment below.
The Apology Resolution’s first substantive provision uses six verbs, all of which are conciliatory or precatory. Specifically, Congress “aeknowledge[d] the historical significance” of the Hawaiian monarchy’s overthrow, “recognize[d] and commend[ed] efforts of reconciliation” with native Hawaiians, “apologize[d] to [njative Hawaiians” for the monarchy’s overthrow, “expresse[d] [Congress’] commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow,” and “urge[d] the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow . .. .” §1. Such terms are not the kind that Congress uses to create substantive rights — especially those that are enforceable against the co-sovereign States. See, e.g., Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17-18 (1981).
The Apology Resolution’s second and final substantive provision is a disclaimer, which provides: “Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.” §3. By its terms, §3 speaks only to those who may or may not have “claims against the United States.” The court below, however, held that the only way to save §3 from superfluity is to construe it as a congressional recognition — and preservation — of claims against Hawaii and as “the foundation (or starting point) for reconciliation” between the State and native Hawaiians. 117 Haw., at 192,177 P. 3d, at 902.
“We must have regard to all the words used by Congress, and as far as possible give effect to them,” Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, 475 (1911), but that maxim is not a judicial license to turn an irrelevant statutory provision into a relevant one. And we know of no justification for turning an express disclaimer of claims against one sovereign into an affirmative recognition of claims against another. Cf. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U. S. 438, 457 (2009) (“Two wrong claims do not make one that is right”). The Supreme Court of Hawaii erred in reading § 3 as recognizing claims inconsistent with the title held in “absolute fee” by the United States, 30 Stat. 750, and conveyed to the State of Hawaii at statehood. See supra, at 167-168.
B
Rather than focusing on the operative words of the law, the court below directed its attention to the 37 “whereas” clauses that preface the Apology Resolution. See 107 Stat. 1510-1513. “Based on a plain reading of” the “whereas” clauses, the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that “Congress has clearly recognized that the native Hawaiian people have unrelinquished claims over the ceded lands.” 117 Haw., at 191, 177 P. 3d, at 901. That conclusion is wrong for at least three reasons.
First, “whereas” clauses like those in the Apology Resolution cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them. As we recently explained in a different context, “where the text of a clause itself indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as ‘whereas’ clauses in federal legislation . . . , a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 578, n. 3 (2008). See also Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Thomas, 132 U. S. 174, 188 (1889) (“[A]s the preamble is no part of the act, and cannot enlarge or confer powers, nor control the words of the act, unless they are doubtful or ambiguous, the necessity of resorting to it to assist in ascertaining the true intent and meaning of the legislature is in itself fatal to the claim set up”).
Second, even if the “whereas” clauses had some legal effect, they did not “chang[e] the legal landscape and restructure] the rights and obligations of the State.” 117 Haw., at 190, 177 P. 3d, at 900. As we have emphasized, “repeals by implication are not favored and will not be presumed unless the intention of the legislature to repeal [is] clear and manifest.” National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U. S. 644, 662 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Apology Resolution reveals no indication— much less a “clear and manifest” one — that Congress intended to amend or repeal the State’s rights and obligations under the Admission Act (or any other federal law); nor does the Apology Resolution reveal any evidence that Congress intended sub silentio to “cloud” the title that the United States held in “absolute fee” and transferred to the State in 1959. On that score, we find it telling that even respondent OHA has now abandoned its argument, made below, that “Congress ... enacted the Apology Resolution and thus ... changefd]” the Admission Act. App. 114a; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 31, 37-38.
Third, the Apology Resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to “cloud” Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union. We have emphasized that “Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State.” Idaho v. United States, 533 U. S. 262, 280, n. 9 (2001) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); see also id., at 284 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting) (“[T]he consequences of admission are instantaneous, and it ignores the uniquely sovereign character of that event... to suggest that subsequent events somehow can diminish what has already been bestowed”). And that proposition applies a fortiori where virtually all of the State’s public lands — not just its submerged ones — are at stake. In light of those concerns, we must not read the Apology Resolution’s nonsubstantive “whereas” clauses to create a retroactive “cloud” on the title that Congress granted to the State of Hawaii in 1959. See, e. g., Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 381-382 (2005) (the canon of constitutional avoidance “is a tool for choosing between competing plausible interpretations of a statutory text, resting on the reasonable presumption that Congress did not intend the alternative which raises serious constitutional doubts”).
* * *
When a state supreme court incorrectly bases a decision on federal law, the court’s decision improperly prevents the citizens of the State from addressing the issue in question through the processes provided by the State’s constitution. Here, the State Supreme Court incorrectly held that Congress, by adopting the Apology Resolution, took away from the citizens of Hawaii the authority to resolve an issue that is of great importance to the people of the State. Respondents defend that decision by arguing that they have both state-law property rights in the land in question and “broader moral and political claims for compensation for the wrongs of the past.” Brief for Respondents 18. But we have no authority to decide questions of Hawaiian law or to provide redress for past wrongs except as provided for by federal law. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“Crown lands” were lands formerly held by the Hawaiian monarchy. “Public” and “Government” lands were other lands held by the Hawaiian government.
Respondents argue that the Supreme Court of Hawaii relied on the Apology Resolution “simply to support its factual determination that Native Hawaiians have unresolved claims to the ceded lands.” Brief for Respondents 21. Regardless of its factual determinations, however, the lower court’s legal conclusions were, at the very least, “interwoven with the federal law.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1040 (1983). See 117 Haw. 174, 217, 218, 177 P. 3d 884, 927, 928 (2008) (“hold[ing]” that respondents' legal claim “arose” only when “the Apology Resolution was signed into law on November 23, 1993”); id, at 211, n. 25, 177 P. 3d, at 921, n. 25 (emphasizing that “our holding is grounded in Hawai'i and federal law”). See also n. 4, infra.
The Apology Resolution’s operative provisions thus stand in sharp contrast with those of other “apologies,” which Congress intended to have substantive effect. See, e. g., Civil Liberties Act of 1988,102 Stat. 903,50 U. S. C. App. § 1989 (2000 ed.) (acknowledging and apologizing “for the evacuation, relocation and internment” of Japanese citizens during World War II and providing $20,000 in restitution to each eligible individual); Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, 104 Stat. 920, notes following 42 U. S. C. § 2210 (2000 ed. and Supp. V) (“apologizing] on behalf of the Nation ... for the hardships” endured by those exposed to radiation from above-ground nuclear testing facilities and providing $100,000 in compensation to each eligible individual).
The court below held that respondents “prevailed on the merits” by showing that “Congress has clearly recognized that the native Hawaiian people have unrelinquished claims over the ceded lands, which were taken without consent or compensation and which the native Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations.” 117 Haw., at 212, 177 P. 3d, at 922. And it further held that petitioners failed to show that the State has the “power to sell ceded lands pursuant to the terms of the Admission Act.” Id., at 211, 177 P. 3d, at 921 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Respondents now insist, however, that their claims are “nonjustidable” to the extent that they are grounded on “broader moral and political” bases. Brief for Respondents 18. No matter how respondents characterize their claims, it is undeniable that they have asserted title to the ceded lands throughout this litigation, see id., at 40, n. 15 (conceding the point), and it is undeniable that the Supreme Court of Hawaii relied on those claims in issuing an injunction, which is a legal (and hence justidable) remedy — not a moral, political, or nonjustidable one.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
M
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 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 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act) generally requires employers to pay their employees for overtime work at a rate of IV2 times the employees’ regular wages. In 1985, Congress amended the FLSA to provide a limited exception to this rule for state and local governmental agencies. Under the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1985 (1985 Amendments), public employers may compensate employees who work overtime with extra time off instead of overtime pay in certain circumstances. The question in this case is whether a public employer in a State that prohibits public sector collective bargaining may take advantage of that exception when its employees have designated a union representative.
Because the text of the 1985 Amendments provides the framework for our entire analysis, we quote the most relevant portion at the outset. Subsection 7(o)(2)(A) states:
“(2) A public agency may provide compensatory time [in lieu of overtime pay] only—
“(A) pursuant to—
“(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any other agreement between the public agency and representatives of such employees; or
“(ii) in the case of employees not covered by sub-clause (i), an agreement or understanding arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work----”
Petitioners are a group of employees who sought, unsuccessfully, to negotiate a collective FLSA compensatory time agreement by way of a designated representative. The narrow question dispositive here is whether petitioners are “employees not covered by subclause (i)” within the meaning of subclause (ii), so that their employer may provide compensatory time pursuant to individual agreements under the second subclause.
X
Congress enacted the FLSA in 1938 to establish nationwide minimum wage and maximum hours standards. Section 7 of the Act encourages compliance with maximum hours standards by providing that employees generally must be paid on a time-and-one-half basis for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
Amendments to the Act in 1966 and 1974 extended its coverage to most public employers, and gave rise to a series of eases questioning the power of Congress to regulate the compensation of state and local employees. Following our decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985), upholding that power, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it would hold public employers to the standards of the Act effective April 15, 1985.
In response to the Garcia decision and the DOL announcement, both Houses of Congress held hearings and considered legislation designed to ameliorate the burdens associated with necessary changes in public employment practices. The projected “financial costs of coming into compliance with the FLSA — particularly the overtime provisions” — were specifically identified as a matter of grave concern to many States and localities. S. Rep. No. 99-159, p. 8 (1985). The statutory provision at issue in this ease is the product of those deliberations.
In its Report recommending enactment of the 1985 Amendments, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources explained that the new subsection 7(o) would allow public employers to compensate for overtime hours with compensatory time off, or “comp time,” in lieu of overtime pay, so long as certain conditions were met: The provision of comp time must be at the premium rate of not less than IV2 hours per hour of overtime work, and must be pursuant to an agreement reached prior to performance of the work. Id., at 10-11. With respect to the nature of the necessary agreement, the issue raised in this case, the Committee stated: “Where employees have a recognized representative, the agreement or understanding must be between that representative and the employer, either through collective bargaining or through a memorandum of understanding or other type of agreement.” Id., at 10.
The House Committee on Education and Labor was in substantial agreement with the Senate Committee as to the conditions under which comp time could be made available. See H. R. Rep. No. 99-331, p. 20 (1985). On the question of subsection 7(o)’s agreement requirement, the House Committee expressed an understanding similar to the Senate Committee’s: “Where employees have selected a representative, which need not be a formal or recognized collective bargaining agent as long as it is a representative designated by the employees, the agreement or understanding must be between the representative and the employer ....” Ibid.
Where the Senate and House Committee Reports differ is in their description of the “representative” who, once designated, would require that compensatory time be provided only pursuant to an agreement between that representative and the employer. While the Senate Report refers to a “recognized” representative, the House Report states that the representative “need not be a formal or recognized collective bargaining agent.” Swpm this page. The Conference Report does not comment on this difference, see H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 99-357 (1985), and the 1985 Amendments as finally enacted do not adopt the precise language of either Committee Report.
The issue is addressed, however, by the Secretary of Labor, in implementing regulations promulgated pursuant to express legislative direction under the 1985 Amendments. The relevant DOL regulation seems to be patterned after the House Report, providing that “the representative need not be a formal or recognized bargaining agent.” At the same time, in response to concerns expressed by the State of Missouri about the impact of the regulation in States where employee representatives have no authority to enter into enforceable agreements, the Secretary explained:
“The Department believes that the proposed rule accurately reflects the statutory requirement that a CBA [collective bargaining agreement], memorandum of understanding or other agreement be reached between the public agency and the representative of the employees where the employees have designated a representative. Where the employees do not have a representative, the agreement must be between the employer and the individual employees. The Department recognizes that there is a wide variety of State law that may be pertinent in this area. It is the Department’s intention that the question of whether employees have a representative for purposes of FLSA section 7(o) shall be determined in accordance with State or local law and practices.” 52 Fed. Reg. 2014-2015 (1987) (emphasis added).
II
Petitioner Moreau is the president of the Harris County Deputy Sheriffs Union, representing approximately 400 deputy sheriffs in this action against the county and its sheriff, respondent Klevenhagen. For several years, the union has represented Harris County deputy sheriffs in various matters, such as processing grievances and handling workers' compensation claims, but it is prohibited by Texas law from entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with the county. Accordingly, the terms and conditions of petitioners’ employment are included in individual form agreements signed by each employee. These agreements incorporate by reference the county^ regulations providing that deputies shall receive IV2 hours of compensatory time for each hour of overtime work.
Petitioners filed this action in 1986, alleging, inter alia, that the county violated the Act by paying for overtime work with comp time, rather than overtime pay, absent an agreement with their representative authorizing the substitution. Petitioners contended that they were “covered” by subclause (i) of subsection 7(o)(2)(A) by virtue of their union representation, and that the county therefore was precluded from providing comp time pursuant to individual agreements (or pre-existing practice) under subclause (ii).
The District Court disagreed and entered summary judgment for the county. The court assumed that designation of a union representative normally would establish that employees are “covered” by subelause (i), and hence render sub-clause (ii) inapplicable, but went on to hold that subelause (i) cannot apply in States, like Texas, that prohibit collective bargaining in the public sector. Merritt v. Klevenkagen, Civ. Action No. 88-1298 (SD Tex., Sept. 5, 1990), p. 5, reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 19a-20a. Reaching the same result by an alternative route, the court also reasoned that petitioners were not “covered” by subclause (i) because their union was not “ ‘recognized’ ” by the county, a requirement it grounded in the legislative history of the 1985 Amendments. Id., at 6, reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, but relied on slightly different reasoning. It seemed to agree with an Eleventh Circuit case, Dillard v. Harris, 885 F. 2d 1549 (1989), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 878 (1990), that the words “not covered” in subclause (ii) refer to the absence of an agreement rather than the absence of a representative. 956 F. 2d 516, 519-520 (CA5 1992). Under that theory, the fact that Texas law prohibits agreements between petitioners’ union and the employer means that petitioners can never be “covered” by sub-clause (i), making subelause (ii) available as an alternative vehicle for provision of comp time.
Because there is conflict among the Circuits over the scope of subelause (i)’s coverage, we granted certiorari. 506 U. S. 813 (1992).
Ill
Respondents find the language of the statute perfectly clear. In their view, subelause (ii) plainly authorizes individual agreements whenever public employees have not successfully negotiated a collective-bargaining agreement under subclause (i). Petitioners, on the other hand, contend that ambiguity in the statute itself justifies resort to its legislative history and the DOL regulations, and that these secondary sources unequivocally preclude individual comp time agreements with employees who have designated a representative. We begin our analysis with the relevant statutory text.
At least one proposition is not in dispute. Subclause (ii) authorizes individual comp time agreements only “in the case of employees not covered by subclause (i).” Our task, therefore, is to identify the class of “employees” covered by sub-clause (i). This task is complicated by the fact that sub-clause (i) does not purport to define a category of employees, as the reference in subelause (ii) suggests it would. Instead, it describes only a category of agreements — those that (a) are bargained with an employee representative, and (b) authorize the use of comp time.
Respondents read this shift in subject from “employees” in subelause (ii) to “agreement” in subclause (i) as susceptible of just one meaning: Employees are covered by subelause (i) only if they are bound by applicable provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement. Under this narrow construction, subclause (i) would not cover employees who designate a representative if that representative is unable to reach agreement with the employer, for whatever reason; such employees would remain “uncovered” and available for individual comp time agreements under subclause (ii).
We find this reading unsatisfactory. First, while the language of subclauses (i) and (ii) will bear the interpretation advanced by respondents, we cannot say that it will bear no other. Purely as a matter of grammar, subclause (ii)’s reference to “employees” remains unmodified by subclause (i)’s focus on “agreement,” and “employees . . . covered” might as easily comprehend employees with representatives as employees with agreements. See International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 2203 v. West Adams County Fire Dist., 877 F. 2d 814, 816-817, and n. 1 (CA10 1989).
Second, respondents’ reading is difficult to reconcile with the general structure of subsection 7(o). Assuming designation of an employee representative, respondents’ theory leaves it to the employer to choose whether it will proceed under subclause (i), and negotiate the terms of a collective comp time agreement with the representative, or instead proceed under subclause (ii), and deal directly with its employees on an individual basis. If the employer is free to choose the latter course (as most employers likely would), then it need only decline to negotiate with the employee representative to render subclause (i) inapplicable and authorize individual comp time agreements under subelause (ii). This permissive interpretation of subsection 7(o), however, is at odds with the limiting phrase of subelause (ii) at issue here. See supra, at 31. Had Congress intended such an open-ended authorization of the use of comp time, it surely would have said so more simply, forgoing the elaborate sub-clause structure that purports to restrict use of individual agreements to a limited class of employees. Respondents’ broad interpretation of the subsection 7(o) exception is also in some tension with the well-established rule that “exemptions from the [FLSA] are to be narrowly construed.” See, e. g., Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U. S. 290, 295-296 (1959).
At the same time, however, we find equally implausible a reading of the statutory text that would deem employees “covered” by subclause (i) whenever they select a representative, whether or not the representative has the ability to enter into the kind of agreement described in that sub-clause. If there is no possibility of reaching an agreement under subclause (i), then that subclause cannot logically be read as applicable. In other words, “employees ... covered by subclause (i)” must, at a minimum, be employees who conceivably could receive comp time pursuant to the agreement contemplated by that subclause.
The most plausible reading of the phrase “employees ... covered by subclause (i)” is, in our view, neither of the extreme alternatives described above. Rather, the phrase is most sensibly read as referring to employees who have designated a representative with the authority to negotiate and agree with their employer on “applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement” authorizing the use of comp time. This reading accords significance to both the focus on the word “agreement” in subclause (i) and the focus on “employees” in subclause (ii). It is also true to the hierarchy embodied in subsection 7(o), which favors subclause (i) agreements over individual agreements by limiting use of the latter to cases in which the former are unavailable.
This intermediate reading of the statutory text is consistent also with the DOL regulations, interpreted most reasonably. It is true that 29 CFR § 553.23(b), read in isolation, would support petitioners’ view that selection of a representative by employees — even a representative without lawful authority to bargain with the employer — is sufficient to bring the employees within the scope of subelause (i) and preclude use of subclause (ii) individual agreements. See supra, at 27, and n. 9. So interpreted, however, the regulation would prohibit entirely the use of comp time in a substantial portion of the public sector. It would also be inconsistent with the Secretary’s statement that “the question ... whether employees have a representative for purposes of FLSA section 7(o) shall be determined in accordance with State or local law and practices.” See supra, at 28. This clarification by the Secretary convinces us that when the regulations' identify selection of a representative as the condition necessary for coverage under subelause (i), they refer only to those representatives with lawful authority to negotiate agreements.
Thus, under both the statute and the DOL regulations, employees are “covered” by subclause (i) when they designate a representative who lawfully may bargain collectively on their behalf — under the statute, because such authority is necessary to reach the kind of “agreement” described in subelause (i), and under the regulation, because such authority is a condition of “representative” status for subclause (i) purposes. Because we construe the statute and regulation in harmony, we need not comment further on petitioners’ argument that the Secretary’s interpretation of the 1985 Amendments is entitled to special deference.
Petitioners in this case did not have a representative authorized by law to enter into an agreement with their employer providing for use of comp time under subclause (i). Accordingly, they were “not covered by subclause (i),” and subclause (ii) authorized the individual agreements challenged in this litigation.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
So ordered.
52 Stat. 1063, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 207(a).
The relevant portion of the 1985 Amendments, 99 Stat. 790, is codified at 29 U. S. C. §207(o). It provides:
Ҥ207. Maximum hours.
“(1) Employees of a public agency which is a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency may receive, in accordance with this subsection and in lieu of overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.
“(2) A public agency may provide compensatory time under paragraph (1) only—
“(A) pursuant to—
“(i) applicable provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, memorandum of understanding, or any other agreement between the public agency and representatives of such employees; or
“(ii) in the case of employees not covered by subclause (i), an agreement or understanding arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work; and
“(B) if the employee has not accrued compensatory time in excess of the limit applicable to the employee prescribed by paragraph (3).
“In the case of employees described in clause (A)(ii) hired prior to April 15, 1986, the regular practice in effect on April 15, 1986, with respect to compensatory time off for such employees in lieu of the receipt of overtime compensation, shall constitute an agreement or understanding under such clause (A)(ii). Except as provided in the previous sentence, the provision of compensatory time off to such employees for hours worked after April 14,1986, shall be in accordance with this subsection.”
29 U. S. C. § 207(a).
Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966, §§ 102(a) and (b), 80 Stat. 830, 29 U. S. C. §§ 203(d) and (r).
Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, §§ 6(a)(1) and (6), 88 Stat. 58, 60, 29 U. S. C. §§ 203(d) and (x).
Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183 (1968); Fry v. United States, 421 U. S. 542 (1975); National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833 (1976); Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985).
See S. Rep. No. 99-159, p. 7 (1985). The Department of Labor also announced that it would delay enforcement activities until October 15, 1985; that date was later extended to November 1, 1985. Ibid.
99 Stat. 790, §6, 29 U. S. C. §203.
“(b) Agreement or understanding between the public agency and a representative of the employees. (1) Where employees have a representative, the agreement or understanding concerning the use of compensatory time must be between the representative and the public agency either through a collective bargaining agreement or through a memorandum of understanding or other type of oral or written agreement. In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement applicable to the employees, the representative need not be a formal or recognized bargaining agent as long as the representative is designated by the employees. Any agreement must be consistent with the provisions of section 7(o) of the Act.” 29 CFR § 553.23(b) (1992).
As the Court of Appeals stated: “Tex. Rev. Crv. Stat. Ann. art. 5154c prohibits any political subdivision from entering into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor organization unless the political subdivision has adopted the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act. Harris County has not adopted that Act; thus, under article 5154c the County has no authority to bargain with the Union.” 956 F. 2d 516, 519 (CA5 1992). The court went on to clarify that “Texas law prohibits any bilateral agreement between a city and a bargaining agent, whether the agreement is labeled a collective bargaining agreement or something else. Under Texas law, the County could not enter into any agreement with the Union.” Id., at 520 (emphasis in original).
The District Court interpreted Texas law the same way. Merritt v. Klevenkagen, Civ. Action No. 88-1298 (SD Tex., Sept. 5, 1990), pp. 3-4, reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. Our decision is premised on the normal assumption that the Court of Appeals and the District Court have correctly construed the relevant rules of Texas law. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346, and n. 10 (1976) (citing cases).
Merritt, Civ. Action No. 88-1298, p. 2, reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the county on two additional claims: that the county failed to include longevity pay in its overtime pay calculations, and that the county excluded nonmandated firearms qualification time from the calculation of number of hours worked. The Court of Appeals affirmed with respect to the former and remanded for further proceedings with respect to the latter claim. 956 F. 2d, at 520-523. Neither claim is before us today.
Respondents in this ease sought to provide comp time pursuant to both a “regular practice in effect on April 15, 1986,” for deputies hired before that date, and individual agreements, for deputies hired later. Merritt, Civ. Action No. 88-1298, p. 2, reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a. Like subelause (ii) individual agreements, “regular practice” is available as an option only for employees “not covered by subelause (i).” 29 U. S. C. § 207(o)(2); n. 2, supra. Accordingly, our analysis is the same with respect to both forms of agreement, and we refer to them here collectively as individual agreements.
See, e. g., International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 2203 v. West Adams County Fire Dist., 877 F. 2d 814 (CA10 1989) (employees covered by subclause (i) upon designation of representative); Abbott v. Virginia Beach, 879 F. 2d 132 (CA4 1989) (employees covered by subclause (i) upon designation of recognized representative), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 1051 (1990); Dillard v. Harris, 885 F. 2d 1549 (CA11 1989) (employees covered by subelause (i) upon entry of agreement regarding compensatory time), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 878 (1990); Nevada Highway Patrol Assn. v. Nevada, 899 F. 2d 1549 (CA9 1990) (employees covered by subclause (i) upon designation of representative unless state law prohibits public sector collective bargaining).
For discussion of the division in the Courts of Appeals, see generally Note, The Public Sector Compensatory Time Exception to the Fair Labor Standards Act: Trying to Compensate for Congress's Lack of Clarity, 75 Minn. L. Rev. 1807 (1991).
Indeed, even an employer who is party to a collective-bargaining agreement with its employees may be permitted to take advantage of subelause (ii) under respondents’ construction. Because subclause (i) describes only those agreements that authorize the use of comp time, see supra, at 31-32, a collective-bargaining agreement silent on the subject, or even one prohibiting use of comp time altogether, would not constitute a subclause (i) agreement. Accordingly, employees bound by such an agreement would not be “covered by subelause (i)” under respondents’ theory, and their employer would be free to provide comp time instead of overtime pay pursuant to individual employee agreements.
So read, we do not understand subsection 7(o) to impose any new burden upon a public employer to bargain collectively with its employees. Subsection 7(o) is, after ail, an exception to the general FLSA rule mandating overtime pay for overtime work, and employers may take advantage of the benefits it offers “only” pursuant to certain conditions set forth by Congress. 29 U. S. C. § 207(b)(2); see n. 2, supra. Once its employees designate a representative authorized to engage in collective bargaining, an employer is entitled to take advantage of those benefits if it reaches a comp time agreement with the representative. It is also free, of course, to forgo collective bargaining altogether; if it so chooses, it remains in precisely the same position as any other employer subject to the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA.
Accordingly, public employers need not fear that they will find themselves dealing with a different representative for each employee, should each of their employees choose to seleet his or her own representative. See Brief for the National Association of Counties et al. as Amici Curiae 17. Unless such individual designations were “in accordance with State or local law and practices,” the designees would not be “representatives” for purposes of subclause (i).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of California under an eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, in violation of a federal statute. At trial the Government was permitted, over the petitioner’s objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner’s end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls. In affirming his conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because “[tjhere was no physical entrance into the area occupied by [the petitioner].” We granted certiorari in order to consider the constitutional questions thus presented.
The petitioner has phrased those questions as follows:
“A. Whether a public telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area so that evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening recording device to the top of such a booth is obtained in violation of the right to privacy of the user of the booth.
“B. Whether physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is necessary before a search and seizure can be said to be violative of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
We decline to adopt this formulation of the issues. In the first place, the correct solution of Fourth Amendment problems is not necessarily promoted by incantation of the phrase “constitutionally protected area.” Secondly, the Fourth Amendment cannot be translated into a general constitutional “right to privacy.” That Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. But the protection of a person’s general right to privacy— his right to be let alone by other people — is, like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States.
Because of the misleading way the issues have been formulated, the parties have attached great significance to the characterization of the telephone booth from which the petitioner placed his calls. The petitioner has strenuously argued that the booth was a “constitutionally protected area.” The Government has maintained with equal vigor that it was not. But this effort to decide whether or not a given “area,” viewed in the abstract, is “constitutionally protected” deflects attention from the problem presented by this case. For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 210; United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559, 563. But what he seeks-to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. See Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253; Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 733.
The Government stresses the fact that the telephone booth from which the petitioner made his calls was constructed partly of glass, so that he was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. But what he sought to exclude when he entered the booth was not the intruding eye — it was the uninvited ear. He did not shed his right to do so simply because he made his calls from a place where he might be seen. No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend’s apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world. To read the Constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication.
The Government contends, however, that the activities of its agents in this case should not be tested by Fourth Amendment requirements, for the surveillance technique they employed involved no physical penetration of the telephone booth from which the petitioner placed his calls. It is true that the absence of such penetration was at one time thought to foreclose further Fourth Amendment inquiry, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 457, 464, 466; Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129, 134-136, for that Amendment was thought to limit only searches and seizures of tangible property. But “[t]he premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited.” Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 304. Thus, although a closely divided Court supposed in Olmstead that surveillance without any trespass and without the seizure of any material object fell outside the ambit of the Constitution, we have since departed from the narrow view on which that decision rested. Indeed, we have expressly held that the Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements, overheard without any “technical trespass under . . . local property law.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511. Once this much is acknowledged, and once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects people— and not simply “areas” — against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.
We conclude that the underpinnings of Olmstead and Goldman have been so eroded by our subsequent decisions that the “trespass” doctrine there enunciated can no longer be regarded as controlling. The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a “search and seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional significance.
The question remaining for decision, then, is whether the search and seizure conducted in this case complied with constitutional standards. In that regard, the Government’s position is that its agents acted in an entirely defensible manner: They did not begin their electronic surveillance until investigation of the petitioner’s activities had established a strong probability that he was using the telephone in question to transmit gambling information to persons in other States, in violation of federal law. Moreover, the surveillance was limited, both in scope and in duration, to the specific purpose of establishing the contents of the petitioner’s unlawful telephonic communications. The agents confined their surveillance to the brief periods during which he used the telephone booth, and they took great care to overhear only the conversations of the petitioner himself.
Accepting this account of the Government’s actions as accurate, it is clear that this surveillance was so narrowly circumscribed that a duly authorized magistrate, properly notified of the need for such investigation, specifically informed of the basis on which it was to proceed, and clearly apprised of the precise intrusion it would entail, could constitutionally have authorized, with appropriate safeguards, the very limited search and seizure that the Government asserts in fact took place. Only last Term we sustained the validity of such an authorization, holding that, under sufficiently “precise and discriminate circumstances,” a federal court may empower government agents to employ a concealed electronic device “for the narrow and particularized purpose of ascertaining the truth of the . . . allegations” of a “detailed factual affidavit alleging the commission of a specific criminal offense.” Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323, 329-330. Discussing that holding, the Court in Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, said that “the order authorizing the use of the electronic device” in Osborn “afforded similar protections to those ... of conventional warrants authorizing the seizure of tangible evidence.” Through those protections, “no greater invasion of privacy was permitted than was necessary under the circumstances.” Id., at 57. Here, too, a similar judicial order could have accommodated “the legitimate needs of law enforcement” by authorizing the carefully limited use of electronic surveillance.
The Government urges that, because its agents relied upon the decisions in Olmstead and Goldman, and because they did no more here than they might properly have done with prior judicial sanction, we should retroactively validate their conduct. That we cannot do. It is apparent that the agents in this case acted with restraint. Yet the inescapable fact is that this restraint was imposed by the agents themselves, not by a judicial officer. They were not required, before commencing the search, to present their estimate of probable cause for detached scrutiny by a neutral magistrate. They were not compelled, during the conduct of the search itself, to observe precise limits established in advance by a specific court order. Nor were they directed, after the search had been completed, to notify the authorizing magistrate in detail of all that had been seized. In the absence of such safeguards, this Court has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end. Searches conducted without warrants have been held unlawful “notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause,” Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 33, for the Constitution requires “that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer ... be interposed between the citizen and the police . . ..” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 481-82. “Over and again this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,” United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48, 51, and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.
It is difficult to imagine how any of those exceptions could ever apply to the sort of search and seizure involved in this case. Even electronic surveillance substantially contemporaneous with an individual’s arrest could hardly be deemed an “incident” of that arrest. Nor could the use of electronic surveillance without prior authorization be justified on grounds of “hot pursuit.” And, of course, the very nature of electronic surveillance precludes its use pursuant to the suspect’s consent.
The Government does not question these basic principles. Rather, it urges the creation of a new exception to cover this case. It argues that surveillance of a telephone booth should be exempted from the usual requirement of advance authorization by a magistrate upon a showing of probable cause. We cannot agree. Omission of such authorization
“bypasses the safeguards provided by an objective predetermination of probable cause, and substitutes instead the far less reliable procedure of an after-the-event justification for the . . . search, too likely to be subtly influenced by the familiar shortcomings of hindsight judgment.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 96.
And bypassing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals secure from Fourth Amendment violations “only in the discretion of the police.” Id., at 97.
These considerations do not vanish when the search in question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government agents here ignored “the procedure of antecedent justification . . . that is central to the Fourth Amendment,” a procedure that we hold to be a constitutional precondition of the kind of electronic surveillance involved in this case. Because the surveillance here failed to meet that condition, and because it led to the petitioner’s conviction, the judgment must be reversed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
18 U. S. C. § 1084. That statute provides in pertinent part:
“(a) Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
“(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State in which such betting is legal.”
369 F. 2d 130, 134.
386 U. S. 954. The petition for certiorari also challenged the validity of a warrant authorizing the search of the petitioner’s premises. In light of our disposition of this ease, we do not reach that issue.
We find no merit in the petitioner’s further suggestion that his indictment must be dismissed. After his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, he testified before a federal grand jury concerning the charges involved here. Because he was compelled to testify pursuant to a grant of immunity, 48 Stat. 1096, as amended, 47 TJ. S. C. § 409(l), it is clear that the fruit of his testimony cannot be used against him in any future trial. But the petitioner asks for more. He contends that his conviction must be vacated and the charges against him dismissed lest he be “subjected to [a] penalty . . . on account of [a] . . . matter . . . concerning which he [was] compelled ... to testify . . . .” 47 U. S. C. §409 (l). Frank v. United States, 347 F. 2d 486. We disagree. In relevant part, § 409 (l) substantially repeats the language of the Compulsory Testimony Act of 1893, 27 Stat. 443, 49 U. S. C. § 46, which was Congress’ response to this Court’s statement that an immunity statute can supplant the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination only if it affords adequate protection from future prosecution or conviction. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 585-586. The statutory provision here involved was designed to provide such protection, see Brown v. United States, 359 U. S. 41, 45-46, not to confer immunity from punishment pursuant to a prior prosecution and adjudication of guilt. Cf. Reina v. United States, 364 U. S. 507, 513-514.
“The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. . . . And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 509 (dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Black).
The First Amendment, for example, imposes limitations upon governmental abridgment of “freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 462. The Third Amendment’s prohibition against the unconsented peacetime quartering of soldiers protects another aspect of privacy from governmental intrusion. To some extent, the Fifth Amendment too “reflects the Constitution’s concern for . the right of each individual “to a private enclave where he may lead a private life.” ’ ” Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 416. Virtually every governmental action interferes with personal privacy to some degree. The question in each case is whether that interference violates a command of the United States Constitution.
See Warren & Brandéis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).
See, e. g., Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374. Cf. Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622; Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77.
In support of their respective claims, the parties have compiled competing lists of “protected areas” for our consideration. It appears to be common ground that a private home is such an area, Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, but that an open field is not. Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57. Defending the inclusion of a telephone booth in his fist the petitioner cites United States v. Stone, 232 F. Supp. 396, and United States v. Madison, 32 L. W. 2243 (D. C. Ct. Gen. Sess.). Urging that the telephone booth should be excluded, the Government finds support in United States v. Borgese, 235 F. Supp. 286.
It is true that this Court has occasionally described its conclusions in terms of “constitutionally protected areas,” see, e. g., Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 510, 512; Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 438-439; Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, 57, 59, but we have never suggested that this concept can serve as a talismanic solution to every Fourth Amendment problem.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385.
Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257.
Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253.
See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 464-466. We do not deal in this case with the law of detention or arrest under the Fourth Amendment.
Based upon their previous visual observations of the petitioner, the agents correctly predicted that he would use the telephone booth for several minutes at approximately the same time each morning. The petitioner was subjected to electronic surveillance only during this predetermined period. Six recordings, averaging some three minutes each, were obtained and admitted in evidence. They preserved the petitioner’s end of conversations concerning the placing of bets and the receipt of wagering information.
On the single occasion when the statements of another person were inadvertently intercepted, the agents refrained from listening to them.
Although the protections afforded the petitioner in Osborn were “similar ... to those ... of conventional warrants,” they were not identical. A conventional warrant ordinarily serves to notify the suspect of an intended search. But if Osborn had been told in advance that federal officers intended to record his conversations, the point of making such recordings would obviously have been lost; the evidence in question could not have been obtained. In omitting any requirement of advance notice, the federal court that authorized electronic surveillance in Osborn simply recognized, as has this Court, that officers need not announce their purpose before conducting an otherwise authorized search if such an announcement would provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence. See Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 37-41.
Although some have thought that this “exception to the notice requirement where exigent circumstances are present,” id., at 39, should be deemed inapplicable where police enter a home before its occupants are aware that officers are present, id., at 55-58 (opinion of Mr. Justice BrenNAN), the reasons for such a limitation have no bearing here. However true it may be that “[i]nnocent citizens should not suffer the shock, fright or embarrassment attendant upon an unannounced police intrusion,” id., at 57, and that “the requirement of awareness . . . serves to minimize the hazards of the officers’ dangerous calling,” id., at 57-58, these considerations are not relevant to the problems presented by judicially authorized electronic surveillance.
Nor do the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure impose an inflexible requirement of prior notice. Rule 41 (d) does require federal officers to serve upon the person searched a copy of the warrant and a receipt describing the material obtained, but it does not invariably require that this be done before the search takes place. Nordelli v. United States, 24 F. 2d 665, 666-667.
Thus the fact that the petitioner in Osborn was unaware that his words were being electronically transcribed did not prevent this Court from sustaining his conviction, and did not prevent the Court in Berger from reaching the conclusion that the use of the recording device sanctioned in Osborn was entirely lawful. 388 U. S. 41, 57.
Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 464 (dissenting opinion of Me. Justice BRENNAN).
See, e. g., Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 497-499; Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253, 261; Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610, 613-615; Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483, 486-487.
See, e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153, 156; McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 454-456; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174-177; Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58; Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298-300.
In Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30, the Court stated:
“The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody, is not to be doubted.”
Whatever one’s view of “the long-standing practice of searching for other proofs of guilt within the control of the accused found upon arrest,” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U. S. 56, 61; cf. id., at 71-79 (dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter), the concept of an “incidental’’ search cannot readily be extended to include surreptitious surveillance of an individual either immediately before, or immediately after, his arrest.
Although “[t]he Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others,” Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298-299, there seems little likelihood that electronic surveillance would be a realistic possibility in a situation so fraught with urgency.
A search to which an individual consents meets Fourth Amendment requirements, Zap v. United States, 328 U. S. 624, but of course “the usefulness of electronic surveillance depends on lack of notice to the suspect.” Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 463 (dissenting opinion of MR. Justice BreNNAn).
Whether 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.
See Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323, 330.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The petitioner, Daniel Jay Schacht, was indicted in a United States District Court for violating 18 U. S. C. § 702, which makes it a crime for any person “without authority [to wear] the uniform or a distinctive part thereof ... of any of the armed forces of the United States . ...” He was tried and convicted by a jury, and on February 29, 1968, he was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 and to serve a six-month prison term, the maximum sentence allowable under 18 U. S. C. § 702. There is no doubt that Schacht did wear distinctive parts of the uniform of the United States Army and that he was not a member of the Armed Forces. He has defended his conduct since the beginning, however, on the ground that he was authorized to wear the uniform by an Act of Congress, 10 U. S. C. § 772 (f), which provides as follows:
“When wearing by persons not on active duty authorized.
“(f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.” (Emphasis added.)
Schacht argued in the trial court and in this Court that he wore the army uniform as an “actor” in a “theatrical production” performed several times between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m. on December 4, 1967, in front of the Armed Forces Induction Center at Houston, Texas. The street skit in which Schacht wore the army uniform as a costume was designed, in his view, to expose the evil of the American presence in Vietnam and was part of a larger, peaceful antiwar demonstration at the induction center that morning. The Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming the conviction summarized the facts surrounding the skit as follows:
“The evidence indicates that the demonstration in Houston was part of a nationally coordinated movement which was to take place contemporaneously at several places throughout the country. The appellants and their colleagues prepared a script to be followed at the. induction center and they actually rehearsed their roles at least once prior to the appointed day before a student organization called the 'Humanists.’
“The skit was composed of three people. There was Schacht who was dressed in a uniform and cap. A second person was wearing 'military colored’ coveralls. The third person was outfitted in typical Viet Cong apparel. The first two men carried water pistols. One of them would yell, 'Be an able American,’ and then they would shoot the Viet Cong with their pistols. The pistols expelled a red liquid which, when it struck the victim, created the impression that he was bleeding. Once the victim fell down the other two would walk up to him and exclaim, ‘My God, this is a pregnant woman.’ Without noticeable variation this skit was reenacted several times during the morning of the demonstration.” 414 F. 2d 630, 632.
I
Our previous cases would seem to make it clear that 18 U. S. C. § 702, making it an offense to wear our military uniforms without authority is, standing alone, a valid statute on' its face. See, e. g., United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968). But the general prohibition of 18 U. S. C. § 702 cannot always stand alone in view of 10 U. S. C. § 772, which authorizes the wearing of military uniforms under certain conditions and circumstances including the circumstance of an actor portraying a member of the armed services in a “theatrical production.” 10 U. S. C. §772 (f). The Government’s argument in this case seems to imply that somehow what these amateur actors did in Houston should not be treated as a “theatrical production” within the meaning of § 772 (f). We are unable to follow such a suggestion. Certainly theatrical productions need not always be performed in buildings or even on a defined area such as a conventional stage. Nor need they be performed by professional actors or be heavily financed or elaborately produced. Since time immemorial, outdoor theatrical performances, often performed by amateurs, have played an important part in the entertainment and the education of the people of the world. Here, the record shows without dispute the preparation and repeated presentation by amateur actors of a short play designed to create in the audience an understanding of and opposition to our participation in the Vietnam war. Supra, at 60 and this page. It may be that the performances were crude and amateurish and perhaps unappealing, but the same thing can be said about many theatrical performances. We cannot believe that when Congress wrote out a special exception for theatrical productions it intended to protect only a narrow and limited category of professionally produced plays. Of course, we need not decide here all the questions concerning what is and what is not within the scope of § 772 (f). We need only find, as we emphatically do, that the street skit in which Schacht participated was a “theatrical production” within the meaning of that section.
This brings us to petitioner’s complaint that giving force and effect to the last clause of § 772 (f) would impose an unconstitutional restraint on his right of free speech. We agree. This clause on its face simply restricts § 772 (f)’s authorization to those dramatic portrayals that do not “tend to discredit” the military, but, when this restriction is read together with 18 U. S. C. § 702, it becomes clear that Congress has in effect made it a crime for an actor wearing a military uniform to say things during his performance critical of the conduct or policies of the Armed Forces. An actor, like everyone else in our country, enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of speech, including the right openly to criticize the Government during a dramatic performance. The last clause of § 772 (f) denies this constitutional right to an actor who is wearing a military uniform by making it a crime for him to say things that tend to bring the military into discredit and disrepute. In the present case Schacht was free to participate in any skit at the demonstration that praised the Army, but under the final clause of § 772 (f) he could be convicted of a federal offense if his portrayal attacked the Army instead of praising it. In light of our earlier finding that the skit in which Schacht participated was a “theatrical production” within the meaning of § 772 (f), it follows that his conviction can be sustained only if he can be punished for speaking out against the role of our Army and our country in Vietnam. Clearly punishment for this reason would be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The final clause of § 772 (f), which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment. To preserve the constitutionality of § 772 (f) that final clause must be stricken from the section.
II
The Government’s brief and argument seriously contend that this Court is without jurisdiction to consider and decide the merits of this case on the ground that the petition for certiorari was not timely filed under Rule 22 (2) of the Rules of this Court. This Rule provides that a petition for certiorari to review a court of appeals’ judgment in a criminal case “shall be deemed in time when . . . filed with the clerk within thirty days after the entry of such judgment.” We cannot accept the view that this time requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived by the Court. Rule 22 (2) contains no language that calls for so harsh an interpretation, and it must be remembered that this rule was not enacted by Congress but was promulgated by this Court under authority of Congress to prescribe rules concerning the time limitations for taking appeals and applying for certiorari in criminal cases. See 18 U. S. C. § 3772; Rule 37, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. The procedural rules adopted by the Court for the orderly transaction of its business are not jurisdictional and can be relaxed by the Court in the exercise of its discretion when the ends of justice so require. This discretion has been expressly declared in several opinions of the Court. See Taglianetti v. United States, 394 U. S. 316, n. 1 (1969); Heflin v. United States, 358 U. S. 415, 418 n. 7 (1959). See also R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice 242-244 (4th ed. 1969), and the cases cited therein. It is true that the Taglianetti and Heflin cases dealt with this time question only in footnotes. But this is no reason to disregard their holdings and in fact indicates the Court deemed a footnote adequate treatment to give the issue.
When the petition for certiorari was filed in this case it was accompanied by a motion, supported by affidavits, asking that we grant certiorari despite the fact that the petition was filed 101 days after the appropriate period for filing the petition had expired. Affidavits filed with the motion, not denied or challenged by the Government, present facts showing that petitioner had acted in good faith and that the delay in filing the petition for cer-tiorari was brought about by circumstances largely beyond his control. Without detailing these circumstances, it is sufficient to note here that after consideration of the motion and affidavits this Court on December 15, 1969, granted the motion, three Justices dissenting. The decision of this Court waiving the time defect and permitting the untimely filing of the petition was thus made several months ago, and no new facts warranting a reconsideration of that decision have been presented to us.
For the reasons stated in Parts I and II of this opinion, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 702 provides as follows:
“Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined not more than $250 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
Schacht wore a blouse of the type currently authorized for Army enlisted men with a shoulder patch designating service in Europe. The buttons on his blouse were of the official Army design. On his head Schacht wore an outmoded military hat. Affixed to the hat in an inverted position was the eagle insignia currently worn on the hats of Army officers.
The precise language of 10 U. S. C. § 772 (f) derives from the 1956 revision of Titles 10 and 32, which was undertaken for the purpose of combining laws affecting the Armed Forces, eliminating duplicate provisions, and clarifying statutory language. At that time the phrase “actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production” was substituted for the previous phrase “in any playhouse or theater or in moving-picture films while actually engaged in representing therein a military . . . character . . . .” 39 Stat. 216-217. Although the 1956 revision and codification, were not in general intended to make substantive changes, changes were made for the purpose of clarifying and updating language. The shift to the present version of § 772 (f) clearly reflects an intent to move to broader, more flexible language which, for example, would include television as well as other types of theatrical productions wherever presented. H. R. Rep. No. 970, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 8; Statements of Senators O’Mahoney and Wiley, 102 Cong. Rec. 13944, 13953 (July 23, 1956).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Fourth Amendment requires government to respect “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This restraint on government conduct generally bars officials from undertaking a search or seizure absent individualized suspicion. Searches conducted without grounds for suspicion of particular individuals have been upheld, however, in “certain limited circumstances.” See Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656, 668 (1989). These circumstances include brief stops for questioning or observation at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 545-550, 566-567 (1976), or at a sobriety checkpoint, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444, 447, 455 (1990), and administrative inspections in “closely regulated” businesses, New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 703-704 (1987).
Georgia requires candidates for designated state offices to certify that they have taken a drug test and that the test result was negative. Ga. Code Ann. §21-2-140 (1993) (hereinafter §21-2-140). We confront in this case the question whether that requirement ranks among the limited circumstances in which suspicionless searches are warranted. Relying on this Court's precedents sustaining drug-testing programs for student athletes, customs employees, and railway employees, see Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 650, 665-666 (1995) (random drug testing of students who participate in interscholastic sports); Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 659 (drug tests for United States Customs Service employees who seek transfer or promotion to certain positions); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 608-613 (1989) (drug and alcohol tests for railway employees involved in train accidents and for those who violate particular safety rules), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit judged Georgia’s law constitutional. We reverse that judgment. Georgia’s requirement that candidates for state office pass a drug test, we hold, does not fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches.
I
The prescription at issue, approved by the Georgia Legislature in 1990, orders that “[ejach candidate seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a state office shall as a condition of such qualification be required to certify that such candidate has tested negative for illegal drugs.” §21 — 2— 140(b). Georgia was the first, and apparently remains the only, State to condition candidacy for state office on a drug test.
Under the Georgia statute, to qualify for a place on the ballot, a candidate must present a certificate from a state-approved laboratory, in a form approved by the Secretary of State, reporting that the candidate submitted to a urinalysis drug test within 30 days prior to qualifying for nomination or election and that the results were negative. § 21 — 2— 140(c). The statute lists as “[ijllegal drug[s]”: marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidines. § 21-2-140(a)(3). The designated state offices are: “the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State School Superintendent, Commissioner of Insurance, Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner of Labor, Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Court of Appeals, judges of the superior courts, district attorneys, members of the General Assembly, and members of the Public Service Commission.” § 21-2-140(a)(4).
Candidate drug tests are to be administered in a manner consistent with the United States Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines, 53 Fed. Reg. 11979-11989 (1988), or other professionally valid procedures approved by Georgia’s Commissioner of Human Resources. See § 21-2-140(a)(2). A candidate may provide the test specimen at a laboratory approved by the State, or at the office of the candidate’s personal physician, see App. 4-5 (Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts). Once a urine sample is obtained, an approved laboratory determines whether any of the five specified illegal drugs are present, id., at 5; §21-2-140(c), and prepares a certificate reporting the test results to the candidate.
Petitioners were Libertarian Party nominees in 1994 for state offices subject to the requirements of §21-2-140. The Party nominated Walker L. Chandler for the office of Lieutenant Governor, Sharon T. Harris for the office of Commissioner of Agriculture, and James D. Walker for the office of member of the General Assembly. In May 1994, about one month before the deadline for submission of the certificates required by §21-2-140, petitioners Chandler, Harris, and Walker filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. They asserted, inter alia, that the drug tests required by §21-2-140 violated their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Naming as defendants Governor Zell D. Miller and two other state officials involved in the administration of §21-2-140, petitioners requested declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the statute.
In June 1994, the District Court denied petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Stressing the importance of the state offices sought and the relative unintrusiveness of the testing procedure, the court found it unlikely that petitioners would prevail on the merits of their claims. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5B. Petitioners apparently submitted to the drug tests, obtained the certificates required by § 21-2-140, and appeared on the ballot. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5. After the 1994 election, the parties jointly moved for the entry of final judgment on stipulated facts. In January 1995, the District Court entered final judgment for respondents.
A divided Eleventh Circuit panel affirmed. 73 F. 3d 1543 (1996). It is settled law, the court accepted, that the drug tests required by the statute rank as searches. But, as was true of the drug-testing programs at issue in Skinner and Von Raab, the court reasoned, §21-2-140 serves “special needs,” interests other than the ordinary needs of law enforcement. The court therefore endeavored to “ ‘balance the individual’s privacy expectations against the Government’s interests to determine whether it [was] impractical to require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context.’” 73 F. 3d, at 1545 (quoting Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 665-666).
Examining the state interests involved, the court acknowledged the absence of any record of drug abuse by elected officials in Georgia. Nonetheless, the court observed, “[t]he people of Georgia place in the trust of their elected officials ... their liberty, their safety, their economic well-being, [and] ultimate responsibility for law enforcement.” 73 F. 3d, at 1546. Consequently, “those vested with the highest executive authority to make public policy in general and frequently to supervise Georgia’s drug interdiction efforts in particular must be persons appreciative of the perils of drug use.” Ibid. The court further noted that “[t]he nature of high public office in itself demands the highest levels of honesty, clear-sightedness, and clear-thinking.” Ibid. Reciting responsibilities of the offices petitioners sought, the Court of Appeals perceived those “positions [as] particularly susceptible to the ‘risks of bribery and blackmail against which the Government is entitled to guard.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 674).
Turning to petitioners’ privacy interests, the Eleventh Circuit emphasized that the tests could be conducted in the office of the candidate’s private physician, making the “intrusion here . . . even less than that approved in Von Raab." 73 F. 3d, at 1547. The court also noted the statute’s reference to federally approved drug-testing guidelines. Ibid. The drug test itself would reveal only the presence or absence of indicia of the use of particular drugs, and not any other information about the health of the candidate. Furthermore, the candidate would control release of the test results: Should the candidate test positive, he or she could forfeit the opportunity to run for office, and in that event, nothing would be divulged to law enforcement officials. Ibid. Another consideration, the court said, is the reality that “candidates for high office must expect the voters to demand some disclosures about their physical, emotional, and mental fitness for the position.” Ibid. Concluding that the State’s interests outweighed the privacy intrusion caused by the required certification, the court held the statute, as applied to petitioners, not inconsistent' with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ibid.
Judge Barkett dissented. In her view, a balance of the State’s and candidates’ interests was not appropriate, for the State had failed to establish a special governmental need for the regime. “There is nothing so special or immediate about the generalized governmental interests involved here,” she observed, “as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of individualized suspicion for searches and seizures.” Id., at 1551.
We granted the petition for certiorari, 518 U. S. 1057 (1996), and now reverse.
II
We begin our discussion of this case with an uncontested point: Georgia’s drug-testing requirement, imposed by law and enforced by state officials, effects a search within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Skinner, 489 U. S., at 617; Tr. of Oral Arg. 36; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Í0 (collection and testing of urine to meet Georgia’s certification statute “constitutes a search subject to the demands of the Fourth Amendment” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As explained in Sjkin-ner, government-ordered “collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable.” 489 U. S., at 617. Because “these intrusions [are] searches under the Fourth Amendment,” ibid., we focus on the question: Are the searches reasonable?
To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. See Vernonia, 515 U. S., at 652-653. But particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Skinner, 489 U. S., at 619 (internal quotation marks omitted). When such “special needs”— concerns other than crime detection — are alleged in justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. See Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 665-666; see also id., at 668. As Skinner stated: “In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspicion.” 489 U. S., at 624.
In evaluating Georgia’s ballot-access, drug-testing statute — a measure plainly not tied to individualized suspicion— the Eleventh Circuit sought to “ ‘balance the individual’s privacy expectations against the [State’s] interests,’ ” 73 F. 3d, at 1545 (quoting Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 665), in line with our precedents most immediately in point: Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia. We review those decisions before inspecting Georgia’s law.
A
Skinner concerned Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations that required blood and urine tests of rail employees involved in train accidents; the regulations also authorized railroads to administer breath and urine tests to employees who violated certain safety rules. 489 U. S., at 608-612. The FRA adopted the drug-testing program in response to evidence of drug and alcohol abuse by some railroad employees, the obvious safety hazards posed by such abuse, and the documented link between drug- and alcohol-impaired employees and the incidence of train accidents. Id., at 607-608. Recognizing that the urinalysis tests, most conspicuously, raised evident privacy concerns, the Court noted two offsetting considerations: First, the regulations reduced the intrusiveness of the collection process, id., at 626; and, more important, railway employees, “by reason of their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively to ensure safety,” had diminished expectations of privacy, id., at 627.
“[Surpassing safety interests,” the Court concluded, warranted the FRA testing program. Id., at 634. The drug tests could deter illegal drug use by railroad employees, workers positioned to “cause great human loss before any signs of impairment become noticeable to supervisors.” Id., at 628. The program also helped railroads to obtain invaluable information about the causes of major train accidents. See id., at 630. Testing without a showing of individualized suspicion was essential, the Court explained, if these vital interests were to be served. See id., at 628. Employees could not forecast the timing of an accident or a safety violation, events that would trigger testing. The employee’s inability to avoid detection simply by staying drug free at a prescribed test time significantly enhanced the deterrent effect of the program. See ibid. Furthermore, imposing an individualized suspicion requirement for a drug test in the chaotic aftermath of a train accident would seriously impede an employer’s ability to discern the cause of the accident; indeed, waiting until suspect individuals could be identified “likely would result in the loss or deterioration of the evidence furnished by the tests.” Id., at 631.
In Von Raab, the Court sustained a United States Customs Service program that made drug tests a condition of promotion or transfer to positions directly involving drug interdiction or requiring the employee to carry a firearm. 489 U. S., at 660-661, 667-677. While the Service’s regime was not prompted by a demonstrated drug abuse problem, id., at 660, it was developed for an agency with an “almost unique mission,” id., at 674, as the “first line of defense” against the smuggling of illicit drugs into the United States, id., at 668. Work directly involving drug interdiction and posts that require the employee to carry a firearm pose grave safety threats to employees who hold those positions, and also expose them to large amounts of illegal narcotics and to persons engaged in crime; illicit drug users in such high-risk positions might be unsympathetic to the Service’s mission, tempted by bribes, or even threatened with blackmail. See id., at 668-671. The Court held that the Government had a “compelling” interest in assuring that employees placed in these positions would not include drug users. See id., at 670-671. Individualized suspicion would not work in this setting, the Court determined, because it was “not feasible to subject [these] employees and their work product to the kind of day-to-day scrutiny that is the norm in more traditional office environments.” Id., at 674.
Finally, in Vernonia, the Court sustained a random drug-testing program for-high school students engaged in interscholastic athletic competitions. The program’s context was critical, for a local government bears large “responsibilities, under a public school system, as guardian and tutor of children entrusted to its care.” 515 U. S., at 665. An “immediate crisis,” id., at 663, caused by “a sharp increase in drug use” in the school district, id., at 648, sparked installation of the program. District Court findings established that student athletes were not only “among the drug users,” they were “leaders of the drug culture.” Id., at 649. Our decision noted that “‘students within the school environment have a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the population generally.’ ” Id., at 657 (quoting New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 348 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring)). We emphasized the importance of deterring drug use by schoolchildren and the risk of injury a drug-using student athlete east on himself and those engaged with him on the playing field. See Vernonia, 515 U. S., at 662.
B
Respondents urge that the precedents just examined are not the sole guides for assessing the constitutional validity of the Georgia statute. The “special needs” analysis, they contend, must be viewed through a different lens because § 21-2-140 implicates Georgia’s sovereign power, reserved to it under the Tenth Amendment, to establish qualifications for those who seek state office. Respondents rely on Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452 (1991), which upheld against federal statutory and Equal Protection Clause challenges Missouri’s mandatory retirement age of 70 for state judges. The Court found this age classification reasonable and not barred by the federal legislation. See id., at 473. States, Gregory reaffirmed, enjoy wide latitude to establish conditions of candidacy for state office, but in setting such conditions, they may not disregard basic constitutional protections. See id., at 463; McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978) (invalidating state provision prohibiting members of clergy from serving as delegates to state constitutional convention); Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U. S. 441 (1974) (voiding loyalty oath as a condition of ballot access); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116 (1966) (Georgia Legislature could not exclude elected representative on ground that his antiwar statements cast doubt on his ability to take an oath). We are aware of no precedent suggesting that a State’s power to establish qualifications for state offices — any more than its sovereign power to prosecute crime — diminishes the constraints on state action imposed by the Fourth Amendment. We therefore reject respondents’ invitation to apply in this case a framework extraordinarily deferential to state measures setting conditions of candidacy for state office. Our guides remain Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia.
Turning to those guides, we note, first, that the testing method the Georgia statute describes is relatively noninvasive; therefore, if the “special needs” showing had been made, the State could not be faulted for excessive intrusion. Georgia’s statute invokes the drug-testing guidelines applicable to the federal programs upheld in Skinner and Von Raab. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20-21; Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 661-662, n. 1. The State permits a candidate to provide the urine specimen in the office of his or her private physician; and the results of the test are given first to the candidate, who controls further dissemination of the report. Because the State has effectively limited the invasiveness of the testing procedure, we concentrate on the core issue: Is the certification requirement warranted by a special need?
Our precedents establish that the proffered special need for drug testing must be substantial — important enough to override the individual’s acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment’s normal requirement of individualized suspicion. See supra, at 313-317 and this page. Georgia has failed to show, in justification of § 21-2-140, a special need of that kind.
Respondents’ defense of the statute rests primarily on the incompatibility of unlawful drug use with holding high state office. The statute is justified, respondents contend, because the use of illegal drugs draws into question an official’s judgment and integrity; jeopardizes the discharge of public functions, including antidrug law enforcement efforts; and undermines public confidence and trust in elected officials. Brief for Respondents 11-18. The statute, according to respondents, serves to deter unlawful drug users from becoming candidates and thus stops them from attaining high state office. Id., at 17-18. Notably lacking in respondents’ presentation is any indication of a concrete danger demanding departure from the Fourth Amendment’s main rule.
Nothing in the record hints that the hazards respondents broadly describe are real and not simply hypothetical for Georgia’s polity. The statute was not enacted, as counsel for respondents readily acknowledged at oral argument, in response to any fear or suspicion of drug use by state officials:
“QUESTION: Is there any indication anywhere in this record that Georgia has a particular problem here with State officeholders being drug abusers?
“[COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS]: No, there is no such evidence, [and] to be frank, there is no such problem as we sit here today.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 32.
See also id., at 31 (counsel for respondents affirms absence of evidence that state officeholders in Georgia have drug problems). A demonstrated problem of drug abuse, while not in all cases necessary to the validity of a testing regime, see Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 673-675, would shore up an assertion of special need for a suspicionless general search program. Proof of unlawful drug use may help to clarify — and to substantiate — the precise hazards posed by such use. Thus, the evidence of drug and alcohol use by railway employees engaged in safety-sensitive tasks in Skinner, see 489 U. S., at 606-608, and the immediate crisis prompted by a sharp rise in students’ use of unlawful drugs in Vernonia, see 515 U. S., at 662-663, bolstered the Government’s and school officials’ arguments that drug-testing programs were warranted and appropriate.
In contrast to the effective testing regimes upheld in Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia, Georgia’s certification requirement is not well designed to identify candidates who violate antidrug laws. Nor is the scheme a credible means to deter illicit drug users from seeking election to state office. The test date — to be scheduled by the candidate anytime within 30 days prior to qualifying for a place on the ballot — is no secret. As counsel for respondents acknowledged at oral argument, users of illegal drugs, save for those prohibitively addicted, could abstain for a pretest period sufficient to avoid detection. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 44-46. Even if we indulged respondents’ argument that one purpose of §21-2-140 might be to detect those unable so to abstain, see id., at 46, respondents have not shown or argued that such persons are likely to be candidates for public office in Georgia. Moreover, respondents have offered no reason why ordinary law enforcement methods would not suffice to apprehend such addicted individuals, should they appear in the limelight of a public stage. Section 21-2-140, in short, is not needed and cannot work to ferret out lawbreakers, and respondents barely attempt to support the statute on that ground.
Respondents and the United States as amicus curiae rely most heavily on our decision in Von Raab, which sustained a drug-testing program for Customs Service officers prior to promotion or transfer to certain high-risk positions, despite the absence of any documented drug abuse problem among Service employees. 489 U. S., at 660; see Brief for Respondents 12-14; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18; see also 73 F. 3d, at 1646. The posts in question in Von Raab directly involved drug interdiction or otherwise required the Service member to carry a firearm. See 489 U. S., at 670 (“Government has a compelling interest in ensuring that front-line interdiction personnel are physically fit, and have unimpeachable integrity and judgment.”); id., at 670-671 (“[T]he public should not bear the risk that employees who may suffer from impaired perception and judgment will be promoted to positions where they may need to employ deadly force.”).
Hardly a decision opening broad vistas for suspicionless searches, Von Raab must be read in its unique context. As the Customs Service reported in announcing the testing program: “Customs employees, more than any other Federal workers, are routinely exposed to the vast network of organized crime that is inextricably tied to illegal drug use.” National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F. 2d 170, 173 (CA5 1987) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 489 U. S. 656 (1989). We stressed that “[d]rug interdiction ha[d] become the agency’s primary enforcement mission,” id., at 660, and that the employees in question would have “access to vast sources of valuable contraband,” id., at 669. Furthermore, Customs officers “ha[dj been the targets of bribery by drug smugglers on numerous occasions,” and several had succumbed to the temptation. Ibid.
Respondents overlook a telling difference between Von Raab and Georgia’s candidate drug-testing program. In Von Raab it was “not feasible to subject employees [required to carry firearms or concerned with interdiction of controlled substances] and their work product to the kind of day-to-day scrutiny that is the norm in more traditional office environments.” Id., at 674. Candidates for public office, in contrast, are subject to relentless scrutiny — by their peers, the public, and the press. Their day-to-day conduct attracts attention notably beyond the norm in ordinary work environments.
What is left, after close review of Georgia’s scheme, is the image the State seeks to project. By requiring candidates for public office to submit to drug testing, Georgia displays its commitment to the struggle against drug abuse. The suspicionless tests, according to respondents, signify that candidates, if elected, will be fit to serve their constituents free from the influence of illegal drugs. But Georgia asserts no evidence of a drug problem among the State’s elected officials, those officials typically do not perform high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks, and the required certification immediately aids no interdiction effort. The need revealed, in short, is symbolic, not “special,” as that term draws meaning from our case law.
In Von Raab, the Customs Service had defended its officer drug-testing program in part as a way to demonstrate the agency’s commitment to enforcement of the law. See Brief for United States in Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, O. T. 1988, No. 86-1879, pp. 35-36. The Von Raab Court, however, did not rely on that justification. Indeed, if a need of the “set a good example” genre were sufficient to overwhelm a Fourth Amendment objection, then the care this Court took to explain why the needs in Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia ranked as “special” wasted many words in entirely unnecessary, perhaps even misleading, elaborations.
In a pathmarking dissenting opinion, Justice Brandéis recognized the importance of teaching by example: “Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 485 (1928). Justice Brandéis explained in Olmstead why the Government set a bad example when it introduced in a criminal proceeding evidence obtained through an unlawful Government wiretap:
“[I]t is . . . immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Id., at 479.
However well meant, the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal privacy for a symbol’s sake. The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state action.
III
We note, finally, matters this opinion does not treat. Georgia’s singular drug test for candidates is not part of a medical examination designed to provide certification of a candidate’s general health, and we express no opinion on such examinations. Nor do we touch on financial disclosure requirements, which implicate different concerns and procedures. See, e. g., Barry v. City of New York, 712 F. 2d 1554 (CA2 1983) (upholding city’s financial disclosure law for elected and appointed officials, candidates for city office, and certain city employees); Plante v. Gonzalez, 575 F. 2d 1119 (CA5 1978) (upholding Florida’s financial disclosure requirements for certain public officers, candidates, and employees). And we do not speak to drug testing in the private sector, a domain unguarded by Fourth Amendment constraints. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984).
We reiterate, too, that where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as “reasonable” — for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings. See Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 674-676, and n. 3. But where, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is
Reversed.
The court also rejected equal protection and free speech pleas made by petitioners. 73 F. 3d, at 1547-1549. We hold § 21-2-140 incompatible with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and do not reach petitioners’ further pleas.
The United States, as amicus curiae in support of respondents, suggests that this case may have become moot because there is no continuing controversy regarding the now-completed 1994 election, and petitioners, who did not sue on behalf of a class, failed to assert in the courts below that they intended to run for a covered state office in a future election. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9-10, n. 4. We reject the suggestion of mootness. Petitioner Chandler represented, as an officer of this Court, that he plans to run again, and counsel for the State does not contest that representation. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-6, 27; see also 28 U. S. C. § 1653 (defective allegations of jurisdiction curable by amendment at trial or in appellate stages).
The Service’s program also required tests for individuals promoted or transferred to positions in which they would handle “classified” material. 489 U. S., at 661. The Court agreed that the Government “ha[d] a compelling interest in protecting truly sensitive information.” Id,., at 677. However, we did not rule on this aspect of the program, see id., at 677-678, because the record did not clarify “whether the category defined by the [regulation] encompassed] only those Customs employees likely to gain access to sensitive information," id., at 678.
In Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656 (1989), the applicant for promotion or transfer could not know precisely when action would be taken on the application. In contrast, the potential candidate knows from the start the timing of all relevant events.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA), 86 Stat. 424, 33 U. S. C. § 1221 et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. V), and 46 U. S. C. § 391a (1970 ed., Supp. V), navigation in Puget Sound, a body of inland water lying along the northwest coast of the State of Washington, is controlled in major respects by federal law. The PWSA also subjects to federal rule the design and operating characteristics of oil tankers.
This case arose when ch. 125, 1975 Wash. Laws, 1st Extr. Sess., Wash. Rev. Code § 88.16.170 et seq. (Supp. 1975) (Tanker Law), was adopted with the aim of regulating in particular respects the design, size, and movement of oil tankers in Puget Sound. In response to the constitutional challenge to the law brought by the appellees herein, the District Court held that under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, of the Constitution, which declares that the federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” the Tanker Law could not coexist with the PWSA and was totally invalid. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Evans, No. C-75-648-M (WD Wash. Sept. 24, 1976).
I
Located adjacent to Puget Sound are six oil refineries having a total combined processing capacity of 359,500 barrels of oil per day. In 1971, appellee Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) began operating an oil refinery at Cherry Point, situated in the northern part of the Sound. Since then, the crude oil processed at that refinery has been delivered principally by pipeline from Canada and by tankers from the Persian Gulf; tankers will also be used to transport oil there from the terminus of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline at Valdez, Alaska. Of the 105 tanker deliveries of crude oil to the Cherry Point refinery from 1972 through 1975, 95 were by means of tankers in excess of 40,000 deadweight tons (DWT), and, prior to the effective date of the Tanker Law, 15 of them were by means of tankers in excess of 125,000 DWT.
Appellee Seatrain Lines, Inc. (Seatrain), owns or charters 12 tanker vessels in domestic and foreign commerce, of which four exceed 125,000 DWT. Seatrain also operates through a wholly owned subsidiary corporation a shipbuilding facility in New York City, where it has recently constructed or is constructing four tankers, each with a 225,000 DWT capacity.
On the day the Tanker Law became effective, ARCO brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeking a judgment declaring the statute unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. Seatrain was later permitted to intervene as a plaintiff. Named as defendants were the state and local officials responsible for the enforcement of the Tanker Law. The complaint alleged that the statute was pre-empted by federal law, in particular the PWSA, and that it was thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause. It was also alleged that the law imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and that it interfered with the federal regulation o'f foreign affairs. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284, a three-judge court was convened to determine the case.
The case was briefed and argued before the District Court on the basis of a detailed stipulation of facts. Also before the court was the brief of the United States as amicus curiae, which contended that the Tanker Law was pre-empted in its entirety by the PWSA and other federal legislation. The three-judge court agreed with the plaintiffs and the United States, ruling that all of the operative provisions of the Tanker Law were pre-empted, and enjoining appellants and their successors from enforcing the chapter. We noted probable jurisdiction of the State’s appeal, 430 U. S. 905 (1977), meanwhile having stayed the injunction. 429 U. S. 1035 (1977).
II
The Court’s prior cases indicate that when a State’s exercise of its police power is challenged under the Supremacy Clause, “we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977). Under the relevant cases, one of the legitimate inquiries is whether Congress has either explicitly or implicitly declared that the States are prohibited from regulating the various aspects of oil-tanker operations and design with which the Tanker Law is concerned. As the Court noted in Rice, supra, at 230:
“[The congressional] purpose may be evidenced in several ways. The scheme of federal regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 250 U. S. 566, 569; Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, 315 U. S. 148. Or the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52. Likewise, the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it may reveal the same purpose. Southern R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 236 U. S. 439; Charleston & W. C. R. Co. v. Varnville Co., 237 U. S. 597; New York Central R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147; Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra.”
Accord, City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U. S. 624, 633 (1973).
Even, if Congress has not completely foreclosed state legislation in a particular area, a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute. A conflict will be found “where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility...,” Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the state “law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., supra, at 526, 540-541. Accord, De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351, 363 (1976).
Ill
With these principles in mind, we turn to an examination of each of the three operative provisions of the Tanker Law. We address first Wash. Rev. Code §88.16.180 (Supp. 1975), which requires both enrolled and registered oil tankers of at least 50,000 DWT to take on a pilot licensed by the State of Washington while navigating Puget Sound. The District Court held that insofar as the law required a tanker “enrolled in the coastwise trade” to have a local pilot on board, it was in direct conflict with 46 U. S. C. §§ 215, 364. We agree.
Section 364 provides that “every coastwise seagoing steam vessel subject to the navigation laws of the United States,... not sailing under register, shall, when under way,... be under the control and direction of pilots licensed by the Coast Guard.” Section 215 adds that “[n]o State or municipal government shall impose upon pilots of steam vessels any obligation to procure a State or other license in addition to that issued by the United States.....” It goes on to explain that the statute shall not be construed to “affect any regulation established by the laws of any State, requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in any such State, other than coast-wise steam vessels, to take a pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of such State... (Emphasis added.) The Court has long held that these two statutes read together give the Federal Government exclusive authority to regulate pilots on enrolled vessels and that they preclude a State from imposing its own pilotage requirements upon them. See Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 225 U. S. 187 (1912); Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90 (1886). Thus, to the extent that the Tanker Law requires enrolled tankers to take on state-licensed pilots, the District Court correctly concluded, as the State now concedes, that it was in conflict with federal law and was therefore invalid.
While the opinion of the court below indicated that the pilot provision of the Tanker Law was void only to the extent that it applied to tankers enrolled in the coastwise trade, the judgment itself declared the statute null and void in its entirety. No part of the statute was excepted from the scope of the injunctive relief. The judgment was overly broad, for just as it is clear that States may not regulate the pilots of enrolled vessels, it is equally clear that they are free to impose pilotage requirements on registered vessels entering and leaving their ports. Not only does 46 U. S. C. § 215 so provide, as was noted above, but so also does § 101 (5) of the PWSA, 33 TJ. S. C.- § 1221 (5) (1970 ed., Supp. V), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to “require pilots on self-propelled vessels engaged in the foreign trades in areas and under circumstances where a pilot is not otherwise required by State law to be on board until the State having jurisdiction of an area involved establishes a requirement for a pilot in that area or under the circumstances involved....” Accordingly, as appellees now agree, the State was free to require registered tankers in excess of 50,000 DWT to take on a state-licensed pilot upon entering Puget Sound.
IV
We next deal with § 88.16.190 (2) of the Tanker Law, which requires enrolled and registered oil tankers of from 40,000 to 125,000 DWT to possess all of the following “standard safety features”:
“(a) Shaft horsepower in the ratio of one horsepower to each two and one-half deadweight tons; and “(b) Twin screws; and
“(c) Double bottoms, underneath all oil and liquid cargo compartments; and
“(d) Two radars in working order and operating, one of which must be collision avoidance radar; and
“(e) Such other navigational position location systems as may be prescribed from time fi> time by the board of pilotage commissioners....”
This section contains a proviso, however, stating that if the “tanker is in ballast or is under escort of a tug or tugs with an aggregate shaft horsepower equivalent to five percent of the deadweight tons of that tanker...,” the design requirements are not applicable. The District Court held invalid this alternative design/tug requirement of the Tanker Law. We agree insofar as we hold that the foregoing design requirements, standing alone, are invalid in the light of the PWSA and its regulatory implementation.
The PWSA contains two Titles representing somewhat overlapping provisions designed to insure vessel safety and the protection of the navigable waters, their resources, and shore areas from tanker cargo spillage. The focus of Title I, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1221-1227 (1970 ed., Supp. V), is traffic control at local ports; Title IPs principal concern is tanker design and construction. For present purposes the relevant part is Title II, 46 U. S. C. § 391a (1970 ed., Supp. V), which amended the Tank Vessel Act of 1936, Rev. Stat. § 4417a, as added, 49 Stat. 1889.
Title II begins by declaring that the protection of life, property, and the marine environment from harm requires the promulgation of “comprehensive minimum standards of design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, and operation” for vessels carrying certain cargoes in bulk, primarily oil and fuel tankers. § 391a (1). To implement the twin goals of providing for vessel safety and protecting the marine environment, it is provided that the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is located “shall establish” such rules and regulations as may be necessary with respect to the design, construction, and operation of the covered vessels and with respect to a variety of related matters. § 391a (3). In issuing regulations, the Secretary is to consider the kinds and grades of cargo permitted to be on board such vessels, to consult with other federal agencies, and to identify separately the regulations established for vessel safety and those to protect marine environment. Ibid.
Section 391a (5) provides for inspection of vessels for compliance with the Secretary’s safety regulations. No vessel subject to Title II may have on board any of the specified cargoes until a certificate of inspection has been issued to' the vessel and a permit endorsed thereon “indicating that such vessel is in compliance with the provisions of this section and the rules and regulations for vessel safety established hereunder, and showing the kinds and grades of such cargo that such vessel may have on board or transport.” It is provided that in lieu of inspection under this section the Secretary is to accept from vessels of foreign nations valid certificates of inspection “recognized under law or treaty by the United States.”
Title II also directs the Secretary to inspect tank vessels for compliance with the regulations which he is required to issue for the protection of the marine environment. § 391a (6). Compliance with these separate regulations, which must satisfy specified standards, and the consequent privilege of having on board the relevant cargo are evidenced by certificates of compliance issued by the Secretary or by appropriate endorsements on the vessels' certificates of inspection. Certificates are valid for the period specified by the Secretary and are subject to revocation when it is found that the vessel does not comply with the conditions upon which the certificate was issued. In lieu of a certificate of compliance with his own environmental regulations relating to vessel design, construction, alteration, and repair, the Secretary may, but need not, accept valid certificates from foreign vessels evidencing compliance with rules and regulations issued under a treaty, convention, or agreement providing for reciprocity of recognition of certificates or similar documents. §391a(7)(D).
This statutory pattern shows that Congress, insofar as design characteristics are concerned, has entrusted to the Secretary the duty of determining which oil tankers are sufficiently safe to be allowed to proceed in the navigable waters of the United States. This indicates to us that Congress intended uniform national standards for design and construction of tankers that would foreclose the imposition of different or more stringent state requirements. In particular, as we see it, Congress did not anticipate that a vessel found to be in compliance with the Secretary’s design and construction regulations and holding a Secretary’s permit, or its equivalent, to carry the relevant cargo would nevertheless be barred by state law from operating in the navigable waters of the United States on the ground that its design characteristics constitute an undue hazard.
We do not question in the slightest the prior cases holding that enrolled and registered vessels must conform to “reasonable, nondiscriminatory conservation and environmental protection measures...” imposed by a State. Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U. S. 265, 277 (1977), citing Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71 (1855); Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240 (1891); and Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440 (1960). Similarly, the mere fact that a vessel has been inspected and found to' comply with the Secretary’s vessel safety regulations does not prevent a State or city from enforcing local laws having other purposes, such as a local smoke abatement law. Ibid. But in none of the relevant cases sustaining the application of state laws to federally licensed or inspected vessels did the federal licensing or inspection procedure implement a substantive rule of federal law addressed to the object also sought to be achieved by the challenged state regulation. Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, for example, made it plain that there was “no overlap between the scope of the federal ship inspection laws and that of the municipal ordinance...” there involved. Id., at 446. The purpose of the “federal inspection statutes [was] to insure the seagoing safety of vessels... to aifor[d] protection from the perils of maritime navigation,” while “[b]y contrast, the sole aim of the Detroit ordinance [was] the elimination of air pollution to protect the health and enhance the cleanliness of the local community.” Id., at 445.
Kelly v. Washington, 302 U. S. 1 (1937), involved a similar situation. There, the Court concluded that the Federal Motor Boat Act, although applicable to the vessels in question, was of limited scope and did not include provision for "the inspection of the hull and machinery of respondents’ motor-driven tugs in order to insure safety or determine seaworthiness...,” as long as the tugs did not carry passengers, freight, or in.fla.mmable liquid cargo. Id., at 8. It followed that state inspection to insure safety was not in conflict with federal law, the Court also holding that the limited federal regulations did not imply an intent to exclude state regulation of those matters not touched by the federal statute.
Here, we have the very situation that Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit and Kelly v. Washington put aside. Title II aims at insuring vessel safety and protecting the marine environment; and the Secretary must issue all design and construction regulations that he deems necessary for these ends, after considering the specified statutory standards. The federal scheme thus aims precisely at the same ends as does § 88.16.190 (2) of the Tanker Law. Furthermore, under the PWSA, after considering the statutory standards and issuing all design requirements that in his judgment are necessary, the Secretary inspects and certifies each vessel as sufficiently safe to protect the marine environment and issues a permit or its equivalent to carry tank-vessel cargoes. Refusing to accept the federal judgment, however, the State now seeks to exclude from Puget Sound vessels certified by the Secretary as having acceptable design characteristics, unless they satisfy the different and higher design requirements imposed by state law. The Supremacy Clause dictates that the federal judgment that a vessel is safe to navigate United States waters prevail over the contrary state judgment.
Enforcement of the state requirements would at least frustrate what seems to us to be the evident congressional intention to establish a uniform federal regime controlling the design of oil tankers. The original Tank Vessel Act, amended by Title II, sought to effect a “reasonable and uniform set of rules and regulations concerning ship construction...,” H. R. Rep. No. 2962, 74th. Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1936); and far from evincing a different purpose, the Title II amendments strongly indicate that insofar tanker design is concerned, Congress anticipated the enforcement of federal standards that would pre-empt state efforts to mandate different or higher design requirements.
That the Nation was to speak with one voice with respect to tanker-design standards is supported by the legislative history of Title II, particularly as it reveals a decided congressional preference for arriving at international standards for building tank vessels. The Senate Report recognizes that vessel design “has traditionally been an area for international rather than national action,” and that “international solutions in this area are preferable since the problem of marine pollution is world-wide.” Senate Report 23. Congress did provide that the Secretary’s safety regulations would not apply to foreign ships holding compliance certificates under regulations arrived at by international agreement; but, in the end, the environmental protection regulations were made applicable to foreign as well as to American vessels since it was thought to be necessary for the achievement of the Act’s purposes.
Although not acceding to the request of those who thought that foreign vessels should be completely exempt from regulation under Title II, Congress did not abandon the effort to achieve international agreement on what the proper design standards should be. It wrote into Title II a deferral procedure, requiring the Secretary at the outset to transmit his proposed environmental protection rules and regulations with respect to vessel design to the appropriate international forums for consideration as international standards. § 391a (7)(B). In order to facilitate the international consideration of these design requirements, Title II specified that the rules and regulations governing foreign vessels and United States vessels engaged in foreign trade could not become effective before January 1, 1974, unless they were consonant with an international agreement. §391a(7)(C). As noted by the Senate Report, this requirement demonstrated the “committee’s strong intention that standards for the protection of the marine environment be adopted, multilaterally if possible, but adopted in any event.” Senate Report 28.
Congress expressed a preference for international action and expressly anticipated that foreign vessels would or could be considered sufficiently safe for certification by the Secretary if they satisfied the requirements arrived at by treaty or convention; it is therefore clear that Title II leaves no room for the States to impose different or stricter design requirements than those which Congress has enacted with the hope of having them internationally adopted or has accepted as the result of international accord. A state law in this area, such as the first part of § 88.16.190 (2), would frustrate the congressional desire of achieving uniform, international standards and is thus at odds with “the object sought to be obtained by [Title II] and the character of obligations imposed by it... Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S., at 230. In this respect, the District Court was quite correct.
V
Of course, that a tanker is certified under federal law as a safe vessel insofar as its design and construction characteristics are concerned does not mean that it is free to ignore otherwise valid state or federal rules or regulations that do not constitute design or construction specifications. Registered vessels, for example, as we have already indicated, must observe Washington's pilotage requirement. In our view, both enrolled and registered vessels must also comply with the provision of the Tanker Law that requires tug escorts for tankers over 40,000 DWT that do not satisfy the design provisions specified in §88.16.190 (2). This conclusion requires analysis of Title I of the PWSA, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1221-1227 (1970 ed., Supp. Y).
A
In order to prevent damage to vessels, structures, and shore areas, as well as environmental harm to navigable waters and the resources therein that might result from vessel or structure damage, Title I authorizes the Secretary to establish and operate “vessel traffic services and systems” for ports subject to congested traffic, as well as to require ships to comply with the systems and to have the equipment necessary to do so. §§ 1221 (1) and (2). The Secretary may “control vessel traffic” under various hazardous conditions by specifying the times for vessel movement, by establishing size and speed limitations and vessel operating conditions, and by restricting vessel operation to those vessels having the particular operating characteristics which he considers necessary for safe operation under the circumstances. § 1221 (3). In addition, the Secretary may require vessels engaged in foreign trade to carry pilots until the State having jurisdiction establishes a pilot requirement, § 1221 (5); he may establish minimum safety equipment requirements for shore structures, § 1221 (7); and he may establish waterfront safety zones or other measures for limited, controlled, or conditional access when necessary for the protection of vessels, structures, waters, or shore areas, § 1221 (8).
In carrying out his responsibilities under the Act, the Secretary may issue rules and regulations. § 1224. In doing so, he is directed to consider a wide variety of interests that might affect the exercise of his authority, such as possible environmental impact, the scope and degree of the hazards involved, and “vessel traffic characteristics including minimum interference with the flow of commercial traffic, traffic volume, the sizes and types of vessels, the usual nature of local cargoes, and similar factors.” § 1222 (e). Section 1222 (b) provides that nothing in Title I is to “prevent a State or political subdivision thereof from prescribing for structures only higher safety equipment requirements or safety standards than those which may be prescribed pursuant to this chapter.”
Exercising this authority, the Secretary, through his delegate, the Coast Guard, has issued Navigation Safety Regulations, 33 CFR Part 164 (adopted at 42 Fed. Reg. 5956 (1977)). Of particular importance to this case, he has promulgated the Puget Sound Vessel Traffic System containing general rules, communication rules, vessel movement reporting requirements, a traffic separation scheme, special rules for ship movement in Rosario Strait, descriptions and geographic coordinates of the separation zones and traffic lanes, and a specification for precautionary areas and reporting points. 33 CFR Part 161, Subpart B (1976), as amended, 42 Fed. Reg. 29480 (1977). There is also delegated to Coast Guard district commanders and captains of ports the authority to exercise the Secretary’s powers under § 1221 (3) to direct the anchoring, mooring, and movements of vessels; temporarily to establish traffic routing schemes; and to specify vessel size and speed limitations and operating conditions. 33 CFR § 160.35 (1976). Traffic in Rosario Strait is subject to a local Coast Guard rule prohibiting “the passage of more than one 70,000 DWT vessel through Rosario Strait in either direction at any given time.” During the periods of bad weather, the size limitation is reduced to approximately 40,000 DWT. App. 65.
B
A tug-escort provision is not a design requirement, such as is promulgated under Title II. It is more akin to an operating rule arising from the peculiarities of local waters that call for special precautionary measures, and, as such, is a safety measure clearly within the reach of the Secretary’s authority under §§ 1221 (3) (iii) and (iv) to establish “vessel size and speed limitations and vessel operating conditions” and to restrict vessel operation to those with “particular operating characteristics and capabilities....” Title I, however, merely authorizes and does not require the Secretary to issue regulations to implement the provisions of the Title; and assuming that § 1222 (b) prevents a State from issuing “higher safety equipment requirements or safety standards,” see infra, at 174, it does so only with respect to those requirements or standards “which may be prescribed pursuant to this chapter.”
The relevant inquiry under Title I with respect to the State’s power to impose a tug-escort rule is thus whether the Secretary has either promulgated his own tug requirement for Puget Sound tanker navigation or has decided that no such requirement should be imposed at all. It does not appear to us that he has yet taken either course. He has, however, issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 41 Fed. Reg. 18770 (1976), to amend his Navigation Safety Regulations issued under Title I, 33 CFR Part 164 (1977), so as to require tug escorts for certain vessels operating in confined waters. The notice says that these rules, if adopted, “are intended to provide uniform guidance for the maritime industry and Captains of the Port.” 41 Fed. Reg. 18771 (1976). It may be that rules will be forthcoming that will pre-empt the State’s present tug-escort rule, but until that occurs, the State’s requirement need not give way under the Supremacy Clause.
Nor for constitutional purposes does it make substantial difference that under the Tanker Law those vessels that satisfy the State’s design requirements are in effect exempted from the tug-escort requirement. Given the validity of a' general rule prescribing tug escorts for all tankers, Washington is also privileged, insofar as the Supremacy Clause is concerned, to waive the rule for tankers having specified design characteristics. For this reason, we conclude that the District Court erred in holding that the alternative tug requirement of § 88.16.190 (2) was invalid because of its conflict with the PWSA.
VI
We cannot arrive at the same conclusion with respect to the remaining provision of the Tanker Law at issue here. Section 88.16.190 (1) excludes from Puget Sound under any circumstances any tanker in excess of 125,000 DWT. In our view, this provision is invalid in light of Title I and the Secretary’s actions taken thereunder.
We begin with the premise that the Secretary has the authority to establish “vessel size and speed limitations,” § 1221 (3)(iii), and that local Coast Guard officers have been authorized to exercise this power on his behalf. Furthermore, § 1222 (b), by permitting the State to impose higher equip•ment or safety standards “for structures only,” impliedly forbids higher state standards for vessels. The implication is strongly supported by the legislative history of the PWSA. The House Report explains that the original wording of the bill did “not make it absolutely clear that the Coast Guard regulation of vessels preempts state action in this field” and says that § 1222 (b) was amended to provide “a positive statement retaining State jurisdiction over structures and making clear that State regulation of vessels is not contemplated.” House Report 15.
. Relying on the legislative history, the appellants argue that the preclusive effect of § 1222 (b) is restricted to vessel equipment requirements. The statute, however, belies this argument, for it expressly reaches vessel “safety standards” as well as equipment. A limitation on vessel size would seem to fall squarely within the category of safety standards, since the Secretary’s authority to impose size limits on vessels navigating Puget Sound is designed to prevent damage to vessels and to the navigable waters and is couched in terms of controlling vessel traffic in areas “which he determines to be especially hazardous.”
The pertinent inquiry at this point thus becomes whether the Secretary, through his delegate, has addressed and acted upon the question of size limitations. Appellees and the United States insist that he has done so by his local navigation rule with respect to Rosario Strait: The rule prohibits the passage of more than one 70,000 DWT vessel through Rosario Strait in either direction at any given time, and in periods of bad weather, the “size limitation” is reduced to approximately 40.000 DWT. On the record before us, it appears sufficiently clear that federal authorities have indeed dealt with the issue of size and have determined whether and in what circumstances tanker size is to limit navigation in Puget Sound. The Tanker Law purports to impose a general ban on large tankers, but the Secretary’s response has been a much more limited one. Because under § 1222 (b) the State may not impose higher safety standards than those prescribed by the Secretary under Title I, the size limitation of § 88.16.190 (1) may not be enforced.
There is also force to the position of appellees and the United States that the size regulation imposed by the Tanker Law, if not pre-empted under Title I, is similar to or indistinguishable from a design requirement which Title II reserves to the federal regime. This may be true if the size limit represents a state judgment that, as a matter of safety and environmental protection generally, tankers should not exceed 125.000 DWT. In that event, the State should not be permitted to prevail over a contrary design judgment made by federal authorities in pursuit of uniform national and international goals. On the other hand, if Washington’s exclusion of large tankers from Puget Sound is in reality based on water depth in Puget Sound or on other local peculiarities, the Tanker Law in this respect would appear to be within the scope of Title I, in which event also state and federal law would represent contrary judgments, and the state limitation would have to give way.
Our conclusion as to the State’s ban on large tankers is consistent with the legislative history of Title I. In exercising his authority under the Title, the Secretary is directed to consult with other agencies in order “to assure consistency of regulations...,”§ 1222 (c), and also to “consider fully the wide variety of interests which may be affected... § 1222 (e). These twin themes — consistency of regulation and thoroughness of consideration — reflect the substance of the Committee Reports. The House Report indicates that a good number of the witnesses who testified before the House subcommittee stated that one of the strong points of Title I was “the imposition of federal control in the areas envisioned by the bill which will insure regulatory and enforcement uniformity throughout all the covered areas." House Report 8. Such a view was expressed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Bender, who pointed out that with a federally operated traffic system, the necessary research and development could be carried out by a single authority and then utilized around the country “with differences applied... to the particular ports....’’ Ibid. He added that the same agency of the Federal Government that developed the traffic systems should then be responsible for enforcing them. Ibid.
While the House Report notes the importance of uniformity of regulation and enforcement, the Senate Report stresses the careful consideration that the Secretary must give to various factors before exercising his authority under Title I. It states that the Secretary “is required to balance a number of considerations including the scope and degree of hazard, vessel traffic characteristics, conditions peculiar to a particular port or waterway, environmental factors, economic impact, and so forth.” Senate Report 34. It was also “anticipated that the exercise of the authority provided... regarding the establishment of vessels size and speed limitations [would] not be imposed universally, but rather [would] be exercised with due consideration to the factors” set forth above and with due regard for “such matters as combinations of horsepower, drafts of vessels, rivers, depth and width of channels, design types of vessels involved, and other relevant circumstances.” Id., at 33.
We read these statements by Congress as indicating that it desired someone with an overview of all the possible ramifications of the regulation of oil tankers to promulgate limitations on tanker size and that he should act only after balancing all of the competing interests. While it was not anticipated that the final product of this deliberation would be the promulgation of traffic safety systems applicable across the board to all United States ports, it was anticipated that there would be a single decisionmaker, rather than a different one in each State.
Against this background, we think the pre-emptive impact of § 1222 (b) is ail understandable expression of congressional intent. Furthermore, even without § 1222 (b), we would be reluctant to sustain the Tanker Law’s absolute ban on tankers larger than 125,000 DWT. The Court has previously recognized that “where failure of... federal officials affirmatively to exercise their full authority takes on the character of a ruling that no such regulation is appropriate or approved pursuant to the policy of the statute,” States are not permitted to use their police power to enact such a regulation. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relations Board, 330 U. S. 767, 774 (1947); Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 U. S. 605 (1926). We think that in this case the Secretary’s failure to promulgate a ban on the operations
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed. The joint motion for entry of decree is granted, and the proposed decree is entered. Gregory E. Maggs, Esq., of Washington, D. C., the Special Master in this case, is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
DECREE
On June 12, 2000, the Court granted the State of Alaska leave to file a bill of complaint to quiet title relating to certain marine submerged lands in southeast Alaska. 530 U. S. 1228. The Court appointed a Special Master to direct subsequent proceedings and to submit such reports as he deemed appropriate. 531 U. S. 941 (2000). On January 8, 2001, the Court granted the State of Alaska leave to file an amended complaint. 531 U. S. 1066. On March 5,2001, the Court referred the State of Alaska’s amended complaint and the United States’ answer to the Master. 532 U. S. 902. From 2001 to 2004, the Special Master oversaw extensive briefing of motions for summary judgment relating to the various counts of the amended complaint. On April 26, 2004, the Court received and ordered filed the Report of the Special Master on Six Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and One Motion for Confirmation of a Disclaimer of Title (Mar. 2004). 541 U. S. 1008. On June 6, 2005, this Court overruled the State of Alaska’s exceptions and directed the parties to prepare and submit an appropriate decree to the Master for the Court’s consideration. 545 U. S. 75, 110. The parties have prepared a proposed decree, and the Master recommends its approval.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
1. On counts I and II of the amended complaint of the State of Alaska, judgment is granted to the United States, and the State of Alaska shall take nothing. As between the State of Alaska and the United States, the United States has title to the marine submerged lands underlying the pockets and enclaves of water at issue in counts I and II of the State of Alaska’s amended complaint, which are those marine submerged lands that are more than three geographical miles from every point on the coastline of the mainland or of any individual island of the Alexander Archipelago. See 545 U. S. 75,80 (2005). For purposes of determining the United States’ title:
(a) the term “marine submerged lands” means all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide (Submerged Lands Act, § 2(a)(2), 67 Stat. 29 (43 U. S. C. § 1301(a)(2)));
(b) the term “coast line” 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 defined in §2(c) of the Submerged Lands Act, ibid. (43 U. S. C. § 1301(c)); and
(c) the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters shall be determined in accordance with the Court’s rulings that: (i) the waters of the Alexander Archipelago do not constitute historic inland waters; and (ii) “North Bay,” “South Bay,” Sitka Sound, and Cordova Bay, as designated in this action, do not constitute juridical bays. See 545 U. S., at 81-96.
2. On count IV of the amended complaint of the State of Alaska, judgment is granted to the United States, and the State of Alaska shall take nothing. As between the State of Alaska and the United States, the United States has title to the marine submerged lands within the exterior boundaries of Glacier Bay National Monument as those boundaries existed on the date of the State of Alaska’s admission to the Union. See 545 U. S., at 96-110. For purposes of determining the United States’ title, the term “marine submerged lands” means all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide (Submerged Lands Act, § 2(a)(2), 67 Stat. 29 (43 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(2))).
3. The motion of the State of Alaska for summary judgment on count III is dismissed as moot, and count III is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In accordance with 28 U. S. C. §2409a(e), the following disclaimer of the United States is confirmed:
DISCLAIMER
(1) Pursuant to the Quiet Title Act, 28 U. S. C. §24Q9a(e), and subject to the exceptions set out in paragraph (2), the United States disclaims any real property interest in the marine submerged lands within the exterior boundaries of the Tongass National Forest, as those boundaries existed on the date of Alaska Statehood.
(2) The disclaimer set out in paragraph (1) does not disclaim:
(a) any submerged lands that are subject to the exceptions set out in § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 32 (43 U. S. C. § 1313);
(b) any submerged lands that are more than three geographic miles seaward of the coastline;
(c) any submerged lands that were under the jurisdiction of an agency other than the United States Department of Agriculture on the date of the filing of the complaint in this action;
(d) any submerged lands that were held for military, naval, Air Force, or Coast Guard purposes on the date that Alaska entered the Union.
(3) For purposes of this disclaimer:
(a) The term “coast line” 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 defined in § 2(c) of the Submerged Lands Act, id., at 29 (43 U. S. C. § 1301(c)).
(b) The term “submerged lands” means “lands beneath navigable waters” as defined in § 2(a) of the Submerged Lands Act, ibid. (43 U. S. C. § 1301(a)).
(c) The term “marine submerged lands” means “all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide.” See Submerged Lands Act, ibid. § 2(a)(2), (43 U. S. C. § 1301(a)(2)).
(d) The term “jurisdiction” has the meaning of that word in the Quiet Title Act, 28 U. S. C. §2409a(m).
(e) The exception set out in §5(a) of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 32 (43 U. S. C. § 1313(a)), for lands “expressly retained by or ceded to the United States when the State entered the Union” does not include lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture unless, on the date Alaska entered the Union, that land was:
(i) withdrawn pursuant to Act of Congress, Presidential Proclamation, Executive Order, or public land order of the Secretary of Interior, other than Presidential Proclamation No. 37, 32 Stat. 2025, which established the Alexander Archipelago Forest Reserve; Presidential Proclamation of Sept. 10,1907 (35 Stat. 2152), which created the Tongass National Forest; or Presidential Proclamations of Feb. 16, 1909 (35 Stat. 2226), and June 10, 1925 (44 Stat. 2578), which expanded the Tongass National Forest; or
(ii) subject to one or more of the following pending applications for withdrawal pursuant to 43 CFR pt. 295 (1954 rev. and Supp. 1958), designated by Bureau of Land Management serial numbers: AKA 022828; AKA 026916; AKA 029820; AKA 031178; AKA 032449; AKA 033871; AKA 034383; AKJ 010461; AKJ 010598; AKJ 010761; AKJ 011157; AKJ 011168; AKJ 011203; AKJ 011210; AKJ 011212; AKJ 011213; AKJ 011291.
4. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as from time to time may be deemed necessary or advisable to effectuate and supplement this Decree and the rights of the respective parties. In all other respects, this Decree is final.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner stands convicted under § 647 (5) of the Penal Code of California, which provides in relevant part that “Every . . . dissolute person . . . [i]s a vagrant, and is punishable by a fine of not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in an order which recited that the appeal had been submitted without argument. A motion to recall the remittitur and vacate the judgment of the appellate court was denied without opinion after a full hearing before three judges. We granted certiorari because of serious constitutional questions raised as to the validity of the vagrancy statute and its application to the petitioner. 343 U. S. 955. However, on oral argument, doubts arose as to whether the federal questions were properly presented by the record. Accordingly, it is necessary at the outset to determine whether we have jurisdiction in this case.
Petitioner contends, first, that his conviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the vagrancy statute is vague, indefinite and uncertain. The record indicates that this defense was not raised on trial but was presented for the first time as the fifth of petitioner’s grounds of appeal, stated as follows: “5. Vagrancy statute is unconstitutional because vague and indefinite.”
It is clear that this Court is without power to decide whether constitutional rights have been violated when the federal questions are not seasonably raised in accordance with the requirements of state law. Hulbert v. City of Chicago, 202 U. S. 275 (1906); Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, 308 (1903). Noncompliance with such local law can thus be an adequate state ground for a decision below. Aside from state law regarding the scope of review in cases such as this one, we note that California permits affirmance in criminal cases where the appellant fails to appear. It follows that the question whether the vagrancy statute is invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment is not properly before us.
The argument that petitioner’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were infringed by discriminatory law enforcement merits only brief comment. The evidence adduced on trial showed at most that the vagrancy statute is not used by the Los Angeles authorities in all of the cases in which it might be applicable. Doubtless recognizing the necessity of showing systematic or intentional discrimination, petitioner made an offer of proof phrased as follows, “I want to show by the police records that there are thousands and thousands of individuals in this city that are walking around that have committed many more offenses than this defendant that have never been charged with vagrancy.” This offer was made in connection with a subpoena addressed to the local police records section. On motion of the city attorney the subpoena was quashed on the ground that the accompanying affidavit did not comply with the requirements of state law. Since California law determined this action, there is no federal question preserved for review in this aspect of the case. Hedgebeth v. North Carolina, 334 U. S. 806 (1948).
Petitioner urges, finally, that he was deprived of notice and opportunity to have a hearing in the appellate court. A careful study of the record discloses these facts: On December 13, 1949, one day after sentence was imposed, the attorney who represented petitioner during the nine-day trial in Los Angeles Municipal Court filed written notice of appeal in that court. An application for substitution of attorneys was there filed and granted on February 7, 1950. The substituted attorney thereafter appeared in the trial court at hearings on the settlement of the statement on appeal. Preparation of that statement was a lengthy process, not concluded until June 18, 1951, when it was allowed and settled in final form by the trial judge.
After the Appellate Department affirmed the conviction, petitioner filed a motion to “Recall the Remittitur and to Vacate the Judgment” of the Appellate Department on the ground that its judgment “was occasion[ed] by the inadvertence, and mistake of fact of the defendant and of the clerk of the above entitled court, and on the incomplete presentation of all the facts and law by the defendant...." In a supporting affidavit, petitioner’s original attorney stated that he received notice that the appeal had been set for argument; that he then went to the office of the Appellate Department clerk and advised the person attending the desk that the substituted attorney was the proper person to notify, and was assured that petitioner’s then counsel would be notified of the date of the hearing. Substituted counsel filed an affidavit stating that he had not received such notice.
The motion to recall the remittitur and vacate the judgment of the Appellate Department asserted no deprivation of any federal constitutional right. Further, the motion sought what, under California law, is an extraordinary remedy, not available where the court had “jurisdiction to render the judgment complained of and it does not affirmatively appear that it was the result of fraud, imposition or misapprehension of facts.” People v. Stone, 93 Cal. App. 2d 858, 861, 210 P. 2d 78, 80 (1949) and cases there cited; 23 Calif. L. Rev. 354. Respondent has also suggested that state habeas corpus was available to petitioner to test the constitutionality of his restraint. This is borne out by In re Bell, 19 Cal. 2d 488, 122 P. 2d 22 (1942), in which the State Supreme Court decided that California habeas corpus may be used to test the constitutionality of a statute under which the applicant has been convicted. The writ is, in fact, there stated to be the only remedy available for this purpose where the applicant has exhausted his remedy by appeal. Under California law, habeas corpus can also be used to raise other constitutional objections to criminal proceedings, such as deprivation of right to counsel. In re Bell, supra, 19 Cal. 2d, at 501, 122 P. 2d, at 30. The denial of petitioner’s motion, therefore, rested on an adequate state ground, his choice of the wrong remedy under local law. Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211, 214 (1946). This is not a case in which there is serious doubt about the nature of the ground on which the decision below rested. Cf. State Commission v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511 (1939); Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940); Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945). We are thus without power to decide petitioner’s claims on the merits, whatever maybe their appeal. The writ was improvidently granted and must be dismissed. Stembridge v. Georgia, 343 U. S. 541 (1952).
It is so ordered.
See People v. Garza, 86 Cal. App. 97, 260 P. 390 (1927); Rule 8, Rules on Appeal from Municipal Courts and Inferior Courts in Criminal Cases, as amended to January 6, 1947; Deering’s Cal. Penal Code, 1949, § 1253; People v. Sukovitzen, 67 Cal. App. 2d 901, 155 P. 2d 406 (1945).
Apparently the statement was agreed upon some time before June 18, judging from the docket entry of November 6, 1950, “Defendant’s Counsel to engross Statement on Appeal,” and an affidavit dated March 7, 1951, showing service of the engrossed statement on substituted counsel.
Rule 3 (b) of Revised Appellate Department Rules provides, in part, that “Failure of the clerk to mail any such notice [of hearing] shall not affect the jurisdiction of the Appellate Department.”
See People v. McDermott, 97 Cal. 247, 32 P. 7 (1893), in which a motion to recall the remittitur of the State Supreme Court was denied, clearly on state grounds, under circumstances similar to those in the instant 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.
The petitioner, Jack Boyd, pleaded guilty in a Georgia trial court to three counts of forging checks and to one count of possession of a forged check. He was not represented by a lawyer. The court sentenced him to serve 28 years in prison — four consecutive terms of seven years each. No transcript of that plea or sentencing proceeding exists.
He sought habeas corpus relief in the state trial court, alleging, among other things, that he had been denied the assistance of counsel. An evidentiary hearing was held, and relief was denied. An appeal was dismissed by the Georgia Supreme Court. The petitioner then filed a petition for habeas corpus in a Federal District Court, which denied relief without a hearing, basing its decision on the record of the state post-conviction proceeding. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Boyd v. Smith, 435 F. 2d 153.
At the Georgia post-conviction hearing, where the petitioner was also without the assistance of counsel, the only witness for the State on the question of waiver of counsel at the arraignment was a man named Dunnaway, who had been present at the arraignment, as Deputy Sheriff of Terrell County, Georgia. According to Dunnaway, the prosecutor told the petitioner that he was entitled to legal counsel and that the court would appoint a lawyer if the petitioner could not afford one. By Dun-naway’s account, the prosecutor then asked the petitioner if he wanted a lawyer, and the petitioner replied that he did not. Yet there were apparently no questions from either the judge or the prosecutor during the arraignment inquiring whether the petitioner understood the nature and consequences of his alleged waiver of the right to counsel or of his guilty plea.
The petitioner expressed a desire to call witnesses at the state post-conviction hearing, but the court did not ask him who the proposed witnesses were or inquire about the expected nature of their testimony. The judge simply noted that the petitioner, who obviously possessed no legal skills, had failed to subpoena those whom he wanted to testify.
A person charged with a felony in a state court has an unconditional and absolute constitutional right to a lawyer. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335. This right attaches at the pleading stage of the criminal process, Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, and may be waived only by voluntary and knowing action, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458; Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506. Waiver will not be “lightly presumed,” and a trial judge must “indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver.” Johnson, supra, at 464.
The controlling issue in this case is whether the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to counsel before entering the guilty plea in the state trial court. It is evident that the material facts bearing upon that issue were inadequately developed in the state court post-conviction hearing. That being so, the Federal District Court was under a duty to hold an evidentiary hearing. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 313; 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (d). Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment before us, and remand the case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from a remedial redistricting order entered by the District Court in a racial gerrymandering case we have seen before. The case concerns the redistricting of state legislative districts by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2011, in response to the 2010 census. A group of plaintiff voters, appellees here, alleged that the General Assembly racially gerrymandered their districts when-in an ostensible effort to comply with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965-it drew 28 State Senate and State House of Representatives districts comprising majorities of black voters. The District Court granted judgment to the plaintiffs, and we summarily affirmed that judgment. See Covington v. North Carolina, 316 F.R.D. 117 (M.D.N.C.2016), summarily aff'd, 581 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2211, 198 L.Ed.2d 655 (2017).
At the same time, however, we vacated the District Court's remedial order, which directed the General Assembly to adopt new districting maps, shortened by one year the terms of the legislators currently serving in the gerrymandered districts, called for special elections in those districts, and suspended two provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. See North Carolina v. Covington, 581 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1624, 1625-1626, 198 L.Ed.2d 110 (2017) (per curiam ). The District Court ordered all of this, we noted, after undertaking only the "most cursory" review of the equitable balance involved in court-ordered special elections. Id., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1626. Having found that the District Court's discretion " 'was barely exercised,' " we remanded the case for further remedial proceedings. Ibid. (quoting Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 27, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) ).
On remand, the District Court ordered the General Assembly to draw remedial maps for the State House and State Senate within a month, and to file those maps in the District Court for approval. The General Assembly complied after directing its map drawers to, among other things, make "[r]easonable efforts ... to avoid pairing incumbent members of the House [and] Senate" and not to use "[d]ata identifying the race of individuals or voters" in the drawing of the new districts. 283 F.Supp.3d 410, 417-418 (M.D.N.C.2018) (per curiam ). The plaintiffs filed objections to the new maps. They argued that four legislative districts-Senate Districts 21 and 28 and House Districts 21 and 57-still segregated voters on the basis of race. The plaintiffs also objected to the General Assembly's decision to redraw five State House districts situated in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties. They argued that those five districts "did not violate the [U.S.] Constitution, [and] did not abut a district violating the [U.S.] Constitution." Id., at 443. Thus, they contended, the revision of the borders of those districts constituted mid-decade redistricting in violation of the North Carolina Constitution. See Art. II, § 5(4); Granville County Commr's v. Ballard, 69 N.C. 18, 20-21 (1873).
After some consideration of these objections, the District Court appointed a Special Master to redraw the lines of the districts to which the plaintiffs objected, along with any nonadjacent districts to the extent "necessary" to comply with districting criteria specified by the District Court. App. to Juris. Statement 106-107. Those criteria included adherence to the "county groupings" used by the legislature in its remedial plan and to North Carolina's "Whole County Provision as interpreted by the North Carolina Supreme Court." Id., at 108. The District Court further instructed the Special Master to make "reasonable efforts to adhere to ... state policy objectives" by creating relatively compact districts and by avoiding split municipalities and precincts. Id., at 108-109. The District Court also permitted the Special Master to "adjust district lines to avoid pairing any incumbents who have not publicly announced their intention not to run in 2018" and to "consider data identifying the race of individuals or voters to the extent necessary to ensure that his plan cures the unconstitutional racial gerrymanders." Id., at 109-111.
Upon receipt of the Special Master's report, the District Court sustained the plaintiffs' objections and adopted the Special Master's recommended reconfiguration of the state legislative maps. See 283 F.Supp.3d, at 414. With respect to Senate Districts 21 and 28 and House Districts 21 and 57, the District Court found that those districts, as redrawn by the legislature, "retain[ed] the core shape" of districts that it had earlier found to be unconstitutional. Id., at 436 ; see id., at 439, 440, 441-442. The District Court noted, for instance, that the legislature's remedial plan for Senate District 21 copied the prior plan's "horseshoe-shaped section of the city of Fayetteville," which "include[d] Fayetteville's predominantly black [voting districts] and blocks and exclude[d] Fayetteville's predominantly white [voting districts] and blocks." Id., at 436. Although the defendants explained that the new district was designed to " 'preserve the heart of Fayetteville,' " the District Court found that they had "fail[ed] to provide any explanation or evidence as to why 'preserving the heart of Fayetteville' required the exclusion of numerous majority-white precincts in downtown Fayetteville from the remedial district." Ibid. (alterations omitted). Likewise, the District Court found that the legislature's remedial version of Senate District 28, though it "encompasse[d] only a portion of [the city of] Greensboro," nevertheless "encompasse[d] all of the majority black [voting districts] within Greensboro," while "exclud[ing] predominantly white sections of Greensboro," and "reach[ing] out of Greensboro's city limits to capture predominantly African-American areas in eastern Guilford County." Id., at 438. By choosing to preserve the shape of the district's " 'anchor' " in eastern Greensboro, the District Court found, the General Assembly had "ensured that the district would retain a high [black voting age population], thereby perpetuating the effects of the racial gerrymander." Id., at 438-439.
The District Court made similar findings with respect to the legislature's remedial House Districts 21 and 57. House District 21, it found, "(1) preserve [d] the core shape of ... the previously unconstitutional district, (2) include [d] all but one of the majority-black [voting districts] in the two counties through which it [ran], (3) divide[d] a municipality and precinct along racial lines, [and] (4) ha[d] an irregular shape that corresponde[d] to the racial make-up of the geographic area." Id., at 439-440. In light of this and other evidence, the District Court concluded that House District 21 "continue [d] to be a racial gerrymander." Id., at 440. House District 57, the District Court found, likewise inexplicably "divide[d] the city of Greensboro along racial lines," id., at 442, and otherwise preserved features of the previously invalidated 2011 maps. The District Court thus concluded that the General Assembly's remedial plans as to those districts were unconstitutional. Ibid.
The District Court then sustained the plaintiffs' remaining objection that several House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties had been redrawn unnecessarily in violation of the North Carolina Constitution's prohibition on mid-decade redistricting. See id., at 443 (citing Art. II, § 5(4) ). The court reasoned that the prohibition "preclude[d] the General Assembly from engaging in mid-decade redistricting" except to the extent "required by federal law or a judicial order." 283 F.Supp.3d, at 443. It noted further that, "[w]hen a court must draw remedial districts itself, this means that a court may redraw only those districts necessary to remedy the constitutional violation," ibid. (citing Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 40-41, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982) (per curiam ) ), and that "Upham requires that a federal district court's remedial order not unnecessarily interfere with state redistricting choices," 283 F.Supp.3d, at 443. This remedial principle informed the District Court's conclusion that "the General Assembly [had] exceeded its authority under [the District Court's remedial] order by disregarding the mid-decade redistricting prohibition," since the legislature had failed to "put forward any evidence showing that revising any of the five Wake and Mecklenburg County House districts challenged by Plaintiffs was necessary to remedy the racially gerrymandered districts in those two counties." Id., at 444.
Finally, the District Court adopted the Special Master's recommended replacement plans for the districts to which the plaintiffs had objected. In adopting those recommendations, the District Court turned away the defendants' argument that they were built on "specific ... quota[s]" of black voters in each reconstituted district. Id., at 448-449. The District Court instead credited the Special Master's submission that his " 'remedial districts were drawn not with any racial target in mind, but in order to maximize compactness, preserve precinct boundaries, and respect political subdivision lines,' " and that the remedial map was the product of " 'explicitly race-neutral criteria.' " Id., at 449. The District Court directed the defendants to implement the Special Master's recommended district lines and to conduct elections accordingly.
The defendants applied to this Court for a stay of the District Court's order pending appeal. We granted a stay with respect to implementation of the Special Master's remedial districts in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties, but otherwise denied the application. See 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 974, 200 L.Ed.2d 216 (2018). The defendants timely appealed directly to this Court as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. We have jurisdiction, and now summarily affirm in part and reverse in part the order of the District Court.
* * *
The defendants first argue that the District Court lacked jurisdiction even to enter a remedial order in this case. In their view, "[w]here, as here, a lawsuit challenges the validity of a statute," the case becomes moot "when the statute is repealed." Juris. Statement 17. Thus, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs' racial gerrymandering claims ceased to exist when the North Carolina General Assembly enacted remedial plans for the State House and State Senate and repealed the old plans.
The defendants misunderstand the nature of the plaintiffs' claims. Those claims, like other racial gerrymandering claims, arise from the plaintiffs' allegations that they have been "separate[d] ... into different districts on the basis of race."
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 649, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993). Resolution of such claims will usually turn upon "circumstantial evidence that race for its own sake, and not other districting principles, was the legislature's dominant and controlling rationale in drawing" the lines of legislative districts. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 913, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995). But it is the segregation of the plaintiffs-not the legislature's line-drawing as such-that gives rise to their claims. It is for this reason, among others, that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge racial gerrymanders only with respect to those legislative districts in which they reside. See Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1257, 1265, 191 L.Ed.2d 314 (2015). Here, in the remedial posture in which this case is presented, the plaintiffs' claims that they were organized into legislative districts on the basis of their race did not become moot simply because the General Assembly drew new district lines around them. To the contrary, they argued in the District Court that some of the new districts were mere continuations of the old, gerrymandered districts. Because the plaintiffs asserted that they remained segregated on the basis of race, their claims remained the subject of a live dispute, and the District Court properly retained jurisdiction.
Second, the defendants argue that the District Court erred when it "conclu[ded] that the General Assembly engaged in racial gerrymandering by declining to consider race." Juris. Statement 20. They assert that "there is no dispute that the General Assembly did not consider race at all when designing the 2017 [remedial plans]-not as a predominant motive, a secondary motive, or otherwise," and that such "undisputed fact should have been the end of the plaintiffs' racial gerrymandering challenges." Id., at 21-22.
This argument suffers from the same conceptual flaws as the first. While it may be undisputed that the 2017 legislature instructed its map drawers not to look at race when crafting a remedial map, what is also undisputed-because the defendants do not attempt to rebut it in their jurisdictional statement or in their brief opposing the plaintiffs' motion to affirm-is the District Court's detailed, district-by-district factfinding respecting the legislature's remedial Senate Districts 21 and 28 and House Districts 21 and 57.
That factfinding, as discussed above, turned up sufficient circumstantial evidence that race was the predominant factor governing the shape of those four districts. See, e.g., 283 F.Supp.3d, at 436. As this Court has previously explained, a plaintiff can rely upon either "circumstantial evidence of a district's shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose" in proving a racial gerrymandering claim. Miller, supra, at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475. The defendants' insistence that the 2017 legislature did not look at racial data in drawing remedial districts does little to undermine the District Court's conclusion-based on evidence concerning the shape and demographics of those districts-that the districts unconstitutionally sort voters on the basis of race. 283 F.Supp.3d, at 442.
Third, the defendants argue that the District Court abused its discretion by arranging for the Special Master to draw up an alternative remedial map instead of giving the General Assembly-which "stood ready and willing to promptly carry out its sovereign duty"-another chance at a remedial map. Juris. Statement 33. Yet the District Court had its own duty to cure illegally gerrymandered districts through an orderly process in advance of elections. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-5, 127 S.Ct. 5, 166 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006) (per curiam ). Here the District Court determined that "providing the General Assembly with a second bite at the apple" risked "further draw[ing] out these proceedings and potentially interfer[ing] with the 2018 election cycle." 283 F.Supp.3d, at 448, n. 10. We conclude that the District Court's appointment of a Special Master in this case was not an abuse of discretion.
Neither was the District Court's decision to adopt the Special Master's recommended remedy for the racially gerrymandered districts. The defendants argue briefly that the District Court's adoption of that recommendation was error because the Special Master's remedial plan was "expressly race-conscious" and succeeded in "compel[ling] the State to employ racial quotas of plaintiffs' choosing." Juris. Statement 34-35. Yet this Court has long recognized "[t]he distinction between being aware of racial considerations and being motivated by them." Miller, supra, at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475. The District Court's allowance that the Special Master could "consider data identifying the race of individuals or voters to the extent necessary to ensure that his plan cures the unconstitutional racial gerrymanders," App. to Juris. Statement 111, does not amount to a warrant for "racial quotas." In any event, the defendants' assertions on this question make no real attempt to counter the District Court's agreement with the Special Master that " 'no racial targets were sought or achieved' " in drawing the remedial districts. 283 F.Supp.3d, at 449.
All of the foregoing is enough to convince us that the District Court's order should be affirmed insofar as it provided a court-drawn remedy for Senate Districts 21 and 28 and House Districts 21 and 57. The same cannot be said, however, of the District Court's actions concerning the legislature's redrawing of House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties. There the District Court proceeded from a mistaken view of its adjudicative role and its relationship to the North Carolina General Assembly.
The only injuries the plaintiffs established in this case were that they had been placed in their legislative districts on the basis of race. The District Court's remedial authority was accordingly limited to ensuring that the plaintiffs were relieved of the burden of voting in racially gerrymandered legislative districts. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 353, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006). But the District Court's revision of the House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties had nothing to do with that. Instead, the District Court redrew those districts because it found that the legislature's revision of them violated the North Carolina Constitution's ban on mid-decade redistricting, not federal law. Indeed, the District Court understood that ban to apply unless such redistricting was "required by federal law or judicial order." 283 F.Supp.3d, at 443. The District Court's enforcement of the ban was thus premised on the conclusion that the General Assembly's action was not "required" by federal law.
The District Court's decision to override the legislature's remedial map on that basis was clear error. "[S]tate legislatures have primary jurisdiction over legislative reapportionment," White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 795, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted), and a legislature's "freedom of choice to devise substitutes for an apportionment plan found unconstitutional, either as a whole or in part, should not be restricted beyond the clear commands" of federal law, Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 85, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966). A district court is "not free ... to disregard the political program of" a state legislature on other bases. Upham, 456 U.S., at 43, 102 S.Ct. 1518. Once the District Court had ensured that the racial gerrymanders at issue in this case were remedied, its proper role in North Carolina's legislative districting process was at an end.
The order of the District Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia is reversed. Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U. S. 372.
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 GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which makes it a federal felony to "encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law." § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). The crime carries an enhanced penalty if "done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain." § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i).
Respondent Evelyn Sineneng-Smith operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California. She was indicted for multiple violations of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Her clients, most of them from the Philippines, worked without authorization in the home health care industry in the United States. Between 2001 and 2008, Sineneng-Smith assisted her clients in applying for a "labor certification" that once allowed certain aliens to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident permitted to live and work in the United States. § 1255(i)(1)(B)(ii).
There was a hindrance to the efficacy of Sineneng-Smith's advice and assistance. To qualify for the labor-certification dispensation she promoted to her clients, an alien had to be in the United States on December 21, 2000, and apply for certification before April 30, 2001. § 1255(i)(1)(C). Sineneng-Smith knew her clients did not meet the application-filing deadline; hence, their applications could not put them on a path to lawful residence. Nevertheless, she charged each client $5,900 to file an application with the Department of Labor and another $900 to file with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. For her services in this regard, she collected more than $3.3 million from her unwitting clients.
In the District Court, Sineneng-Smith urged unsuccessfully, inter alia , that the above-cited provisions, properly construed, did not cover her conduct, and if they did, they violated the Petition and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment as applied. See Motion to Dismiss in No. 10-cr-414 (ND Cal.), pp. 7-13, 20-25; Motion for Judgt. of Acquittal in No. 10-cr-414 (ND Cal.), pp. 14-19, 20-25. She was convicted on two counts under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), and on other counts (filing false tax returns and mail fraud) she does not now contest. Throughout the District Court proceedings and on appeal, she was represented by competent counsel.
On appeal from the § 1324 convictions to the Ninth Circuit, both on brief and at oral argument, Sineneng-Smith essentially repeated the arguments she earlier presented to the District Court. See Brief for Appellant in No. 15-10614 (CA9), pp. 11-28. The case was then moved by the appeals panel onto a different track. Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, the appeals court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question Sineneng-Smith herself never raised earlier: "[W]hether the statute of conviction is overbroad ... under the First Amendment." App. 122-124. In the ensuing do over of the appeal, counsel for the parties were assigned a secondary role. The Ninth Circuit ultimately concluded, in accord with the invited amici 's arguments, that § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad. 910 F.3d 461, 485 (2018). The Government petitioned for our review because the judgment of the Court of Appeals invalidated a federal statute. Pet. for Cert. 24. We granted the petition. 588 U.S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 36, 204 L.Ed.2d 1194 (2019).
As developed more completely hereinafter, we now hold that the appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion. We therefore vacate the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remand the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.
I
In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation. As this Court stated in Greenlaw v. United States , 554 U.S. 237, 128 S.Ct. 2559, 171 L.Ed.2d 399 (2008), "in both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal ..., we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present." Id ., at 243, 128 S.Ct. 2559. In criminal cases, departures from the party presentation principle have usually occurred "to protect a pro se litigant's rights." Id. , at 244, 128 S.Ct. 2559 ; see, e.g. , Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375, 381-383, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003) (affirming courts' authority to recast pro se litigants' motions to "avoid an unnecessary dismissal" or "inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion's claim and its underlying legal basis" (citation omitted)). But as a general rule, our system "is designed around the premise that [parties represented by competent counsel] know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief." Id. , at 386, 124 S.Ct. 786 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
In short: "[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government." United States v. Samuels , 808 F.2d 1298, 1301 (CA8 1987) (Arnold, J., concurring in denial of reh'g en banc). They "do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties." Ibid.
The party presentation principle is supple, not ironclad. There are no doubt circumstances in which a modest initiating role for a court is appropriate. See, e.g. , Day v. McDonough , 547 U.S. 198, 202, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006) (federal court had "authority, on its own initiative," to correct a party's "evident miscalculation of the elapsed time under a statute [of limitations]" absent "intelligent waiver"). But this case scarcely fits that bill. To explain why that is so, we turn first to the proceedings in the District Court.
In July 2010, a grand jury returned a multicount indictment against Sineneng-Smith, including three counts of violating § 1324, three counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and two counts of willfully subscribing to a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Sineneng-Smith pleaded guilty to the tax-fraud counts, App. to Pet. for Cert. 78a-79a, and did not pursue on appeal the two mail-fraud counts on which she was ultimately convicted. We therefore concentrate this description on her defenses against the § 1324 charges.
Before trial, Sineneng-Smith moved to dismiss the § 1324 counts. Motion to Dismiss in No. 10-cr-414 (ND Cal.). She asserted first that the conduct with which she was charged-advising and assisting aliens about labor certifications-is not proscribed by § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Being hired to file lawful applications on behalf of aliens already residing in the United States, she maintained, did not "encourage" or "induce" them to remain in this country. Id. , at 7-13. Next, she urged, alternatively, that clause (iv) is unconstitutionally vague and therefore did not provide fair notice that her conduct was prohibited, id. , at 13-18, or should rank as a content-based restraint on her speech, id. , at 22-24. She further asserted that she has a right safeguarded to her by the Petition and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment to file applications on her clients' behalf. Id., at 20-25. Nowhere did she so much as hint that the statute is infirm, not because her own conduct is protected, but because it trenches on the First Amendment sheltered expression of others.
The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Sineneng-Smith could "encourag[e]" noncitizens to remain in the country, within the meaning of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), "[b]y suggesting to [them] that the applications she would make on their behalf, in exchange for their payments, would allow them to eventually obtain legal permanent residency in the United States." App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a. The court also rejected Sineneng-Smith's constitutional arguments, reasoning that she was prosecuted, not for filing clients' applications, but for falsely representing to noncitizens that her efforts, for which she collected sizable fees, would enable them to gain lawful status. Id. , at 75a.
After a 12-day trial, the jury found Sineneng-Smith guilty on the three § 1324 counts charged in the indictment, along with the three mail-fraud counts. App. 118-121. Sineneng-Smith then moved for a judgment of acquittal. She renewed, "almost verbatim," the arguments made in her motion to dismiss, App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a, and the District Court rejected those arguments "[f]or the same reasons as the court expressed in its order denying Sineneng-Smith's motion to dismiss," ibid . She simultaneously urged that the evidence did not support the verdicts. Motion for Judgt. of Acquittal in No. 10-cr-414 (ND Cal.), at 1-14. The District Court found the evidence sufficient as to two of the three § 1324 counts and two of the three mail-fraud counts. App. to Pet. for Cert. 67a.
Sineneng-Smith's appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the District Court's § 1324 convictions commenced unremarkably. On brief and at oral argument, she reasserted the self-regarding arguments twice rehearsed, initially in her motion to dismiss, and later in her motion for acquittal. Brief for Appellant in No. 15-10614 (CA9), at 9-27, 35-41; Recording of Oral Arg. (Apr. 18, 2017), at 37:00-39:40; see supra , at 1579 - 1580. With the appeal poised for decision based upon the parties' presentations, the appeals panel intervened. It ordered further briefing, App. 122-124, but not from the parties. Instead, it named three organizations-"the Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit (as a group)[,] the Immigrant Defense Project[,] and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild"-and invited them to file amicus briefs on three issues:
"1. Whether the statute of conviction is overbroad or likely overbroad under the First Amendment, and if so, whether any permissible limiting construction would cure the First Amendment problem?
"2. Whether the statute of conviction is void for vagueness or likely void for vagueness, either under the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment, and if so, whether any permissible limiting construction would cure the constitutional vagueness problem?
"3. Whether the statute of conviction contains an implicit mens rea element which the Court should enunciate. If so: (a) what should that mens rea element be; and (b) would such a mens rea element cure any serious constitutional problems the Court might determine existed?" Ibid.
Counsel for the parties were permitted, but "not required," to file supplemental briefs "limited to responding to any and all amicus/amici briefs ." Id. , at 123 (emphasis added). Invited amici and amici not specifically invited to file were free to "brief such further issues as they, respectively, believe the law, and the record calls for." Ibid. The panel gave invited amici 20 minutes for argument, and allocated only 10 minutes to Sineneng-Smith's counsel. Reargument Order in No. 15-10614 (CA9), Doc. No. 92. Of the three specified areas of inquiry, the panel reached only the first, holding that § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) was facially overbroad under the First Amendment, 910 F.3d at 483-485, and was not susceptible to a permissible limiting construction, id., at 472, 479.
True, in the redone appeal, Sineneng-Smith's counsel adopted without elaboration counsel for amici 's overbreadth arguments. See Supplemental Brief for Appellant in No. 15-10614 (CA9), p. 1. How could she do otherwise? Understandably, she rode with an argument suggested by the panel. In the panel's adjudication, her own arguments, differently directed, fell by the wayside, for they did not mesh with the panel's overbreadth theory of the case.
II
No extraordinary circumstances justified the panel's takeover of the appeal. Sineneng-Smith herself had raised a vagueness argument and First Amendment arguments homing in on her own conduct, not that of others. Electing not to address the party-presented controversy, the panel projected that § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) might cover a wide swath of protected speech, including political advocacy, legal advice, even a grandmother's plea to her alien grandchild to remain in the United States. 910 F.3d at 483-484. Nevermind that Sineneng-Smith's counsel had presented a contrary theory of the case in the District Court, and that this Court has repeatedly warned that "invalidation for [First Amendment] overbreadth is 'strong medicine' that is not to be 'casually employed.' " United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. 285, 293, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008) (quoting Los Angeles Police Dept. v. United Reporting Publishing Corp. , 528 U.S. 32, 39, 120 S.Ct. 483, 145 L.Ed.2d 451 (1999) ).
As earlier observed, see supra, at 1579, a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit's radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.
* * *
For the reasons stated, we vacate the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remand the case for reconsideration shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties.
It is so ordered.
Addendum of cases, 2015-2020, in which this Court called for supplemental briefing or appointed
amicus curiae
This Court has sought supplemental briefing: to determine whether a case presented a controversy suitable for the Court's review, Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, --- U.S. ----, --- S.Ct. ----, --- L.Ed.2d ----, 2020 WL 1978940 (2020) (ordering briefing on application of political question doctrine and related justiciability principles); Frank v. Gaos , 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 475, 202 L.Ed.2d 363 (2018) (ordering briefing on Article III standing); Wittman v. Personhuballah , 576 U.S. 1093, 136 S.Ct. 25, 192 L.Ed.2d 996 (2015) (same); Docket Entry in Gloucester County School Bd. v. G. G. , O. T. 2016, No. 16-273 (Feb. 23, 2017) (ordering briefing on intervening Department of Education and Department of Justice guidance document); Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States , 577 U.S. 970, 136 S.Ct. 444, 193 L.Ed.2d 345 (2015) (ordering briefing on mootness); to determine whether the case could be resolved on a basis narrower than the question presented, Zubik v. Burwell , 578 U.S. ----, --- S.Ct. ----, 194 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016) (ordering briefing on whether the plaintiffs could obtain relief without entirely invalidating challenged federal regulations); and to clarify an issue or argument the parties raised, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., --- U.S. ----, --- S.Ct. ----, --- L.Ed.2d ----, 2020 WL 2105207 (2020) (ordering further briefing on the parties' dispute over the standard of review applicable to the question presented); Babb v. Wilkie , 589 U.S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 917, 205 L.Ed.2d 518 (2020) (ordering briefing on an assertion counsel made for the first time at oral argument about alternative remedies available to the plaintiff); Sharp v. Murphy , reported sub nom. Carpenter v. Murphy , 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 626, 202 L.Ed.2d 452 (2018) (ordering briefing on the implications of the parties' statutory interpretations).
In rare instances, we have ordered briefing on a constitutional issue implicated, but not directly presented, by the question on which we granted certiorari. See Jennings v. Rodriguez , 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 471, 196 L.Ed.2d 490 (2016) (in a case about availability of a bond hearing under a statute mandating detention of certain noncitizens, briefing ordered on whether the Constitution requires such a hearing); Johnson v. United States , 574 U.S. 1069, 135 S.Ct. 939, 190 L.Ed.2d 718 (2015) (in a case involving interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause, briefing ordered on whether that clause is unconstitutionally vague). But in both cases, the parties had raised the relevant constitutional challenge in lower courts; the question was not interjected into the case for the first time by an appellate forum. In Jennings , moreover, the parties' statutory arguments turned expressly on the constitutional issue. Jennings v. Rodriguez , 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 830, 200 L.Ed.2d 122 (2018). And in Johnson , although this Court had interpreted the Act's residual clause four times in the preceding nine years, there still remained "pervasive disagreement" in the lower courts about its application. Johnson v. United States , 576 U.S. 591, 601, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).
We have appointed amicus curiae : to present argument in support of the judgment below when a prevailing party has declined to defend the lower court's decision or an aspect of it, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , 589 U.S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 450, 205 L.Ed.2d 265 (2019) ; Holguin-Hernandez v. United States , 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2779, 204 L.Ed.2d 1155 (2019) ; Culbertson v. Berryhill , 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2042, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018) ; Lucia v. SEC , 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 923, 199 L.Ed.2d 620 (2018) ; Beckles v. United States , 579 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 23, 195 L.Ed.2d 895 (2016) ; Welch v. United States , 577 U.S. 1098, 136 S.Ct. 892, 193 L.Ed.2d 782 (2016) ; McLane Co. v. EEOC , 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 461, 196 L.Ed.2d 339 (2016) ; Green v. Brennan , 576 U.S. 1087, 136 S.Ct. 14, 192 L.Ed.2d 983 (2015) ; Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143, 135 S.Ct. 2150, 192 L.Ed.2d 225, reported sub nom. Reyes Mata v. Holder , 574 U.S. 1118, 135 S.Ct. 1039, 190 L.Ed.2d 907 (2015) ; and to address the Court's jurisdiction to decide the question presented, Montgomery v. Louisiana , 575 U.S. 933, 135 S.Ct. 1729, 191 L.Ed.2d (2015).
For violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), the prison term is "not more than 5 years," § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii) ; if "the offense was done for ... private financial gain," the prison term is "not more than 10 years," § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i).
Sineneng-Smith argued that labor-certification applications were often approved despite expiration of the statutory dispensation, and that an approved application, when submitted as part of a petition for adjustment of status, would place her clients in line should Congress reactivate the dispensation. See Motion for Judgt. of Acquittal in No. 10-cr-414 (ND Cal.), p. 16.
See Kaplan, Civil Procedure-Reflections on the Comparison of Systems, 9 Buffalo L. Rev. 409, 431-432 (1960) (U.S. system "exploits the free-wheeling energies of counsel and places them in adversary confrontation before a detached judge"; "German system puts its trust in a judge of paternalistic bent acting in cooperation with counsel of somewhat muted adversary zeal").
In an addendum to this opinion, we list cases in which this Court has called for supplemental briefing or appointed amicus curiae in recent years. None of them bear any resemblance to the redirection ordered by the Ninth Circuit panel in this case.
The court sentenced Sineneng-Smith to 18 months on each of the remaining counts; three years of supervised release on the § 1324 and mail-fraud counts; and one year of supervised release on the filing of false tax returns count, all to run concurrently. She was also ordered to pay $43,550 in restitution, a $15,000 fine, and a $600 special assessment.
The Solicitor General maintained that the statute does not reach protected speech. Brief for United States 32. In the Government's view, § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) should be construed to prohibit only speech facilitating or soliciting illegal activity, thus falling within the exception to the First Amendment for speech integral to criminal conduct. Id. , at 22-26, 31 (citing United States v. Williams , 553 U.S. 285, 298, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008) ).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Powell join.
This case presents the question whether certain regulations governing the provision of health care to handicapped infants are authorized by § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. That section provides, in part:
“No otherwise qualified handicapped individual... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 87 Stat. 394, 29 U. S. C. §794.
I
The American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and several other respondents challenge the validity of Final Rules promulgated on January 12, 1984, by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. These Rules establish “Procedures relating to health care for handicapped infants,” and in particular require the posting of informational notices, authorize expedited access to records and expedited compliance actions, and command state child protective services agencies to “prevent instances of unlawful medical neglect of handicapped infants.” 45 CFR §84.55 (1985).
Although the Final Rules comprise six parts, only the four mandatory components are challenged here. Subsection (b) is entitled “Posting of informational notice” and requires every “recipient health care provider that provides health care services to infants in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance” — a group to which we refer generically as “hospitals” — to post an informational notice in one of two approved forms. 45 CFR § 84.55(b) (1985). Both forms include a statement that § 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap, and indicate that because of this prohibition “nourishment and medically beneficial treatment (as determined with respect for reasonable medical judgments) should not be withheld from handicapped infants solely on the basis of their present or anticipated mental or physical impairments.” 45 CFR §§ 84.55(b)(3), (4) (1985). The notice’s statement of the legal requirement does not distinguish between medical care for which parental consent has been obtained and that for which it has not. The notice must identify the telephone number of the appropriate child protective services agency and, in addition, a toll-free number for the Department that is available 24 hours a day. Ibid. Finally, the notice must state that the “identity of callers will be kept confidential” and that federal law prohibits retaliation “against any person who provides information about possible violations.” Ibid.
Subsection (c), which contains the second mandatory requirement, sets forth “Responsibilities of recipient state child protective services agencies.” Subsection (c) does not mention § 504 (or any other federal statute) and does not even use the word “discriminate.” It requires every designated agency to establish and maintain procedures to ensure that “the agency utilizes its full authority pursuant to state law to prevent instances of unlawful medical neglect of handicapped infants.” 45 CFR § 84.55(c)(1). Mandated procedures must include (1) “[a] requirement thát health care providers report on a timely basis... known or suspected instances of unlawful medical neglect of handicapped infants,” §84.55(c)(l)(i); (2) a method by which the state agency can receive timely reports of such cases, § 84.55(c)(1)(h); (3) “immediate” review of those reports, including “on-site investigation,” where appropriate, §84.55(c)(l)(iii); (4) protection of “medically neglected handicapped infants” including, where appropriate, legal action to secure “timely court order[s] to compel the provision of necessary nourishment and medical treatment,” §84.55(c)(l)(iv); and (5) “[tjimely notification” to HHS of every report of “suspected unlawful medical neglect” of handicapped infants. The preamble to the Final Rules makes clear that this subsection applies “where a refusal to provide medically beneficial treatment is a result, not of decisions by a health care provider, but of decisions by parents.” 49 Fed. Reg. 1627 (1984).
The two remaining mandatory regulations authorize “[expedited access to records” and “[expedited action to effect compliance.” 45 CFR §§ 84.55(d), (e) (1985). Subsection (d) provides broadly for immediate access to patient records on a 24-hour basis, with or without parental consent, “when, in the judgment of the responsible Department official, immediate access is necessary to protect the life or health of a handicapped individual.” § 84.55(d). Subsection (e) likewise dispenses with otherwise applicable requirements of notice to the hospital “when, in the judgment of the responsible Department official, immediate action to effect compliance is necessary to protect the life or health of a handicapped individual.” § 84.55(e). The expedited compliance provision is intended to allow “the government [to] see[k] a temporary restraining order to sustain the life of a handicapped infant in imminent danger of death.” 49 Fed. Reg. 1628 (1984). Like the provision affording expedited access to records, it applies without regard to whether parental consent to treatment has been withheld or whether the matter has already been referred to a state child protective services agency.
II
The Final Rules represent the Secretary’s ultimate response to an April 9, 1982, incident in which the parents of a Bloomington, Indiana, infant with Down’s syndrome and other handicaps refused consent to surgery to remove an esophageal obstruction that prevented oral feeding. On April 10, the hospital initiated judicial proceedings to override the parents’ decision, but an Indiana trial court, after holding a hearing the same evening, denied the requested relief. On April 12 the court asked the local Child Protection Committee to review its decision. After conducting its own hearing, the Committee found no reason to disagree with the court’s ruling. The infant died six days after its birth.
Citing “heightened public concern” in the aftermath of the Bloomington Baby Doe incident, on May 18, 1982, the director of the Department’s Office of Civil Rights, in response to a directive from the President, “remind[ed]” health care providers receiving federal financial assistance that newborn infants with handicaps such as Down’s syndrome were protected by § 504. 47 Fed. Reg. 26027 (1982).
This notice was followed, on March 7, 1983, by an “Interim Final Rule” contemplating a “vigorous federal role.” 48 Fed. Reg. 9630. The Interim Rule required health care providers receiving federal financial assistance to post “in a conspicuous place in each delivery ward, each maternity ward, each pediatric ward, and each nursery, including each intensive care nursery” a notice advising of the applicability of § 504 and the availability of a telephone “hotline” to report suspected violations of the law to HHS. Id., at 9631. Like the Final Rules, the Interim Rule also provided for expedited compliance actions and expedited access to records and facilities when, “in the judgment of the responsible Department official,” immediate action or access was “necessary to protect the life or health of a handicapped individual.” Id., at 9632. The Interim Rule took effect on March 22.
On April 6, 1983, respondents American Hospital Association et al. filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that the Interim Final Rule was invalid and an injunction against its enforcement. Little more than a week later, on April 14, in a similar challenge brought by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical institutions, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia declared the Interim Final Rule “arbitrary and capricious and promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” American Academy of Pediatrics v. Heckler, 561 F. Supp. 395, 404 (1983). The District Judge in that case “conclude[d] that haste and inexperience ha[d] resulted in agency action based on inadequate consideration” of several relevant concerns and, in the alternative, found that the Secretary had improperly failed to solicit public comment before issuing the Rule. Id., at 399-401.
On July 5, 1983, the Department issued new “Proposed Rules” on which it invited comment. Like the Interim Final Rule, the Proposed Rules required hospitals to post informational notices in conspicuous places and authorized expedited access to records to be followed, if necessary, by expedited compliance action. 48 Fed. Reg. 30851. In a departure from the Interim Final Rule, however, the Proposed Rules required federally assisted state child protective services agencies to utilize their “full authority pursuant to State law to prevent instances of medical neglect of handicapped infants.” Ibid. Mandated procedures mirrored those contained in the Final Rules described above. Ibid. The preamble and appendix to the Proposed Rules did not acknowledge that hospitals and physicians lack authority to perform treatment to which parents have not given their consent.
After the period for notice and comment had passed, HHS, on December 30, 1983, promulgated the Final Rules and announced that they would take effect on February 13, 1984. On March 12 of that year respondents American Hospital Association et al. amended their complaint and respondents American Medical Association et al. filed suit to declare the new regulations invalid and to enjoin their enforcement. The actions were consolidated in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, which awarded the requested relief on the authority of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. University Hospital, 729 F. 2d 144 (1984). American Hospital Assn. v. Heckler, 585 F. Supp. 541 (1984); App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a. On appeal, the parties agreed that the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in University Hospital, if valid, required a judgment against the Government in this case. In accordance with its earlier decision, the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the District Court. 694 F. 2d 676 (1984). Since the judgment here thus rests entirely on the reasoning of University Hospital, it is appropriate to examine that case now.
Ill
On October 11, 1983, after the Department’s Interim Final Rule had been declared invalid but before it had promulgated the Final Rules challenged here, a child with multiple congenital defects known as “Baby Jane Doe” was born in Long Island, New York, and was promptly transferred to University Hospital for corrective surgery. After consulting with physicians and other advisers, the parents decided to forgo corrective surgery that was likely to prolong the child’s life, but would not improve many of her handicapping conditions.
On October 16, 1983, an unrelated attorney named Wash-burn filed suit in the New York Supreme Court, seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the infant who would direct the hospital to perform the corrective surgery. The trial court granted that relief on October 20, but was reversed the following day by the Appellate Division which found that the “concededly concerned and loving parents” had “chosen one course of appropriate medical treatment over another” and made an informed decision that was “in the best interest of the infant.” Weber v. Stony Brook Hospital, 95 App. Div. 2d 587, 589, 467 N. Y. S. 2d 685, 687 (per curiam). On October 28, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed, but on the ground that the trial court should not have entertained a petition to initiate child neglect proceedings by a stranger who had not requested the aid of the responsible state agency. Weber v. Stony Brook Hospital, 60 N. Y. 2d 208, 211-213, 456 N. E. 2d 1186, 1187-1188 (per curiam).
While the state proceedings were in progress, on October 19, HHS received a complaint from a “private citizen” that Baby Jane Doe was being discriminatorily denied medically indicated treatment. HHS promptly referred this complaint to the New York State Child Protective Service. (The agency investigated the charge of medical neglect and soon thereafter concluded that there was no cause for state intervention.) In the meantime, before the State Child Protective Service could act, HHS on October 22, 1983, made repeated requests of the hospital to make its records available for inspection in order to determine whether the hospital was in compliance with § 504. The hospital refused the requests and advised HHS that the parents had not consented to a release of the records.
Subsequently, on November 2, 1983, the Government filed suit in Federal District Court invoking its general authority to enforce §504 and 45 CFR §84.61 (1985), a regulation broadly authorizing access to information necessary to ascertain compliance. The District Court allowed the parents to intervene as defendants, expedited the proceeding, and ruled against the Government. It reasoned that the Government had no right of access to information because the record clearly established that the hospital had not violated the statute. United States v. University Hospital, State Univ. of N. Y. at Stony Brook, 575 F. Supp. 607, 614 (EDNY). Since the uncontradicted evidence established that the hospital “ha[d] at all times been willing to perform the surgical procedures in question, if only the parents... would consent,” the hospital “failed to perform the surgical procedures in question, not because Baby Jane Doe [wa]s handicapped, but because her parents ha[d] refused to consent.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. In an opinion handed down on February 23, 1984, six weeks after promulgation of the Final Rules, it agreed with the District Court that “an agency is not entitled to information sought in an investigation that ‘overreaches the authority Congress has given.’” 729 F. 2d, at 150 (quoting Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 217 (1946)). It further held that although Baby Jane Doe was a “handicapped individual,” she was not “otherwise qualified” within the meaning of §504 because “where medical treatment is at issue, it is typically the handicap itself that gives rise to, or at least contributes to the need for services”; as a result “the ‘otherwise qualified’ criterion of section 504 cannot be meaningfully applied to a medical treatment decision.” 729 F. 2d, at 156. For the same reason, the Court of Appeals rejected the Government’s argument that Baby Jane Doe had been “subjected to discrimination” under § 504: “Where the handicapping condition is related to the condition(s) to be treated, it will rarely, if ever, be possible to say with certainty that a particular decision was ‘discriminatory’.” Id., at 157. The difficulty of applying §504 to individual medical treatment decisions confirmed the Court of Appeals in its view that “[CJongress never contemplated that section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act would apply to treatment decisions involving defective newborn infants when the statute was enacted in 1973, when it was amended in 1974, or at any subsequent time.” Id., at 161. It therefore rejected “the far-reaching position advanced by the government in this case” and concluded that until Congress had. spoken, “it would be an unwarranted exercise of judicial power to approve the type of investigation that ha[d] precipitated this lawsuit.” Ibid.
Judge Winter dissented. He pointed out that §504 was patterned after § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in federally funded programs, and asserted that a refusal to provide medical treatment because of a person’s handicapping condition is as clearly covered by § 504 as a refusal based on a person’s race is covered by § 601:
“A judgment not to perform certain surgery because a person is black is not a bona fide medical judgment. So too, a decision not to correct a life threatening digestive problem because an infant has Down’s Syndrome is not a bona fide medical judgment. The issue of parental authority is also quickly disposed of. A denial of medical treatment to an infant because the infant is black is not legitimated by parental consent.” Id., at 162.
The Government did not file a certiorari petition in University Hospital. It did, however, seek review of the judgment in this case. We granted certiorari, 472 U.. S. 1016 (1985), and we now affirm.
h — I C
The Solicitor General is correct that “handicapped individual” as used in § 504 includes an infant who is born with a congenital defect. If such an infant is “otherwise qualified” for benefits under a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, § 504 protects him from discrimination “solely by reason of his handicap.” It follows, under our decision in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U. S. 287, 301 (1985), that handicapped infants are entitled to “meaningful access” to medical services provided by hospitals, and that a hospital rule or state policy denying or limiting such access would be subject to challenge under § 504.
However, no such rule or policy is challenged, or indeed has been identified, in this case. Nor does this case, in contrast to the University Hospital litigation, involve a claim that any specific individual treatment decision violates § 504. This suit is not an enforcement action, and as a consequence it is not necessary to determine whether § 504 ever applies to individual medical treatment decisions involving handicapped infants. Respondents brought this litigation to challenge the four mandatory components of the Final Rules on their face, and the Court of Appeals’ judgment which we review merely affirmed the judgment of the District Court which “declared invalid and enjoined enforcement of [the final] regulations, purportedly promulgated pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. §794 (1982).” App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a. The specific question presented by this case, then, is whether the four mandatory provisions of the Final Rules are authorized by § 504.
V
It is an axiom of administrative law that an agency’s explanation of the basis for its decision must include “a ‘rational connnection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 168 (1962)). Agency deference has not come so far that we will uphold regulations whenever it is possible to “conceive a basis” for administrative action. To the contrary, the “presumption of regularity afforded an agency in fulfilling its statutory mandate” is not equivalent to “the minimum rationality a statute must bear in order to withstand analysis under the Due Process Clause.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S., at 43, n. 9. Thus, the mere fact that there is “some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the [regulators],” United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152 (1938) (footnote omitted), under which they “might have concluded” that the regulation was necessary to discharge their statutorily authorized mission, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 487 (1955), will not suffice to validate agency decision-making. See Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U. S. 607, 639-659 (1980) (opinion of Stevens, J.); Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 169 (1962). Our recognition of Congress’ need to vest administrative agencies with ample power to assist in the difficult task of governing a vast and complex industrial Nation carries with it the correlative responsibility of the agency to explain the rationale and factual basis for its decision, even though we show respect for the agency’s judgment in both.
Before examining the Secretary’s reasons for issuing the Final Rules, it is essential to understand the pre-existing state-law framework governing the provision of medical care to handicapped infants. In broad outline, state law vests decisional responsibility in the parents, in the first instance, subject to review in exceptional cases by the State acting as parens patriae. Prior to the regulatory activity culminating in the Final Rules, the Federal Government was not a participant in the process of making treatment decisions for newborn infants. We presume that this general framework was familiar to Congress when it enacted § 504. See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 696-697 (1979). It therefore provides an appropriate background for evaluating the Secretary’s action in this case.
The Secretary has identified two possible categories of violations of §504 as justifications for federal oversight of handicapped infant care. First, he contends that a hospital’s refusal to furnish a handicapped infant with medically beneficial treatment “solely by reason of his handicap” constitutes unlawful discrimination. Second, he maintains that a hospital’s failure to report eases of suspected medical neglect to a state child protective services agency may also violate the statute. We separately consider these two possible bases for the Final Rules.
I — l >
In the immediate aftermath of the Bloomington Baby Doe incident, the Secretary apparently proceeded on the assumption that a hospital’s statutory duty to provide treatment to handicapped infants was unaffected by the absence of parental consent. See supra, at 617-619. He has since abandoned that view. Thus, the preamble to the Final Rules correctly states that when “a non-treatment decision, no matter how discriminatory, is made by parents, rather than by the hospital, section 504 does not mandate that the hospital unilaterally overrule the parental decision and provide treatment notwithstanding the lack of consent.” 49 Fed. Reg. 1631 (1984). A hospital’s withholding of treatment when no parental consent has been given cannot violate § 504, for without the consent of the parents or a surrogate decisionmaker the infant is neither “otherwise qualified” for treatment nor has he been denied care “solely by reason of his handicap.” Indeed, it would almost certainly be a tort as a matter of state law to operate on an infant without parental consent. This analysis makes clear that the Government’s heavy reliance on the analogy to race-based refusals which violate § 601 of the Civil Rights Act is misplaced. If, pursuant to its normal practice, a hospital refused to operate on a black child whose parents had withheld their consent to treatment, the hospital’s refusal would not be based on the race of the child even if it were assumed that the parents based their decision entirely on a mistaken assumption that the race of the child made the operation inappropriate.
Now that the Secretary has acknowledged that a hospital has no statutory treatment obligation in the absence of parental consent, it has become clear that the Final Rules are not needed to prevent hospitals from denying treatment to handicapped infants. The Solicitor General concedes that the administrative record contains no evidence that hospitals have ever refused treatment authorized either by the infant’s parents or by a court order. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. Even the Secretary never seriously maintained that posted notices, “hotlines,” and emergency on-site investigations were necessary to process complaints against hospitals that might refuse treatment requested by parents. The parental interest in calling such a refusal to the attention of the appropriate authorities adequately vindicates the interest in enforcement of § 504 in such cases, just as that interest obviates the need for a special regulation to deal with refusals to provide treatment on the basis of race which may violate §601 of the Civil Rights Act.
The Secretary’s belated recognition of the effect of parental nonconsent is important, because the supposed need for federal monitoring of hospitals’ treatment decisions rests entirely on instances in which parents have refused their consent. Thus, in the Bloomington, Indiana, case that precipitated the Secretary’s enforcement efforts in this area, as well as in the University Hospital case that provided the basis for the summary affirmance in the case now before us, the hospital’s failure to perform the treatment at issue rested on the lack of parental consent. The Secretary’s own summaries of these cases establish beyond doubt that the respective hospitals did not withhold medical care on the basis of handicap and therefore did not violate § 504; as a result, they provide no support for his claim that federal regulation is needed in order to forestall comparable cases in the future.
The Secretary’s initial failure to recognize that withholding of consent by parents does not equate with discriminatory denial of treatment by hospitals likewise undermines the Secretary’s findings in the preamble to his proposed rulemaking. In that statement, the Secretary cited four sources in support of the claim that “Section 504 [is] not being uniformly followed.” 48 Fed. Reg. 30847 (1983). None of the cited examples, however, suggests that recipients of federal financial assistance, as opposed to parents, had withheld medical care on the basis of handicap.
Notwithstanding the ostensible recognition in the preamble of the effect of parental nonconsent on a hospital’s obligation to provide care, in promulgating the Final Rules the Secretary persisted in relying on instances in which parents had refused consent to support his claim that, regardless of its “magnitude,” there is sufficient evidence of “illegality” to justify “establishing basic mechanisms to allow for effective enforcement of a clearly applicable statute.” 49 Fed. Reg. 1645 (1984). We have already discussed one source of this evidence — “the several specific cases cited in the preamble to the proposed rule.” Ibid. Contrary to the Secretary’s belief, these cases do not “support the proposition that handicapped infants may be subjected to unlawful discrimination.” Ibid. In addition to the evidence relied on in prior notices, the Secretary included a summary of the 49 “Infant Doe cases” that the Department had processed before December 1, 1983. Curiously, however, by the Secretary’s own admission none of the 49 cases had “resulted in a finding of discriminatory withholding of medical care.” Id., at 1649. In fact, in the entire list of 49 cases there is no finding that a hospital failed or refused to provide treatment to a handicapped infant for which parental consent had been given.
Notwithstanding this concession, the Secretary “believes three of these cases demonstrate the utility of the procedural mechanisms called for in the final rules.” Ibid. Accord, ibid. (“[T]hese cases provide additional documentation of the need for governmental involvement and the appropriateness of the procedures established by the final rules”). However, these three cases, which supposedly provide the strongest support for federal intervention, fail to disclose any discrimination against handicapped newborns in violation of § 504. For example, in Robinson, Illinois, the Department conducted an on-site investigation when it learned that the “hospital (at the parents’ request) failed to perform necessary surgery.” Id., at 1646 (emphasis added). After “[t]he parents refused consent for surgery,” “the hospital referred the matter to state authorities, who accepted custody of the infant and arranged for surgery and adoption,” all “in compliance with section 504.” Ibid. The Secretary concluded that “the involvement of the state child protective services agency,” at the behest of the hospital, “was the most important element in bringing about corrective surgery for the infant.... Had there been no governmental involvement in the case, the outcome might have been much less favorable.” Id., at 1649 (emphasis added).
The Secretary’s second example illustrates with even greater force the effective and nondiscriminatory functioning of state mechanisms and the consequent lack of support for federal intervention. In Daytona Beach, Florida, the Department’s hotline received a complaint of medical neglect of a handicapped infant; immediate contact with the hospital and state agency revealed that “the parents did not consent to surgery” for the infant. Id., at 1648. Notwithstanding this information, which was confirmed by both the hospital and the state agency, and despite the fact that the state agency had “obtained a court order to provide surgery” the day before HHS was notified, the Department conducted an on-site investigation. Ibid. In the third case, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the Department intervened so soon after birth that “the decisionmaking process was in progress at the time the OCR [Office of Civil Rights] inquiry began,” and “it is impossible to say the surgery would not have been provided without this involvement.” Id., at 1649. “However,” the Secretary added, “the involvement of OCR and the OCR medical consultant was cooperatively received by the hospital and apparently constructive.” Ibid.
In sum, there is nothing in the administrative record to justify the Secretary’s belief that “discriminatory withholding of medical care” in violation of § 504 provides any support for federal regulation: In two of the cases (Robinson, Illinois, and Daytona Beach, Florida), the hospital’s refusal was based on the absence of parental consent, but the parents’ decision was overridden by state authorities and the operation was performed; in the third case (Colorado Springs, Colorado) it is not clear whether the parents would have given their consent or not, but the corrective surgery was in fact performed.
VII
As a backstop to his manifestly incorrect perception that withholding of treatment in accordance with parental instructions necessitates federal regulation, the Secretary contends that a hospital’s failure to report parents’ refusals to consent to treatment violates §504, and that past breaches of this kind justify federal oversight.
By itself, § 504 imposes no duty to report instances of medical neglect — that undertaking derives from state-law reporting obligations or a hospital’s own voluntary practice. Although a hospital’s selective refusal to report medical neglect of handicapped infants might violate §504, the Secretary has failed to point to any specific evidence that this has occurred. The 49 actual investigations summarized in the preamble to the Final Rules do not reveal any case in which a hospital either failed, or was accused of failing, to make an appropriate report to a state agency. Nor can we accept the Solicitor General’s invitation to infer discriminatory nonreporting from the studies cited in the Secretary’s proposed rulemaking. Even assuming that cases in which parents have withheld consent to treatment for handicapped infants have gone unreported, that fact alone would not prove that the hospitals involved had discriminated on the basis of handicap rather than simply failed entirely to discharge their state-law reporting obligations, if any, a matter which lies wholly outside the nondiscrimination mandate of § 504.
The particular reporting mechanism chosen by the Secretary — indeed the entire regulatory framework imposed on state child protective services agencies — departs from the nondiscrimination mandate of §504 in a more fundamental way. The mandatory provisions of the Final Rules omit any direct requirement that hospitals make reports when parents refuse consent to recommended procedures. Instead, the Final Rules command state agencies to require such reports, regardless of the state agencies’ own reporting requirements (or lack thereof). 45 CFR §84.55(c)(l)(i) (1985). Far from merely preventing state agencies from remaining calculatedly indifferent to handicapped infants while they tend to the needs of the similarly situated nonhandicapped, the Final Rules command state agencies to utilize their “full authority” to “prevent instances of unlawful medical neglect of handicapped infants.” § 84.55(c)(1). The Rules effectively make medical neglect of handicapped newborns a state investigative priority, possibly forcing state agencies to shift scarce resources away from other enforcement activities — perhaps even from programs designed to protect handicapped children outside hospitals. The Rules also order state agencies to “immediately]” review reports from hospitals, §84.55(c)(l)(iii), to conduct “on-site investigation[s],” ibid., and to take legal action “to compel the provision of necessary nourishment and medical treatment,” §84.55(c)(l)(iv) — all without any regard to the procedures followed by state agencies in handling complaints filed on behalf of nonhandicapped infants. These operating procedures were imposed over the objection of several state child protective services agencies that the requirement that they turn over reports to HHS “conflicts with the confidentiality requirements of state child abuse and neglect statutes,” 49 Fed. Reg. 1627 (1984) — thereby requiring under the guise of nondiscrimination a service which state law denies to the nonhandicapped.
The complaint-handling process the Secretary would impose on unwilling state agencies is totally foreign to the authority to prevent discrimination conferred on him by § 504. “Section 504 seeks to assure evenhanded treatment,” Alexander v. Choate, 469 U. S., at 304; “neither the language, purpose, nor history of § 504 reveals an intent to impose an affirmative-action obligation” on recipients of federal financial assistance, Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U. S. 397, 411 (1979). The Solicitor General also recognizes that §504 is concerned with discrimination and with discrimination alone. In his attempt to distinguish the Secretary’s 1976 determination that it “is beyond the authority of section 504” to promulgate regulations “concerning adequate and appropriate psychiatric care or safe and humane living conditions for persons institutionalized because of handicap or concerning payment of fair compensation to patients who perform work,” 41 Fed. Reg. 29548, 29559, the Solicitor General explains:
“This conclusion of course was consistent with the fact that, as relevant here, Section 504 is essentially concerned only with discrimination in the relative treatment of handicapped and nonhandicapped persons and does not confer any absolute right to receive particular services or benefits under federally assisted programs.” Brief for Petitioner 40, n. 33.
See also 48 Fed. Reg. 30846 (1983) (“Section 504 is in essence an equal treatment, non-discrimination standard”).
The Final Rules, however, impose just the sort of absolute obligation on state agencies that the Secretary had previously disavowed. The services state agencies are required to make available to handicapped infants are in no way tied to the level of services provided to similarly situated nonhandicapped infants. Instead, they constitute an “absolute right to receive particular services or benefits” under a federally assisted program. Even if a state agency were scrupulously impartial as between the protection it offered handicapped and nonhandicapped infants, it could still be denied federal funding for failing to carry out the Secretary’s mission with sufficient zeal.
It is no answer to state, as does the Secretary, that these regulations are a necessary “ ‘metho[d]... to give reasonable'assurance’ of compliance.” 49 Fed. Reg. 1627 (1984) (quoting 45 CFR § 80.4(b), which requires state agencies to report on their compliance with Title VI). For while the Secretary can require state agencies to document their own compliance with § 504, nothing in that provision authorizes him to commandeer state agencies to enforce compliance by other recipients of federal funds (in this instance, hospitals). State child protective services agencies are not field offices of the HHS bureaucracy, and they may not be conscripted against their will as the foot soldiers in a federal crusade. As we stated in Alexander v. Choate, 469 U. S., at 307, “nothing in the pre- or post-1973 legislative discussion of § 504 suggests that Congress desired to make major inroads on the States’ longstanding discretion to choose the proper mix” of services provided by state agencies.
VIII
Section 504 authorizes any head of an Executive Branch agency — regardless of his agency’s mission or expertise — to promulgate regulations prohibiting discrimination against the handicapped. See S. Rep. No. 93-1297, pp. 39-40 (1974). As a result of this rulemaking authority, the Secretary of HHS has “substantial leeway to explore areas in which discrimination against the handicapped pos[es] particularly significant problems and
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mb. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Is it a violation of the duty “to bargain collectively” imposed by § 8 (a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act for an employer, without first consulting a union with which it is carrying on bona fide contract negotiations, to institute changes regarding matters which are subjects of mandatory bargaining under § 8 (d) and which are in fact under discussion? The National Labor Relations Board answered the question affirmatively in this case, in a decision which expressly disclaimed any finding that the totality of the respondents’ conduct manifested bad faith in the pending negotiations. 126 N. L. R. B. 288. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied enforcement of the Board's cease- and-desist order, finding in our decision in Labor Board v. Insurance Agents’ Union, 361 U. S. 477, a broad rule that the statutory duty to bargain cannot be held to be violated, when bargaining is in fact being carried on, without a finding of the respondent’s subjective bad faith in negotiating. 289 F. 2d 700. The Court of Appeals said:
“We are of the opinion that the unilateral acts here complained of, occurring as they did during the negotiating of a collective bargaining agreement, do not per se constitute a refusal to bargain collectively and per se are not violative of § 8 (a) (5). While the subject is not generally free from doubt, it is our conclusion that in the posture of this case a necessary requisite of a Section 8 (a)(5) violation is a finding that the employer failed to bargain in good faith.” 289 F. 2d, at 702-703.
We granted certiorari, 368 U. S. 811, in order to consider whether the Board’s decision and order were contrary to Insurance Agents. We find nothing in the Board’s decision inconsistent with Insurance Agents and hold that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce the Board’s order.
The respondents are partners engaged in steel fabricating under the firm name of Williamsburg Steel Products Company. Following a consent election in a unit consisting of all technical employees at the company’s plant, the Board, on July 5, 1956, certified as their collective bargaining representative Local 66 of the Architectural and Engineering Guild, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO. The Board simultaneously certified the union as representative of similar units at five other companies which, with the respondent company, were members of the Hollow Metal Door' & Buck Association. The certifications related to separate units at the several plants and did not purport to establish a multi-employer bargaining unit.'
On July 11,1956, the union sent identical letters to each of the six companies, requesting collective bargaining. Negotiations were invited on either an individual or “association wide” basis, with the reservation that wage rates and increases would have to be discussed with each employer separately. A follow-up letter of July 19, 1956, repeated the request for contract negotiations and enumerated proposed subjects for discussion. Included were merit increases, general wage levels and increases, and a sick-leave proposal.
The first meeting between the company and the union took place on August 30, 1956. On this occasion, as at the ten other conferences held between October 2, 1956, and May 13, 1957, all six companies were in attendance and represented by the same counsel. It is undisputed that the subject of merit increases was raised at the August 30, 1956, meeting although there is an unresolved conflict as to whether an agreement was reached on joint participation by the company and the union in merit reviews, or whether the subject was simply mentioned and put off for discussion at a later date. It is also clear that proposals concerning sick leave were made. Several meetings were held during October and one in November, at which merit raises and sick leave were each discussed on at least two occasions. It appears, however, that little progress was made.
On December 5, a meeting was held at the New York State Mediation Board attended by a mediator of that agency, who was at that time mediating a contract negotiation between the union and Aetna Steel Products Corporation, a member of the Association bargaining separately from the others; and a decision was reached to recess the negotiations involved here pending the results of the Aetna negotiation. When the mediator called the next meeting on March 29, 1957, the completed Aetna contract was introduced . into the discussion. At a resumption of bargaining on April 4, the company, along with the other employers, offered a three-year agreement with certain initial and prospective automatic wage increases. The offer was rejected. Further meetings with the mediator on April 11, May 1, and May 13, 1957, produced no agreement, and no further meetings were held.
Meanwhile, on April 16, 1957, the union had filed the charge upon which the General Counsel’s complaint later issued. As amended and amplified, at the hearing and construed by the Board, the complaint’s charge of unfair labor practices particularly referred to three acts by the company: unilaterally granting numerous merit increasés in October 1956 and January 1957; unilaterally announcing a change in sick-leave policy in March 1957; and unilaterally instituting a new system of automatic wage increases during April 1957. As the ensuing litigation has developed, the company has defended against the charges along two fronts: First, it asserts that the unilateral changes occurred after a bargaining impasse had developed through the union’s fault in adopting obstructive tactics. According to the Board,, however, “the evidence is clear that the Respondent undertook its unilateral actions before negotiations were discontinued in May-1957, or before, as we find on the record, the existence of any possible impasse.” 126 N. L. R. B., at 289-290. There is ample support in the record considered as a whole for this finding of fact, which is consistent with the Examiner’s Intermediate Report, 126 N. L. R. B., at 295-296, and which the Court of Appeals did not question.
The second line of defense was that the Board could not hinge a conclusion that §8 (a)(5) had been violated on unilateral actions alone, without making a finding of the employer’s subjective bad faith at the bargaining table; and that the unilateral actions were merely evidence relevant to the issue of subjective good faith. This argument prevailed in the Court of Appeals which remanded the cases to the Board saying:
“Although we might ... be justified in denying enforcement without remand, . . . since the Board’s finding of an unfair labor practice impliedly proceeds from an erroneous view that specific unilateral acts, regardless of bad faith, may constitute violations of § 8 (a) (5), the case should be remanded to the Board in order that it may have an opportunity to take additional evidence, and make such findings as may be warranted by the record.” 289 F. 2d, at 709.
The duty “to bargain collectively” enjoined by § 8 (a) (5) is defined by § 8 (d) as the duty to “meet . . . and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” Clearly, the duty thus defined may be violated without a general failure of subjective good faith; for there is no occasion to consider the issue of good faith if a party has refused even to negotiate in fact — “to meet . . . and confer” — about any of the mandatory subjects. A refusal to negotiate in fact as to any subject which is within § 8 (d), and about which the union seeks to negotiate, violates § 8 (a) (5) though the employer has every desire to reach agreement with the union upon an over-all collective agreement and earnestly and in all good faith bargains to that end. We hold that an employer’s unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation is similarly a violation of §8 (a)(5), for it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate which frustrates the objectives of § 8 (a) (5) much as does a flat refusal.
The unilateral actions of the respondent illustrate the policy and practical considerations which support our conclusion.
We consider first the matter of sick leave. A sick-leave plan had been in effect since May 1956, under which employees were allowed ten paid sick-leave days annually and could accumulate half the unused days, or up to five days each year. Changes in the plan were sought and proposals and counterproposals had come up at three bargaining conferences. In March 1957, the company, without first notifying or consulting the union, announced changes in the plan, which reduced from ten to five the number of paid sick-leave days per year, but allowed accumulation of twice the unused days, thus increasing to ten the number of days which might be carried over. This action plainly frustrated the statutory objective of establishing working conditions through bargaining. Some employees might view the change to be a diminution' of benefits. Others, more interested in accumulating sick-leave days, might regard the change as an improvement. If one view or the other clearly prevailed among the employees, the unilateral action might well mean that the employer had either uselessly dissipated trading material or aggravated the sick-leave issue: On the. other hand, if the employees were more evenly divided on the merits of the company’s changes, the union negotiators, beset by conflicting factions, might be led to adopt a protective vagueness- on the issue of sick leave, which also would inhibit the useful discussion contemplated by Congress in imposing the specific obligation to bargain collectively.
Other considerations appear from consideration of the respondents’ unilateral action in increasing wages. At the April 4, 1957, meeting the employers offered, and the union rejected, a three-year contract with an immediate across-the-board increase of $7.50 per week, to be followed at the end of the first year and again at the end of the second by further increases of $5 for employees earning less than $90 at those times. Shortly thereafter, without having advised or consulted with the union, the company announced a new system of automatic wage increases whereby there would be an increase of $5 every three months up to $74.99 per week; an increase of $5 every six months between $75 and $90 per week; and a merit review every six months for employees earning over $90 per week. It is clear at a glance that the automatic wage increase system which was instituted unilaterally was considerably more generous than that which had shortly theretofore been offered to and rejected by the union. Such action conclusively manifested bad faith in the negotiations, Labor Board v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 337 U. S. 217, and so would have violated § 8 (a) (5) even on the Court of Appeals’ interpretation, though no additional evidence of bad faith appeared. An employer is not required to' lead with his best offer; he is free to bargain. But even after an impasse is reached he has no license to grant wage increases greater than any he has ever offered the union at the bargaining table, for such action is necessarily inconsistent with a sincere desire to conclude an agreement with the union.
The respondents’ third unilateral action related to merit increases, which are also a subject of mandatory bargaining. Labor Board v. Allison & Co., 165 F. 2d 766. The matter of merit increases had been raised at three of the conferences during 1956 but no final understanding had been reached. In January 1957, the company, without notice to the union, granted merit increases to 20 employees out of the approximately 50 in the unit, the increases ranging between $2 and $10. This action too must be viewed as tantamount to an outright refusal to negotiate on that subject, and therefore as a violation of § 8 (a)(5), unless the fact that the January raises were in line with the company’s long-standing practice of granting quarterly or semiannual merit reviews — in effect, were a mere continuation of the status quo — differentiates them from the wage increases and the changes in the sick-leave plan. We do not think it does. Whatever might be the case as to so-called “merit raises” which are in fact simply automatic increases to which the employer has already committed himself, the raises here in question were in no sense automatic, but were informed by a large measure of discretion. There simply is no way in such case for a union to know whether or not there has been a substantial departure from past practice, and therefore the union may properly insist that the company negotiate as to the procedures and criteria for determining such increases.
It is apparent from what we have said why we see nothing in Insurance Agents contrary to the Board’s decision. The union in that case had not in any way whatever foreclosed discussion of any issue, by unilateral actions or otherwise. The conduct complained of consisted of partial-strike tactics designed to put pressure on the employer to come to terms with the union negotiators. We held that Congress had not, in § 8 (b) (3), the counterpart of § 8 (a)(5), empowered the Board to pass judgment on the legitimacy of any particular economic weapon used in support of genuine negotiations. But the Board is authorized to order the cessation of behavior which is in effect a refusal to negotiate, or which directly obstructs or inhibits the actual process of discussion, or which reflects a cast of mind against reaching agreement. Unilateral action by an employer without prior discussion with the union does amount to a refusal to negotiate about the affected conditions of employment under negotiation, and must of necessity obstruct bargaining, contrary to the congressional policy. It will often disclose an unwillingness to agree with the union. It will rarely be justified by any reason of substance. It follows that the Board may hold such unilateral action to be an unfair labor practice in violation of §8 (a)(5), without also finding the employer guilty of over-all subjective bad faith. While we do not foreclose the possibility that there might be circumstances which the Board could or should accept as excusing or justifying unilateral action, no such case is presented here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to the court to enforce the Board’s order.
It is so ordered.
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.
National Labor Relations Act § 8 (a) (5), 49 Stat. 452-453, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (a) (5):
“It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer ... to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159 (a) of this title.”
National Labor Relations Act §8(d), added by 61 Stat. 142, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (d):
“For the purposes of this section, to. bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment . . . .” See Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U. S. 342, 348-349.
For earlier Board decisions in accord, see, e. g., Chambers Mfg. Corp., 124 N. L. R. B. 721; Bonham Cotton Mills, Inc., 121 N. L. R. B. 1235, 1236.
The Board’s order herein, in pertinent part, ordered that the respondents
“1. Cease and desist from:
“(a) Unilaterally changing wages, rates of pay, or sick leave, or granting merit increases, or in any similar or related manner refusing to bargain collectively with Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO . . . .
“(b) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment with the Union . . . .”
Accord: Labor Board v. Cascade Employers Assn., Inc., 296 F. 2d 42 (C. A. 9th Cir.).
By their references to “association wide bargaining” the parties appear to mean negotiations at which the six members of the Association for whose employees the union had received certifications on July 5, 1956, would be concurrently represented.
On one occasion in November 1956, a representative of the company conferred individually with the union about job classifications.
Particularizations of this charge are that the union adamantly insisted that the employers agree to a contract identical with that entered into by Aetna because the Aetna agreement contained a “most favored nation” clause; that the union evasively vacillated between insistence on individual and group negotiations; and that the conduct of negotiations by the union created unrest impairing the efficiency of the company’s operations and causing valued employees to quit.
The Board found as a fact that the introduction of the Aetna agreement did not create any impasse at least until after the unilateral actions here in issue. The Board adopted the Examiner’s finding that the company and not the union was responsible for any confusion over individual as opposed to assoeiation-wide bargaining. The unrest seems to have been a concomitant of the assertion by the employees of their rights to organize and negotiate a collective agreement, and could not justify a refusal of the company to bargain, at least in the absence of conduct of the union which amounted to an unfair labor practice.
The Examiner rejected the company’s offer to prove union-instigated slowdowns. But such proof would not have justified the company’s refusal to bargain. Since, as we held in Labor Board v. Insurance Agents’ Union, 361 U. S. 477, the Board may not brand partial strike activity as illegitimate and forbid its use in support of bargaining, an employer cannot be free to refuse to negotiate when the union resorts to such tactics. Engaging in partial strikes is not inherently inconsistent with a continued willingness to negotiate; and as long as there is such willingness and no impasse has developed, the employer’s obligation continues.
See Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474.
The Board had also found the company’s actions violative of § 8 (a) (1), 49 Stat. 462, as amended, 29 -U. S. C. § 158 (a) (1), but the Court of Appeals held that those findings were merely derivative of the Board’s conclusions regarding § 8 (a) (5) and so rejected them. We need not consider this question because the Board’s order presents no separate issue as to § 8 (a) (1). It requires the company to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively, and to bargain collectively on request. It imposes no broader obligation either in the language of, or by reference to, § 8 (a) (1).
See, e. g., Labor Board v. Allison & Co., 165 F. 2d 766.
Compare Medo Corp. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 678; May Department Stores v. Labor Board, 326 U. S. 376; Labor Board v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 337 U. S. 217.
In Medo, the Court held that the employer interfered with his employees’ right to bargain collectively through a chosen representative, in violation of §8 (1), 49 Stat. 452 (now §8 (a)(1)), when it treated directly with employees and granted them a wage increase in return for their promise to repudiate the union they had designated as their representative. It further held that the employer violated the statutory duty to bargain when he refused to negotiate with the union after the employees had carried out their promise.
May held that the employer violated § 8 (1) when, after having unequivocally refused to bargain with a certified union on the ground that the unit was inappropriate, it announced that it had applied to the War Labor Board for permission to grant a wage increase to all its employees except those whose wages had been fixed by “closed shop agreements.”
Crompton-Highland Mills sustained the Board’s conclusion that the employer’s unilateral grant of a wage increase substantially greater than any it had offered to the union during negotiations which had ended in impasse clearly manifested bad faith and violated the employer’s duty to bargain.
Of course, there is no resemblance between this situation and one wherein an employer, after notice and consultation, “unilaterally” institutes a wage increase identical with one which the union has rejected as too low. See Labor Board v. Bradley Washfountain Co., 192 F. 2d 144, 150-152; Labor Board v. Landis Tool Co., 193 F. 2d 279.
The Board also concluded that the company had violated § 8 (a) (5) by granting 34 merit increases in October 1956. However, it appears from a stipulation in the record and from the Board’s reply brief that the latter increases occurred on October 1, 1956, while the charge on which the instant complaint issued was not filed until April 16,1957, more than six months thereafter. Section 10 (b) of the Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 146, 29 U. S. C. §160 (b), provides that “no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board .• . . .” Therefore, we disregard the October 1956 increases as independently constituting an unfair labor practice. Nor do we find it necessary to decide whether they may be considered as evidence in connection with the Board’s suggestion that the merit increases of October 1956 and January 1957 should be viewed as together amounting to a general wage increase.
See Armstrong Cork Co. v. Labor Board, 211 F. 2d 843, 847; Labor Board v. Dealers Engine Rebuilders, Inc., 199 F. 2d 249. Compare the isolated individual wage adjustments held not to be unfair labor practices in Labor Board v. Superior Fireproof Door & Sash Co., 289 F. 2d 713, 720, and White v. Labor Board, 255 F. 2d 564, 565.
The Court expressly left open the question which would be raised by a union’s attempt to impose new working conditions unilaterally. 361 U. S., at 496-497, n. 28.
The company urges that, because of the lapse of time between the occurrence of the unfair labor practices and the Board’s final decision and order, and because the union was repudiated by the employees subsequently to the events recounted in this opinion, enforcement should be either denied altogether Or conditioned on the holding of a new election to determine whether the union is still the employees’ choice as a bargaining representative. The argument has no merit. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 702; Labor Board v. P. Lorillard Co., 314 U. S. 512; Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U. S. 563, 568. Inordinate delay in any case is regrettable, but Congress has introduced no time limitation into the Act except that in § 10 (b).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
When a consumer purchases goods or services, the consumer's State often imposes a sales tax. This case requires the Court to determine when an out-of-state seller can be required to collect and remit that tax. All concede that taxing the sales in question here is lawful. The question is whether the out-of-state seller can be held responsible for its payment, and this turns on a proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
In two earlier cases the Court held that an out-of-state seller's liability to collect and remit the tax to the consumer's State depended on whether the seller had a physical presence in that State, but that mere shipment of goods into the consumer's State, following an order from a catalog, did not satisfy the physical presence requirement. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753, 87 S.Ct. 1389, 18 L.Ed.2d 505 (1967) ; Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992). The Court granted certiorari here to reconsider the scope and validity of the physical presence rule mandated by those cases.
I
Like most States, South Dakota has a sales tax. It taxes the retail sales of goods and services in the State. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 10-45-2, 10-45-4 (2010 and Supp. 2017). Sellers are generally required to collect and remit this tax to the Department of Revenue. § 10-45-27.3. If for some reason the sales tax is not remitted by the seller, then in-state consumers are separately responsible for paying a use tax at the same rate. See §§ 10-46-2, 10-46-4, 10-46-6. Many States employ this kind of complementary sales and use tax regime.
Under this Court's decisions in Bellas Hess and Quill, South Dakota may not require a business to collect its sales tax if the business lacks a physical presence in the State. Without that physical presence, South Dakota instead must rely on its residents to pay the use tax owed on their purchases from out-of-state sellers. "[T]he impracticability of [this] collection from the multitude of individual purchasers is obvious." National Geographic Soc. v. California Bd. of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551, 555, 97 S.Ct. 1386, 51 L.Ed.2d 631 (1977). And consumer compliance rates are notoriously low. See, e.g., GAO, Report to Congressional Requesters: Sales Taxes, States Could Gain Revenue from Expanded Authority, but Businesses Are Likely to Experience Compliance Costs 5 (GAO-18-114, Nov. 2017) (Sales Taxes Report); California State Bd. of Equalization, Revenue Estimate: Electronic Commerce and Mail Order Sales 7 (2013) (Table 3) (estimating a 4 percent collection rate). It is estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause the States to lose between $8 and $33 billion every year. See Sales Taxes Report, at 11-12 (estimating $8 to $13 billion); Brief for Petitioner 34-35 (citing estimates of $23 and $33.9 billion). In South Dakota alone, the Department of Revenue estimates revenue loss at $48 to $58 million annually. App. 24. Particularly because South Dakota has no state income tax, it must put substantial reliance on its sales and use taxes for the revenue necessary to fund essential services. Those taxes account for over 60 percent of its general fund.
In 2016, South Dakota confronted the serious inequity Quill imposes by enacting S. 106-"An Act to provide for the collection of sales taxes from certain remote sellers, to establish certain Legislative findings, and to declare an emergency." S. 106, 2016 Leg. Assembly, 91st Sess. (S.D. 2016) (S.B. 106). The legislature found that the inability to collect sales tax from remote sellers was "seriously eroding the sales tax base" and "causing revenue losses and imminent harm... through the loss of critical funding for state and local services." § 8(1). The legislature also declared an emergency: "Whereas, this Act is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, an emergency is hereby declared to exist." § 9. Fearing further erosion of the tax base, the legislature expressed its intention to "apply South Dakota's sales and use tax obligations to the limit of federal and state constitutional doctrines" and noted the urgent need for this Court to reconsider its precedents. §§ 8(11), (8).
To that end, the Act requires out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax "as if the seller had a physical presence in the state." § 1. The Act applies only to sellers that, on an annual basis, deliver more than $100,000 of goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods or services into the State. Ibid. The Act also forecloses the retroactive application of this requirement and provides means for the Act to be appropriately stayed until the constitutionality of the law has been clearly established. §§ 5, 3, 8(10).
Respondents Wayfair, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, Inc., are merchants with no employees or real estate in South Dakota. Wayfair, Inc., is a leading online retailer of home goods and furniture and had net revenues of over $4.7 billion last year. Overstock.com, Inc., is one of the top online retailers in the United States, selling a wide variety of products from home goods and furniture to clothing and jewelry; and it had net revenues of over $1.7 billion last year. Newegg, Inc., is a major online retailer of consumer electronics in the United States. Each of these three companies ships its goods directly to purchasers throughout the United States, including South Dakota. Each easily meets the minimum sales or transactions requirement of the Act, but none collects South Dakota sales tax. 2017 S.D. 56, ¶¶ 10-11, 901 N.W.2d 754, 759-760.
Pursuant to the Act's provisions for expeditious judicial review, South Dakota filed a declaratory judgment action against respondents in state court, seeking a declaration that the requirements of the Act are valid and applicable to respondents and an injunction requiring respondents to register for licenses to collect and remit sales tax. App. 11, 30. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Act is unconstitutional. 901 N.W.2d, at 759-760. South Dakota conceded that the Act cannot survive under Bellas Hess and Quill but asserted the importance, indeed the necessity, of asking this Court to review those earlier decisions in light of current economic realities. 901 N.W.2d, at 760 ; see also S.B. 106, § 8. The trial court granted summary judgment to respondents. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a.
The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. It stated: "However persuasive the State's arguments on the merits of revisiting the issue, Quill has not been overruled [and] remains the controlling precedent on the issue of Commerce Clause limitations on interstate collection of sales and use taxes." 901 N.W.2d, at 761. This Court granted certiorari. 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 735, 199 L.Ed.2d 602 (2018).
II
The Constitution grants Congress the power "[t]o regulate Commerce... among the several States." Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Commerce Clause "reflect[s] a central concern of the Framers that was an immediate reason for calling the Constitutional Convention: the conviction that in order to succeed, the new Union would have to avoid the tendencies toward economic Balkanization that had plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation." Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 325-326, 99 S.Ct. 1727, 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979). Although the Commerce Clause is written as an affirmative grant of authority to Congress, this Court has long held that in some instances it imposes limitations on the States absent congressional action. Of course, when Congress exercises its power to regulate commerce by enacting legislation, the legislation controls. Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel.
Sullivan, 325 U.S. 761, 769, 65 S.Ct. 1515, 89 L.Ed. 1915 (1945). But this Court has observed that "in general Congress has left it to the courts to formulate the rules" to preserve "the free flow of interstate commerce." Id., at 770, 65 S.Ct. 1515.
To understand the issue presented in this case, it is instructive first to survey the general development of this Court's Commerce Clause principles and then to review the application of those principles to state taxes.
A
From early in its history, a central function of this Court has been to adjudicate disputes that require interpretation of the Commerce Clause in order to determine its meaning, its reach, and the extent to which it limits state regulations of commerce. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824), began setting the course by defining the meaning of commerce. Chief Justice Marshall explained that commerce included both "the interchange of commodities" and "commercial intercourse." Id., at 189, 193. A concurring opinion further stated that Congress had the exclusive power to regulate commerce. See id., at 236 (opinion of Johnson, J.). Had that latter submission prevailed and States been denied the power of concurrent regulation, history might have seen sweeping federal regulations at an early date that foreclosed the States from experimentation with laws and policies of their own, or, on the other hand, proposals to reexamine Gibbons'broad definition of commerce to accommodate the necessity of allowing States the power to enact laws to implement the political will of their people.
Just five years after Gibbons, however, in another opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court sustained what in substance was a state regulation of interstate commerce. In Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245, 7 L.Ed. 412 (1829), the Court allowed a State to dam and bank a stream that was part of an interstate water system, an action that likely would have been an impermissible intrusion on the national power over commerce had it been the rule that only Congress could regulate in that sphere. See id., at 252. Thus, by implication at least, the Court indicated that the power to regulate commerce in some circumstances was held by the States and Congress concurrently. And so both a broad interpretation of interstate commerce and the concurrent regulatory power of the States can be traced to Gibbons and Willson.
Over the next few decades, the Court refined the doctrine to accommodate the necessary balance between state and federal power. In Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia ex rel. Soc. for Relief of Distressed Pilots, 12 How. 299, 13 L.Ed. 996 (1852), the Court addressed local laws regulating river pilots who operated in interstate waters and guided many ships on interstate or foreign voyages. The Court held that, while Congress surely could regulate on this subject had it chosen to act, the State, too, could regulate. The Court distinguished between those subjects that by their nature "imperatively deman[d] a single uniform rule, operating equally on the commerce of the United States," and those that "deman[d] th[e] diversity, which alone can meet... local necessities." Id., at 319. Though considerable uncertainties were yet to be overcome, these precedents still laid the groundwork for the analytical framework that now prevails for Commerce Clause cases.
This Court's doctrine has developed further with time. Modern precedents rest upon two primary principles that mark the boundaries of a State's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
First, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on interstate commerce. State laws that discriminate against interstate commerce face "a virtually per se rule of invalidity." Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 476, 125 S.Ct. 1885, 161 L.Ed.2d 796 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). State laws that "regulat[e] even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest... will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) ; see also Southern Pacific, supra, at 779, 65 S.Ct. 1515. Although subject to exceptions and variations, see, e.g., Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 96 S.Ct. 2488, 49 L.Ed.2d 220 (1976) ; Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U.S. 573, 106 S.Ct. 2080, 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986), these two principles guide the courts in adjudicating cases challenging state laws under the Commerce Clause.
B
These principles also animate the Court's Commerce Clause precedents addressing the validity of state taxes. The Court explained the now-accepted framework for state taxation in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 1076, 51 L.Ed.2d 326 (1977). The Court held that a State "may tax exclusively interstate commerce so long as the tax does not create any effect forbidden by the Commerce Clause." Id., at 285, 97 S.Ct. 1076. After all, "interstate commerce may be required to pay its fair share of state taxes." D.H. Holmes Co. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24, 31, 108 S.Ct. 1619, 100 L.Ed.2d 21 (1988). The Court will sustain a tax so long as it (1) applies to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, (2) is fairly apportioned, (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (4) is fairly related to the services the State provides. See Complete Auto, supra, at 279, 97 S.Ct. 1076.
Before Complete Auto, the Court had addressed a challenge to an Illinois tax that required out-of-state retailers to collect and remit taxes on sales made to consumers who purchased goods for use within Illinois. Bellas Hess, 386 U.S., at 754-755, 87 S.Ct. 1389. The Court held that a mail-order company "whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or the United States mail" lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the State required by both the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. Id., at 758, 87 S.Ct. 1389. Unless the retailer maintained a physical presence such as "retail outlets, solicitors, or property within a State," the State lacked the power to require that retailer to collect a local use tax. Ibid. The dissent disagreed: "There should be no doubt that this large-scale, systematic, continuous solicitation and exploitation of the Illinois consumer market is a sufficient 'nexus' to require Bellas Hess to collect from Illinois customers and to remit the use tax." Id., at 761-762, 87 S.Ct. 1389 (opinion of Fortas, J., joined by Black and Douglas, JJ.).
In 1992, the Court reexamined the physical presence rule in Quill. That case presented a challenge to North Dakota's "attempt to require an out-of-state mail-order house that has neither outlets nor sales representatives in the State to collect and pay a use tax on goods purchased for use within the State." 504 U.S., at 301, 112 S.Ct. 1904. Despite the fact that Bellas Hess linked due process and the Commerce Clause together, the Court in Quill overruled the due process holding, but not the Commerce Clause holding; and it thus reaffirmed the physical presence rule. 504 U.S., at 307-308, 317-318, 112 S.Ct. 1904.
The Court in Quill recognized that intervening precedents, specifically Complete Auto, "might not dictate the same result were the issue to arise for the first time today." 504 U.S., at 311, 112 S.Ct. 1904. But, nevertheless, the Quill majority concluded that the physical presence rule was necessary to prevent undue burdens on interstate commerce. Id., at 313, and n. 6, 112 S.Ct. 1904. It grounded the physical presence rule in Complete Auto's requirement that a tax have a "'substantial nexus' " with the activity being taxed. 504 U.S., at 311, 112 S.Ct. 1904.
Three Justices based their decision to uphold the physical presence rule on stare decisis alone. Id., at 320, 112 S.Ct. 1904 (Scalia, J., joined by KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Dissenting in relevant part, Justice White argued that "there is no relationship between the physical-presence/nexus rule the Court retains and Commerce Clause considerations that allegedly justify it." Id., at 327, 112 S.Ct. 1904 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
III
The physical presence rule has "been the target of criticism over many years from many quarters." Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 814 F.3d 1129, 1148, 1150-1151 (C.A.10 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Quill, it has been said, was "premised on assumptions that are unfounded" and "riddled with internal inconsistencies." Rothfeld, Quill : Confusing the Commerce Clause, 56 Tax Notes 487, 488 (1992). Quill created an inefficient "online sales tax loophole" that gives out-of-state businesses an advantage. A. Laffer & D. Arduin, Pro-Growth Tax Reform and E-Fairness 1, 4 (July 2013). And "while nexus rules are clearly necessary," the Court "should focus on rules that are appropriate to the twenty-first century, not the nineteenth." Hellerstein, Deconstructing the Debate Over State Taxation of Electronic Commerce, 13 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 549, 553 (2000). Each year, the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
A
Quill is flawed on its own terms. First, the physical presence rule is not a necessary interpretation of the requirement that a state tax must be "applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State." Complete Auto, 430 U.S., at 279, 97 S.Ct. 1076. Second, Quill creates rather than resolves market distortions. And third, Quill imposes the sort of arbitrary, formalistic distinction that the Court's modern Commerce Clause precedents disavow.
1
All agree that South Dakota has the authority to tax these transactions. S.B. 106 applies to sales of "tangible personal property, products transferred electronically, or services for delivery into South Dakota." § 1 (emphasis added). "It has long been settled" that the sale of goods or services "has a sufficient nexus to the State in which the sale is consummated to be treated as a local transaction taxable by that State." Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175, 184, 115 S.Ct. 1331, 131 L.Ed.2d 261 (1995) ; see also 2 C. Trost & P. Hartman, Federal Limitations on State and Local Taxation 2d § 11:1, p. 471 (2003) ("Generally speaking, a sale is attributable to its destination").
The central dispute is whether South Dakota may require remote sellers to collect and remit the tax without some additional connection to the State. The Court has previously stated that "[t]he imposition on the seller of the duty to insure collection of the tax from the purchaser does not violate the [C]ommerce [C]lause." McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33, 50, n. 9, 60 S.Ct. 388, 84 L.Ed. 565 (1940). It is a " 'familiar and sanctioned device.' " Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207, 212, 80 S.Ct. 619, 4 L.Ed.2d 660 (1960). There just must be "a substantial nexus with the taxing State." Complete Auto, supra, at 279, 97 S.Ct. 1076.
This nexus requirement is "closely related," Bellas Hess, 386 U.S., at 756, 87 S.Ct. 1389 to the due process requirement that there be "some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax," Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 344-345, 74 S.Ct. 535, 98 L.Ed. 744 (1954). It is settled law that a business need not have a physical presence in a State to satisfy the demands of due process. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Although physical presence " 'frequently will enhance' " a business' connection with a State, " 'it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted... [with no] need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted.' " Quill, 504 U.S., at 308, 112 S.Ct. 1904. Quill itself recognized that "[t]he requirements of due process are met irrespective of a corporation's lack of physical presence in the taxing State." Ibid.
When considering whether a State may levy a tax, Due Process and Commerce Clause standards may not be identical or coterminous, but there are significant parallels. The reasons given in Quill for rejecting the physical presence rule for due process purposes apply as well to the question whether physical presence is a requisite for an out-of-state seller's liability to remit sales taxes. Physical presence is not necessary to create a substantial nexus.
The Quill majority expressed concern that without the physical presence rule "a state tax might unduly burden interstate commerce" by subjecting retailers to tax-collection obligations in thousands of different taxing jurisdictions. Id., at 313, n. 6, 112 S.Ct. 1904. But the administrative costs of compliance, especially in the modern economy with its Internet technology, are largely unrelated to whether a company happens to have a physical presence in a State. For example, a business with one salesperson in each State must collect sales taxes in every jurisdiction in which goods are delivered; but a business with 500 salespersons in one central location and a website accessible in every State need not collect sales taxes on otherwise identical nationwide sales. In other words, under Quill, a small company with diverse physical presence might be equally or more burdened by compliance costs than a large remote seller. The physical presence rule is a poor proxy for the compliance costs faced by companies that do business in multiple States. Other aspects of the Court's doctrine can better and more accurately address any potential burdens on interstate commerce, whether or not Quill's physical presence rule is satisfied.
2
The Court has consistently explained that the Commerce Clause was designed to prevent States from engaging in economic discrimination so they would not divide into isolated, separable units. See Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 623, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978). But it is "not the purpose of the [C]ommerce [C]lause to relieve those engaged in interstate commerce from their just share of state tax burden." Complete Auto, supra, at 288, 97 S.Ct. 1076 (internal quotation marks omitted). And it is certainly not the purpose of the Commerce Clause to permit the Judiciary to create market distortions. "If the Commerce Clause was intended to put businesses on an even playing field, the [physical presence] rule is hardly a way to achieve that goal." Quill, supra, at 329, 112 S.Ct. 1904 (opinion of White, J.).
Quill puts both local businesses and many interstate businesses with physical presence at a competitive disadvantage relative to remote sellers. Remote sellers can avoid the regulatory burdens of tax collection and can offer de facto lower prices caused by the widespread failure of consumers to pay the tax on their own. This "guarantees a competitive benefit to certain firms simply because of the organizational form they choose" while the rest of the Court's jurisprudence "is all about preventing discrimination between firms." Direct Marketing, 814 F.3d, at 1150-1151 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). In effect, Quill has come to serve as a judicially created tax shelter for businesses that decide to limit their physical presence and still sell their goods and services to a State's consumers-something that has become easier and more prevalent as technology has advanced.
Worse still, the rule produces an incentive to avoid physical presence in multiple States. Distortions caused by the desire of businesses to avoid tax collection mean that the market may currently lack storefronts, distribution points, and employment centers that otherwise would be efficient or desirable. The Commerce Clause must not prefer interstate commerce only to the point where a merchant physically crosses state borders. Rejecting the physical presence rule is necessary to ensure that artificial competitive advantages are not created by this Court's precedents. This Court should not prevent States from collecting lawful taxes through a physical presence rule that can be satisfied only if there is an employee or a building in the State.
3
The Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has "eschewed formalism for a sensitive, case-by-case analysis of purposes and effects." West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 201, 114 S.Ct. 2205, 129 L.Ed.2d 157 (1994). Quill, in contrast, treats economically identical actors differently, and for arbitrary reasons.
Consider, for example, two businesses that sell furniture online. The first stocks a few items of inventory in a small warehouse in North Sioux City, South Dakota. The second uses a major warehouse just across the border in South Sioux City, Nebraska, and maintains a sophisticated website with a virtual showroom accessible in every State, including South Dakota. By reason of its physical presence, the first business must collect and remit a tax on all of its sales to customers from South Dakota, even those sales that have nothing to do with the warehouse. See National Geographic, 430 U.S., at 561, 97 S.Ct. 1386 ; Scripto, Inc., 362 U.S., at 211-212, 80 S.Ct. 619. But, under Quill, the second, hypothetical seller cannot be subject to the same tax for the sales of the same items made through a pervasive Internet presence. This distinction simply makes no sense. So long as a state law avoids "any effect forbidden by the Commerce Clause," Complete Auto, 430 U.S., at 285, 97 S.Ct. 1076 courts should not rely on anachronistic formalisms to invalidate it. The basic principles of the Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence are grounded in functional, marketplace dynamics; and States can and should consider those realities in enacting and enforcing their tax laws.
B
The Quill Court itself acknowledged that the physical presence rule is "artificial at its edges." 504 U.S., at 315, 112 S.Ct. 1904. That was an understatement when Quill was decided; and when the day-to-day functions of marketing and distribution in the modern economy are considered, it is all the more evident that the physical presence rule is artificial in its entirety.
Modern e-commerce does not align analytically with a test that relies on the sort of physical presence defined in Quill. In a footnote, Quill rejected the argument that "title to 'a few floppy diskettes' present in a State" was sufficient to constitute a "substantial nexus," id., at 315, n. 8, 112 S.Ct. 1904. But it is not clear why a single employee or a single warehouse should create a substantial nexus while "physical" aspects of pervasive modern technology should not. For example, a company with a website accessible in South Dakota may be said to have a physical presence in the State via the customers' computers. A website may leave cookies saved to the customers' hard drives, or customers may download the company's app onto their phones. Or a company may lease data storage that is permanently, or even occasionally, located in South Dakota. Cf. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1186, 200 L.Ed.2d 610 (2018) (per curiam ). What may have seemed like a "clear," "bright-line tes[t]" when Quill was written now threatens to compound the arbitrary consequences that should have been apparent from the outset. 504 U.S., at 315, 112 S.Ct. 1904.
The "dramatic technological and social changes" of our "increasingly interconnected economy" mean that buyers are "closer to most major retailers" than ever before-"regardless of how close or far the nearest storefront." Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 575 U.S. ----, ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1124, 1135, 191 L.Ed.2d 97 (2015) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). Between targeted advertising and instant access to most consumers via any internet-enabled device, "a business may be present in a State in a meaningful way without" that presence "being physical in the traditional sense of the term." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1135. A virtual showroom can show far more inventory, in far more detail, and with greater opportunities for consumer and seller interaction than might be possible for local stores. Yet the continuous and pervasive virtual presence of retailers today is, under Quill, simply irrelevant. This Court should not maintain a rule that ignores these substantial virtual connections to the State.
C
The physical presence rule as defined and enforced in Bellas Hess and Quill is not just a technical legal problem-it is an extraordinary imposition by the Judiciary on States' authority to collect taxes and perform critical public functions. Forty-one States, two Territories, and the District of Columbia now ask this Court to reject the test formulated in Quill. See Brief for Colorado et al. as Amici Curiae. Quill's physical presence rule intrudes on States' reasonable choices in enacting their tax systems. And that it allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit a lawful state tax is unfair and unjust. It is unfair and unjust to those competitors, both local and out of State, who must remit the tax; to the consumers who pay the tax; and to the States that seek fair enforcement of the sales tax, a tax many States for many years have considered an indispensable source for raising revenue.
In essence, respondents ask this Court to retain a rule that allows their customers to escape payment of sales taxes-taxes that are essential to create and secure the active market they supply with goods and services. An example may suffice. Wayfair offers to sell a vast selection of furnishings. Its advertising seeks to create an image of beautiful, peaceful homes, but it also says that " '[o]ne of the best things about buying through Wayfair is that we do not have to charge sales tax.' " Brief for Petitioner 55. What Wayfair ignores in its subtle offer to assist in tax evasion is that creating a dream home assumes solvent state and local governments. State taxes fund the police and fire departments that protect the homes containing their customers' furniture and ensure goods are safely delivered; maintain the public roads and municipal services that allow communication with and access to customers; support the "sound local banking institutions to support credit transactions [and] courts to ensure collection of the purchase price," Quill, 504 U.S., at 328, 112 S.Ct. 1904 (opinion of White, J.); and help create the "climate of consumer confidence" that facilitates sales, see ibid. According to respondents, it is unfair to stymie their tax-free solicitation of customers. But there is nothing unfair about requiring companies that avail themselves of the States' benefits to bear an equal share of the burden of tax collection. Fairness dictates quite the opposite result. Helping respondents' customers evade a lawful tax unfairly shifts to those consumers who buy from their competitors with a physical presence that satisfies Quill -even one warehouse or one salesperson-an increased share of the taxes. It is essential to public confidence in the tax system that the Court avoid creating inequitable exceptions. This is also essential to the confidence placed in this Court's Commerce Clause decisions. Yet the physical presence rule undermines that necessary confidence by giving some online retailers an arbitrary advantage over their competitors who collect state sales taxes.
In the name of federalism and free markets, Quill does harm to both. The physical presence rule it defines has limited States' ability to seek long-term prosperity and has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field.
IV
"Although we approach the reconsideration of our decisions with the utmost caution, stare decisis is not an inexorable command." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 233, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (quoting State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) ; alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, stare decisis can no longer support the Court's prohibition of a valid exercise of the States' sovereign power.
If it becomes apparent that the Court's Commerce Clause decisions prohibit the States from exercising their lawful sovereign powers in our federal system, the Court should be vigilant in correcting the error. While it can be conceded that Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule. It is inconsistent with the Court's proper role to ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of this Court's own creation. Courts have acted as the front line of review in this limited sphere; and hence it is important that their principles be accurate and logical, whether or not Congress can or will act in response. It is currently the Court, and not Congress, that
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arose out of a “sit-in” demonstration at Eckerd’s Drug Store in Columbia, South Carolina. In addition to a lunch counter, Eckerd’s maintained several other departments, including those for retail drugs, cosmetics, and prescriptions. Negroes and whites were invited to purchase and were served alike in all departments of the store with the exception of the restaurant department, which was reserved for whites. There was no evidence that any signs or notices were posted indicating that Negroes would not be served in that department.
On March 14, 1960, the petitioners, two Negro college students, took seats in a booth in the restaurant department at Eckerd’s and waited to be served. No one spoke to them or approached them to take their orders for food. After they were seated, an employee of the store put up a chain with a “no trespassing” sign attached. Petitioners continued to sit quietly in the booth. The store manager then called the city police department and asked the police to come and remove petitioners. After the police arrived at the store the manager twice asked petitioners to leave. They did not do so. The Assistant Chief of Police then asked them to leave. When petitioner Bouie asked “For what?” the Assistant Chief replied: “Because it’s a breach of the peace....” Petitioners still refused to leave, and were then arrested. They were charged with breach of the peace in violation of § 15-909, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952, but were not convicted. Petitioner Bouie was also charged with resisting arrest, and was convicted, but the conviction was reversed by the State Supreme Court for insufficiency of evidence. Both petitioners were also charged with criminal trespass in violation of § 16-386 of the South Carolina Code of 1952 (1960 Cum. Supp.); on this charge they were convicted, and their convictions were affirmed by the State Supreme Court over objections based upon the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 239 S. C. 570, 124 S. E. 2d 332. We granted, certiorari to review the judgments affirming these trespass convictions. 374 U. S. 805.
We do not reach the question presented under the Equal Protection Clause, for we find merit in petitioners’ contention under the Due Process Clause and reverse the judgments on that ground.
Petitioners claim that they were denied due process of law either because their convictions under the trespass statute were based on no evidence to support the charge, see Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199, or because the statute failed to afford fair warning that the conduct for which they have now been convicted had been made a crime. The terms of the statute define the prohibited conduct as “entry upon the lands of another... after notice from the owner or tenant prohibiting such entry....” See note 1, supra. Petitioners emphasize the conceded fact that they did not commit such conduct; they received no “notice... prohibiting such entry” either before they entered Eckerd’s Drug Store (where in fact they were invited to enter) or before they entered the restaurant department of the store and seated themselves in the booth. Petitioners thus argue that, under the statute as written, their convictions would have to be reversed for want of evidence under the Thompson case. The argument is persuasive but beside the point, for the case in its present posture does not involve the statute “as written.” The South Carolina Supreme Court, in affirming petitioners’ convictions, construed the statute to cover not only the act of entry on the premises of another after receiving notice not to enter, but also the act of remaining on the premises of another after receiving notice to leave. Under the statute as so construed, it is clear that there was evidence to support petitioners’ convictions, for they concededly remained in the lunch counter booth after being asked to leave. Petitioners contend, however, that by applying such a construction of the statute to affirm their convictions in this case, the State has punished them for conduct that was not criminal at the time they committed it, and hence has violated the requirement of the Due Process Clause that a criminal statute give fair warning of the conduct which it prohibits. We agree with this contention.
The basic principle that a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime has often been recognized by this Court. As was said in United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617,
“The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.”
Thus we have struck down a state criminal statute under the Due Process Clause where it was not “sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.” Connolly v. General Const. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391. We have recognized in such cases that “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law,” ibid., and that “No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.” Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453.
It is true that in the Connally and Lanzetta cases, and in other typical applications of the principle, the uncertainty as to the statute’s prohibition resulted from vague or overbroad language in the statute itself, and the Court concluded that the statute was “void for vagueness.” The instant case seems distinguishable, since on its face the language of § 16-386 of the South Carolina Code was admirably narrow and precise; the statute applied only to “entry upon the lands of another... after notice... prohibiting such entry....” The thrust of the distinction, however, is to produce a potentially greater deprivation of the right to fair notice in this sort of case, where the claim is that a statute precise on its face has been unforeseeably and retroactively expanded by judicial construction, than in the typical “void for vagueness” situation. When a statute on its face is vague or overbroad, it at-least gives a potential defendant some notice, by virtue of this very characteristic, that a question may arise as to its coverage, and that it may be held to cover his contemplated conduct. When a statute on its face is narrow and precise, however, it lulls the potential defendant into a false sense of security, giving him no reason even to suspect that conduct clearly outside the scope of the statute as written will be retroactively brought within it by an act of judicial construction. If the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a person is required “to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes,” as in Lanzetta, or to “guess at [the statute’s] meaning and differ as to its application,” as in Connolly, the violation is that much greater when, because the uncertainty as to the statute’s meaning is itself not revealed until the court’s decision, a person is not even afforded an opportunity to engage in such speculation before committing the act in question.
There can be no doubt that a deprivation of the right of fair warning can result not only from vague statutory language but also from an unforeseeable and retroactive judicial expansion of narrow and precise statutory language. As the Court recognized in Pierce v. United States, 314 U. S. 306, 311, “judicial enlargement of a criminal Act by interpretation is at war with a fundamental concept of the common law that crimes must be defined with appropriate definiteness.” Even where vague statutes are concerned, it has been pointed out that the vice in such an enactment cannot “be cured in a given case by a construction in that very case placing valid limits on the statute,” for
“the objection of vagueness is twofold: inadequate guidance to the individual whose conduct is regulated, and inadequate guidance to the triers of fact. The former objection could not be cured retrospectively by a ruling either of the trial court or the appellate court, though it might be cured for the future by an authoritative judicial gloss....” Freund, The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties, 4 Vand. L. Rev. 533, 541 (1951).
See Amsterdam, Note, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67, 73-74, n. 34. If this view is valid in the case of a judicial construction which adds a “clarifying gloss” to a vague statute, id., at 73, making it narrower or more definite than its language indicates, it must be a fortiori so where the construction unexpectedly broadens a statute which on its face had been definite and precise. Indeed, an unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law, such as Art. I, § 10, of the Constitution forbids. An ex post facto law has been defined by this Court as one “that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action,” or “that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390. If a state legislature is barred by the Ex Post Facto Clause from passing such a law, it must follow that a State Supreme Court is barred by the Due Process Clause from achieving precisely the same result by judicial construction. Cf. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 565. The fundamental principle that “the required criminal law must have existed when the conduct in issue occurred,” Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law (2d ed. 1960), at 58-59, must apply to bar retroactive criminal prohibitions emanating from courts as well as from legislatures. If a judicial construction of a criminal statute is “unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue,” it must not be given retroactive effect. Id., at 61.
The basic due process concept involved is the same as that which the Court has often applied in holding that an unforeseeable and unsupported state-court decision on a question of state procedure does not constitute an adequate ground to preclude this.Court’s review of a federal question. See, e. g., Wright v. Georgia, 373 U. S. 284, 291; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 456-458; Barr v. City of Columbia, ante, p. 146. The standards of state decisional consistency applicable in judging the adequacy of a state ground are also applicable, we think, in determining whether a state court’s construction of a criminal statute was so unforeseeable as to deprive the defendant of the fair warning to which the Constitution entitles him. In both situations, “a federal right turns upon the status of state law as of a given moment in the past-— or, more exactly, the appearance to the individual of the status of state law as of that moment....” 109 U. Pa. L. Rev., supra, at 74, n. 34. When a state court overrules a consistent line of procedural decisions with the retroactive effect of denying a litigant a hearing in a pending case, it thereby deprives him of due process of law “in its primary sense of an opportunity to be heard and to defend [his] substantive right.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Sav. Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 678. When a similarly unforeseeable state-court construction of a criminal statute is applied retroactively to subject a person to criminal liability for past conduct, the effect is to deprive him of due process of law in the sense of fair warning that his contemplated conduct constitutes a crime. Applicable to either situation is this Court’s statement in Brinkerhoff-Faris, supra, that “if the result above stated were attained by an exercise of the State’s legislative power, the transgression of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would be obvious,” and “The violation is none the less clear when that result is accomplished by the state judiciary in the course of construing an otherwise valid... state statute.” Id., at 679-680.
Applying those principles to this case, we agree with petitioners that § 16-386 of the South Carolina Code did not give them fair warning, at the time of their conduct in Eckerd’s Drug Store in 1960, that the act for which they now stand convicted was rendered criminal by the statute. By its terms, the statute prohibited only “entry upon the lands of another... after notice from the owner... prohibiting such entry....” There was nothing in the statute to indicate that it also prohibited the different act of remaining on the premises after being asked to leave. Petitioners did not violate the statute as it was written; they received no notice before entering either the drugstore or the restaurant department. Indeed, they knew they would not receive any such notice before entering the store, for they were invited to purchase everything except food there. So far as the words of the statute were concerned, petitioners were given not only no “fair warning,” but no warning whatever, that their conduct in Eckerd’s Drug Store would violate the statute.
The interpretation given the statute by the South Carolina Supreme Court in the Mitchell case, note 2, supra, so clearly at variance with the statutory language, has not the slightest support in prior South Carolina decisions. Far from equating entry after notice not to enter with remaining on the premises after notice to leave, those decisions emphasized that proof of notice before entry was necessary to sustain a conviction under § 16-386. Thus in State v. Green, 35 S. C. 266, 14 S. E. 619 (1892), the defendant was apparently in possession of the land when he was told to leave. Yet the prosecution was not for remaining on the land after such notice but for returning later, and the court said, “under the view we take of this provision of our laws, when the owner or tenant in possession of land forbids entry thereon, any person with notice who afterwards enters such premises is liable to punishment.” 35 S. C., at 268, 14 S. E., at 620. In State v. Cockfield, 15 Rich. Law (S. C.) 53, 55 (1867), the court, after quoting the statute’s provision (as it then read) that “Every entry on the inclosed or uninclosed lands of another, after notice from the owner or tenant, prohibiting the same, shall be deemed a misdemeanor,” stated that this language “will not permit the Court to suppose that it was intended to have any other than the ordinary acceptation.” See also State v. Mays, 24 S. C. 190 (1885) ; State v. Tenny, 58 S. C. 215, 36 S. E. 555 (1900); State v. Olasov, 133 S. C. 139, 130 S. E. 514 (1925). In sum, in the 95 years between the enactment of the statute in 1866 and the 1961 decision in the Mitchell case, the South Carolina cases construing the statute uniformly emphasized the notice-before-entry requirement, and gave not the slightest indication that that requirement could be satisfied by proof of the different act of remaining on the land after being told to leave.
In holding in Mitchell that “entry... after notice” includes remaining after being asked to leave, the South Carolina Supreme Court did not cite any of the cases in which it had previously construed the same statute. The only two South Carolina cases it did cite were simply irrelevant; they had nothing whatever to do with the statute, and nothing to do even with the general field of criminal trespass, involving instead the law of civil trespass — which has always been recognized, by the common law in general and by South Carolina law in particular, as a field quite distinct and separate from criminal trespass. Shramek v. Walker, 152 S. C. 88, 149 S. E. 331 (1929), was an action for damages for an assault and battery committed by a storekeeper upon a customer who refused to leave the store after being told to do so; the defense was that the storekeeper was entitled to use reasonable force to eject an undesirable customer. The validity of such a defense was recognized, the court stating that “while the entry by one person on the premises of another may be lawful, by reason of express or implied invitation to enter, his failure to depart, on the request of the owner, will make him a trespasser and justify the owner in using reasonable force to eject him.” 152 S. C., at 99-100, 149 S. E., at 336. State v. Williams, 76 S. C. 135, 56 S. E. 783 (1907), was a murder prosecution in which the defense was similarly raised that the victim was a trespasser against whom the defendant was entitled to use force, and the court approved the trial judge’s instruction that a person remaining on another’s premises after being told to leave is a trespasser and may be ejected by reasonable force. 76 S. C., at 142, 56 S. E., at 785.
Both cases thus turned wholly upon tort principles. For that reason they had no relevance whatever, under South Carolina law prior to the Mitchell case, to § 16-386 in particular or to criminal trespass in general. It is one thing to say that a person remaining on" another’s land after being told to leave may be ejected with reasonable force or sued in a civil action, and quite another to say he may be convicted and punished as a criminal. The clear distinction between civil and criminal trespass is well recognized in the common law. Thus it is stated, in 1 Bishop, Criminal Law, § 208 (9th ed. 1923) that
“In civil jurisprudence, when a man does a thing by permission and not by license, and, after proceeding lawfully part way, abuses the liberty the law had given him, he shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning by reason of this subsequent abuse. But this doctrine does not prevail in our criminal jurisprudence; for no man is punishable criminally for what was not criminal when done, even though he afterward adds either the act or the intent, yet not the two together.”
Unless a trespass is “committed under such circumstances as to constitute an actual breach of the peace, it is not indictable at common law, but is to be redressed by a civil action only.” Clark and Marshall, Crimes (5th ed. 1952), at 607. There is no reason to doubt that, until the Mitchell case, this basic distinction was recognized in South Carolina itself. In State v. Cargill, 2 Brev. 114 (1810), the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed a conviction for forcible entry, saying
“If the prosecutor had a better right to the possession than the defendant, he might have availed himself of his civil remedy. The law will not punish, criminally, a private injury of this nature. There must be, at least, some appearance of force, by acts, words, or gestures, to constitute the offence charged.” Id., at 115. (Italics added.)
Under pre-existing South Carolina law the two cases relied on by the State Supreme Court were thus completely unrelated, not only to this particular statute, but to the entire field of criminal trespass. The pre-existing law gave petitioners no warning whatever that this criminal statute would be construed, despite its clear language and consistent judicial interpretation to the contrary, as incorporating a doctrine found only in civil trespass cases.
The South Carolina Supreme Court in Mitchell also cited North Carolina decisions in support of its construction of the statute. It would be a rare situation in which the meaning of a statute of another State sufficed to afford a person “fair warning” that his own' State’s statute meant something quite different from what its words said. No such situation is presented here. The meaning ascribed by the North Carolina Supreme Court to the North Carolina criminal trespass statute — also a ruling first afmounced in a “sit-in” case of recent vintage — was expressly based on what criminal trespass cases in North Carolina had “repeatedly held.” State v. Clyburn, 247 N. C. 455, 462, 101 S. E. 2d 295, 300 (1958). As was demonstrated above, South Carolina’s criminal trespass decisions prior to Mitchell had “repeatedly held” no such thing, nor had they even intimated the attribution of such a meaning to the words “entry... after notice” in § 16-386. Moreover, if the law of other States is indeed to be consulted, it is the prior law of South Carolina, not the law first announced in Mitchell, that is consonant with the traditional interpretation of similar “entry... after notice” statutes by other state courts. Thus in Goldsmith v. State, 86 Ala. 55, 5 So. 480 (1889), the Alabama court construed § 3874 of the Alabama Code of 1887, imposing criminal penalties on one who “enters... after having been warned... not to do so,” and held that
“There must be a warning first, and an entry after-wards. One already in possession, even though a trespasser, or there by that implied permission which obtains in society, can not, by a warning then given, be converted into a violator of the statute we are construing, although he may violate some other law, civil or criminal.” 86 Ala., at 57, 5 So., at 480-481.
In Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 147, this Court noted that “Traditionally the American law punishes persons who enter onto the property of another after having been warned by the owner to keep off.” Section 16-386 of the South Carolina Code is simply an example of this “traditional American law.” In construing such statutes, other state courts have recognized that they apply only to “entry onto” the property of another after notice not to enter, and have not interpreted them to cover also the distinct act of remaining on the property after notice to leave. The South Carolina Supreme Court’s retroactive application of such a construction here is no less inconsistent with the law of other States than it is with the prior case law of South Carolina and, of course, with the language of the statute itself.
Our conclusion that petitioners had no fair warning of the criminal prohibition under which they now stand convicted is confirmed by the opinion held in South Carolina itself as to the scope of the statute. The state legislature was evidently aware of no South Carolina authority to the effect that remaining on the premises after notice to leave was included within the “entry after notice” language of § 16-386. On May 16, 1960, shortly after the “sit-in” demonstration in this case and prior to the State Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell, the legislature enacted § 16-388 of the South Carolina Code, expressly making criminal the act of failing and refusing “to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so.” Similarly, it evidently did not occur to the Assistant Chief of Police who arrested petitioners in Eckerd’s Drug Store that their conduct violated § 16-386, for when they asked him why they had to leave the store, he answered, “Because it’s a breach of the peace....” And when he was asked further whether he was assisting the drugstore manager in ousting petitioners, he answered that he was not, but rather that “My purpose was that they were creating a disturbance there in the store, a breach of the peace in my presence, and that was my purpose.” It thus appears that neither the South Carolina Legislature nor the South Carolina police anticipated the present construction of the statute.
We think it clear that the South Carolina Supreme Court, in applying its new construction of the statute to affirm these convictions, has deprived petitioners of rights guaranteed to them by the Due Process Clause. If South Carolina had applied to this case its new statute prohibiting the act of remaining on the premises of another after being asked to leave, the constitutional proscription of ex post facto laws would clearly invalidate the convictions. The Due Process Clause compels the same result here, where the State has sought to achieve precisely the same effect by judicial construction of the statute. While such a construction is of course valid for the future, it may not be applied retroactively, any more than a legislative enactment may be, to impose criminal penalties for conduct committed at a time when it was not fairly stated to be criminal. Application of this rule is particularly compelling where, as here, the petitioners’ conduct cannot be deemed improper or immoral. Compare McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25.
In the last analysis the case is controlled, we think, by the principle which Chief Justice Marshall stated for the Court in United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 96:
“The case must be a strong one indeed, which would justify a Court in departing from the plain meaning of words, especially in a penal act, in search of an intention which the words themselves did not suggest. To determine that a case is within the intention of a statute, its language must authorise us to say so. It would be dangerous, indeed, to carry the principle, that a case which is within the reason or mischief of a statute, is within its provisions, so far as to punish a crime not enumerated in the statute, because it is of equal atrocity, or of kindred character, with those which are enumerated....”
The crime for which these petitioners stand convicted was “not enumerated in the statute” at the time of their conduct. It follows that they have been deprived of liberty and property without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Goldberg,
with whom The Chief Justice joins,
would, while joining in the opinion and judgment of the Court, also reverse for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Goldberg in Bell v. Maryland, ante, p. 286.
Mr. Justice Douglas would reverse for the reasons stated in his opinion in Bell v. Maryland, ante, p. 242.
Mr. Justice Black, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White join, dissenting.
This case arose out of a “sit-in” demonstration which took place at Eckerd’s Drug Store in Columbia, South Carolina. The petitioners, two Negro college students, went to the store, took seats in a booth in the restaurant department, and waited to be served. The store’s policy was to sell to Negroes as well as whites in all departments except the restaurant. After petitioners sat down, a store employee put up a chain with a “no trespassing” sign attached. Petitioners nevertheless continued to sit quietly in the booth. The store manager then called the city police department and asked the police to come and remove petitioners. After the police arrived at the store the manager twice asked petitioners to leave. They did not do so. The Chief of Police then twice asked them to leave. When they again refused, he arrested them both. They were charged with criminal trespass in violation of § 16-386 of the South Carolina Code, tried in Recorder's Court, and found guilty. On appeal the County Court in an unreported opinion affirmed the convictions. Petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, which likewise affirmed over petitioners' objections that by convicting them the State was denying them due process of law and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 239 S. C. 570, 124 S. E. 2d 332. This Court granted certiorari to consider these questions. 374 U. S. 805.
It is not contradicted that the store manager denied petitioners service and asked them to leave only because of the store’s acknowledged policy of not serving Negroes in its restaurant. Apart from the fact that they remained in the restaurant after having been ordered to leave, petitioners’ conduct while there was peaceful and orderly. They simply claimed that they had a right to be served; the manager insisted, as the State now insists, that he had a legal right to choose his own customers and to have petitioners removed from the restaurant after they refused to leave at his request. We have stated today in Bell v. Maryland, ante, p. 318, our belief that the Fourteenth Amendment does not of its own force compel a restaurant owner to accept customers he does not want to serve, even though his reason for refusing to serve them may be his racial prejudice, adherence to local custom, or what he conceives to be his economic self-interest, and that the arrest and conviction of a person for trespassing in a restaurant under such circumstances is not the kind of “state action” forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Here as in the Bell case there was, so far as has been pointed out to us, no city ordinance, official utterance, or state law of any kind tending to prevent Eckerd’s from serving these petitioners had it chosen to do so. Compare Robinson v. Florida, ante, p. 153; Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 267; Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U. S. 244. On the first question here raised, therefore, our opinion in Bell v. Maryland is for us controlling
Petitioners also contend that they were denied due process of law either because their conviction under the trespass statute was based on no evidence to support the charge, cf. Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U. S. 199, or because that statute as applied was so vague and indefinite that it failed to furnish fair warning that it prohibited a person who entered the property of another without notice not to do so from remaining after being asked to leave, cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296; Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451. Under the State Supreme Court’s construction of the statute, it is clear that there was evidence to support the conviction. There remains to be considered, therefore, only the vagueness contention, which rests on the argument that since the statutory language forbids only “entry upon the lands of another... after notice... prohibiting such entry,” the statute cannot fairly be construed as prohibiting a person from remaining on property after notice to leave. We voted to sustain a Maryland trespass statute against an identical challenge in Bell v. Maryland, supra. While there is some difference in the language of the South Carolina and Maryland statutes — the Maryland statute prohibited entering or crossing over the lands of another after notice not to do so, while South Carolina’s statute speaks only of entry and not of crossing over — this distinction has no relevance to the statute’s prohibition against remaining after being asked to leave. In holding that the South Carolina statute forbids remaining after having been asked to leave as well as entry after notice not to do so, the South Carolina courts relied in part on the fact that i.t has long been accepted as the common law of that State that a person who enters upon the property of another by invitation becomes a trespasser if he refuses to leave when asked to do so. See, e. g., Shramek v. Walker, 152 S. C. 88, 149 S. E. 331 (1929); State v. Williams, 76 S. C. 135, 142, 56 S. E. 783, 785 (1907); State v. Lazarus, 1 Mill Const. 34 (1817). We cannot believe that either the petitioners or anyone else could have been misled by the language of this statute into believing that it would permit them to stay on the property of another over the owner’s protest without being-guilty of trespass.
We would affirm.
That section provides: “Entry on lands of another after notice prohibiting same. — Every entry upon the lands of another where any horse, mule, cow, hog or any other livestock is pastured, or any other lands of another, after notice from the owner or tenant prohibiting such entry, shall be a misdemeanor and be punished by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment with hard labor on the public works of the county for not exceeding thirty days. When any owner or tenant of any lands shall post a notice in four conspicuous places on the borders of such land prohibiting entry thereon, a proof of the posting shall be deemed and taken as notice conclusive against the person making entry, as aforesaid for the purpose of trespassing.”
This construction of the statute was first announced by the South Carolina Supreme Court in City of Charleston v. Mitchell, 239 S. C. 376, 123 S. E. 2d 512, decided on December 13, 1961, certiorari granted and judgment reversed, post, p. 551. In the instant case and in City of Columbia v. Barr, 239 S. C. 395, 123 S. E. 2d 521, reversed, ante, p. 146, the South Carolina Supreme Court simply relied on its ruling in Mitchell.
See also McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25, 27; United States v. Cardiff, 344 U. S. 174, 176-177; Pierce v. United States, 314 U. S. 306, 311.
Thus, it has been said that “No one can be criminally punished in this country, except according to a law prescribed for his government by the sovereign authority before the imputed offence was committed, and which existed as a law at the time.” Kring v. Missouri, 107 U. S. 221, 235. See Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 138; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325-326.
We think it irrelevant that petitioners at one point testified that they had intended to be arrested. The determination whether a criminal statute provides fair warning of its prohibitions must be made on the basis of the statute itself and the other pertinent law, rather than on the basis of an ad hoc appraisal of the subjective expectations of particular defendants. But apart from that, the record is silent as to what petitioners intended to be arrested for, and in fact what they were arrested for was not trespass but breach of the peace — on which charge they were not convicted. Hence there is no basis for an inference that petitioners intended to be arrested for violating this statute, either by remaining on the premises after being asked to leave or by any other conduct.
Accord, Krauss v. State, 216 Md. 369, 140 A. 2d 653 (1958); 2 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 868 (1957); Hochheimer, Law of Crimes and Criminal Procedure, §§327-329 (2d ed.).
Indeed, it appears that far from being understood to incorporate a doctrine of civil trespass, § 16-386 is considered in South Carolina not to incorporate any common law of trespass, either criminal or civil — in other words, not to be a “trespass” statute at all. South Carolina has long had on its books, side by side with § 16-386, a statute that does
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 file these complaints are denied. Article IV, § 3, Cl. 2, United States Constitution. United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 537: The power of Congress to dispose of any kind of property belonging to the United States “is vested in Congress without limitation.” United States v. Midwest Oil Company, 236 U. S. 459, 474: “For it must be borne in mind that Congress not only has a legislative power over the public domain, but it also exercises the powers of the proprietor therein. Congress 'may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale.’ Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 524; Light v. United States, 220 U. S. 536.” United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30: “Article 4, § 3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution provides that ‘The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory and other Property belonging to the United States.’ The power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations. ‘And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to determine.’ ” United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 27: “We have said that the constitutional power of Congress [under Article IV, § 3, Cl. 2] is without limitation. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16, 29-30.”
The Chief Justice 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:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari, sub nom. Richardson v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 411 U. S. 947 (1973), to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming, without opinion, the District Court’s partial summary-judgment for respondents declaring that “Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution renders a member of Congress ineligible to hold a commission in the Armed Forces Reserve during his continuance in office.” Reservists Committee to Stop the War v. Laird, 323 F. Supp. 833, 843 (DC 1971). We hold that respondents do not have standing to sue as citizens.or taxpayers. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
I
Article I, § 6, cl. 2, of the Federal Constitution provides:
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
The Constitution thereby makes Members of Congress ineligible for appointment to certain offices through the limitation of the Ineligibility Clause, and prohibits Members of Congress from holding other offices through the latter limitation, the Incompatibility Clause.
Respondents, the Reservists Committee to Stop the War and certain named members thereof, challenged the Reserve membership of Members of Congress as being in violation of the Incompatibility Clause. They commenced a class action in the District Court against petitioners, the Secretary of Defense and the three Service Secretaries, seeking (1) an order in the nature of mandamus directed to petitioners requiring them to strike from the rolls of the Reserves all Members of Congress presently thereon, to discharge any member of the Reserves who subsequently became a Member of Congress, and to seek to reclaim from Members and former Members of Congress any Reserve pay said Members received while serving as Members of Congress, (2) a permanent injunction preventing petitioners from placing on the rolls of the Reserves any Member of Congress while serving in Congress, and (3) a declaration that membership in the Reserves is an office under the United States prohibited to Members of Congress by Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, and incompatible with membership in the Congress.
Respondents sought the above relief on behalf of four classes of persons. The Committee and the individual respondents sought to represent the interests of (1) all persons opposed to United States military involvement in Vietnam and purporting to use lawful means, including communication with and persuasion of Members of Congress, to end that involvement. The individual respondents alone sought to represent the interests of (2) all officers and enlisted members of the Reserves who were not Members of Congress, (3) all taxpayers of the United States, and (4) all citizens of the United States. The interests of these four classes were alleged to be adversely affected by the Reserve membership of Members of Congress in various ways.
As relevant here, citizens and taxpayers were alleged in respondents’ complaint to have suffered injury because Members of Congress holding a Reserve position in the Executive Branch were said to be subject to the possibility of undue influence by the Executive Branch, in violation of the concept of the independence of Congress implicit in Art. I of the Constitution. Reserve membership was also said to place upon Members of Congress possible inconsistent obligations which might cause them to violate their duty faithfully to perform as reservists or as Members of Congress. Reserve membership by Members of Congress thus, according to respondents’ complaint,
“deprives or may deprive the individual named plaintiffs and all other citizens and taxpayers of the United States of the faithful discharge by members of Congress who are members of the Reserves of their duties as members of Congress, to which all citizens and taxpayers are entitled.” Pet. for Cert. 46.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss respondents’ complaint on the ground that respondents lacked standing to bring the action, and because the complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The latter ground was based upon the contention that the Incompatibility Clause sets forth a qualification for Membership in the Congress, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 5, cl. 1, not a qualification for a position in the Executive Branch. The power to judge that qualification was asserted to rest exclusively with Congress, not the courts, under Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 550 (1969).
The District Court concluded that it first had to determine whether respondents had standing to bring the action and, without citation to authority, stated:
“In recent years the Supreme Court has greatly expanded the concept of standing and in this Circuit the concept has now been almost completely abandoned.” 323 F. Supp., at 839.
The court then held that of the four classes respondents sought to represent, “[o]nly their status as citizens” gave them standing to sue in this case. Id., at 840. The District Court denied standing to respondents as reservists, as opponents of our Vietnam involvement, and as taxpayers. The court acknowledged that there were very few instances in which the assertion of “merely the undifferentiated interest of citizens,” ibid., would be sufficient, but was persuaded to find that interest sufficient here by several considerations it found present in the nature of the dispute before it and by the asserted abandonment of standing limitations by the Court of Appeals, whose decisions were binding on the District Court.
In response to petitioners’ contention that the Incompatibility Clause sets forth a qualification only for Membership in the Congress, which Congress alone might judge, the District Court characterized the issue as whether respondents presented a nonjusticiable “political question,” resolution of which by the text of the Constitution was committed to the Congress under Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962). The court held that the failure of the Executive Branch to remove reservist Members of Congress from their Reserve positions was justiciable.
Having resolved the issues of standing and political question in favor of respondents, the District Court held on the merits that a commission in the Reserves is an “Office under the United States” within the meaning of the Incompatibility Clause. On the basis of the foregoing, the court in its final order granted partial summary judgment for respondents by declaring that the Incompatibility Clause renders a Member of Congress ineligible, during his continuance in office, to hold a Reserve “commission”; the court denied such parts of respondents’ motion for summary judgment which sought a permanent injunction and relief in the nature of mandamus. 323 F. Supp., at 843.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court in an unpublished opinion “on the basis of the memorandum opinion of the District Court.” The Court of Appeals added that it was “also of the view that [respondents] have the requisite standing and that their claim is judicially enforceable under the rationale of” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83 (1968), and Baker v. Carr, supra. Petitioners present three questions for review: (1) whether respondents have standing, “either as citizens or as federal taxpayers,” to bring this claim, (2) whether respondents’ claim presents a “political question” not subject to judicial review, and (3) whether “membership” in the Reserves constitutes an “Office under the United States” within the meaning of the Incompatibility Clause. Pet. for Cert. 2.
II
A
In Flast v. Cohen, supra, at 95, the Court noted that the concept of justiciability, which expresses the jurisdictional limitations imposed upon federal courts by the “case or controversy” requirement of Art. Ill, embodies both the standing and political question doctrines upon which petitioners in part rely. Each of these doctrines poses a distinct and separate limitation, Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S., at 512; Baker v. Carr, supra, at 198, so that either the absence of standing or the presence of a political question suffices to prevent the power of the federal judiciary from being invoked by the complaining party. The more sensitive and complex task of determining whether a particular issue presents a political question causes courts, as did the District Court here, to turn initially, although not invariably, to the question of standing to sue. In light of the District Court’s action we turn to petitioners’ contention that respondents lacked standing to bring the suit. Our conclusion that the District Court erred in holding that respondents had standing to sue as United States citizens, but was correct in denying respondents’ standing as taxpayers, eliminates the need to consider the other questions presented by petitioners.
The District Court considered standing as to each of the four capacities in which respondents brought suit; it rejected standing as to three of the four, holding that respondents could sue only as citizens. The Court of Appeals’ judgment of affirmance, based solely upon the opinion of the District Court, did not alter the District Court’s ruling on standing. The standing question presented in the petition for certiorari is addressed to the District Court’s holding on citizen standing and seeks to add the question whether respondents also had standing as taxpayers. Respondents do not contend that the District Court erred in denying standing to them in the other two capacities in which they sought to proceed, i. e., as opponents of American military involvement in Vietnam, and as reservists. We therefore proceed to consideration of respondents’ standing only as citizens and taxpayers.
B
Citizen Standing
To have standing to sue as a class representative it is essential that a plaintiff must be a part of that class, that is, he must possess the same interest and suffer the same injury shared by all members of the class he represents. Indiana Employment Division v. Burney, 409 U. S. 540 (1973); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (1962). In granting respondents standing to sue as representatives of the class of all United States citizens, the District Court therefore necessarily — and correctly — characterized respondents’ interest as “undifferentiated” from that of all other citizens.
The only interest all citizens share in the claim advanced by respondents is one which presents injury in the abstract. Respondents seek to have the Judicial Branch compel the Executive Branch to act in conformity with the Incompatibility Clause, an interest shared by all citizens. The very language of respondents’ complaint, supra, at 212, reveals that it is nothing more than a matter of speculation whether the claimed nonobservance of that Clause deprives citizens of the faithful discharge of the legislative duties of reservist Members of Congress. And that claimed nonobservance, standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance, and that is an abstract injury. The Court has previously declined to treat “generalized grievances” about the conduct of Government as a basis for taxpayer standing. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S., at 106. We consider now whether a citizen has standing to sue under such a generalized complaint.
Our analysis begins with Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1962), where the Court stated that the gist of the inquiry must be whether the complaining party has
“alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Id., at 204.
Although dealing with a case of claimed taxpayer standing, Flast v. Cohen, supra, gave further meaning to the need for a “personal stake” in noting that it was meant to assure that the complainant seeking to adjudicate his claim was the “proper party” to present the claim “in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” 392 U. S., at 100, 101. In the circumstances of Flast, the Court held that the taxpayer-complainant before it had established a relationship between his status as a taxpayer and his claim under the Taxing and Spending Clause sufficient to give assurance
“that the questions will be framed with the necessary specificity, that the issues will be contested with the necessary adverseness and that the litigation will be pursued with the necessary vigor to assure that the constitutional challenge will be made in a form traditionally thought to be capable of judicial resolution.” Id., at 106.
While Flast noted that the “case or controversy” limitation on the federal judicial power found in Art. Ill is a “blend of constitutional requirements and policy considerations,” id., at 97, the Court, subsequently, in the context of judicial review of regulatory agency action held that whatever else the “case or controversy” requirement embodied, its essence is a requirement of “injury in fact.” Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 160, 152 (1970). Although we there noted that the categories of judicially cognizable injury were being broadened, id., at 154, we have more recently stressed that the broadening of categories “is a different matter from abandoning the requirement that the party seeking review must himself have suffered an injury.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 738 (1972). And, in defining the nature of that injury, we have only recently stated flatly: “Abstract injury is not enough.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 494 (1974).
Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U. S. 633 (1937), was the only other occasion in which the Court faced a question under Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, although that challenge was made under the Ineligibility Clause, not the Incompatibility Clause involved here. There a petition was filed in this Court seeking an order to show cause why one of the Justices should not be disqualified to serve as an Associate Justice. The petition asserted that the appointment and confirmation of the Justice in August 1937 was unlawful because the Act of March 1, 1937, permitting Justices to retire at full salary after a period of specified service, thereby increased the emoluments of the office and that the statute was enacted while the challenged Justice was a Senator. The appointment of the Justice by the President and his confirmation by the Senate were thus said to violate the Ineligibility Clause which provides:
. “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States... the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time....”
The Court held:
“The motion papers disclose no interest upon the part of the petitioner other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this Court. That is insufficient. It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” 302 U. S., at 634.
The Court has today recognized the continued vitality of Lévitt,9 United States v. Richardson, ante, at 176-179; see also Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1, 13 (1972). We reaffirm Lévitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. It adds the essential dimension of specificity to the dispute by requiring that the complaining party have suffered a particular injury caused by the action challenged as unlawful. This personal stake is what the Court has consistently held enables a complainant authoritatively to present to a court a complete perspective upon the adverse consequences flowing from the specific set of facts undergirding his grievance. Such authoritative presentations are an integral part of the judicial process, for a court must rely on the parties’ treatment of the facts and claims before it to develop its rules of law. Only concrete injury presents the factual context within which a court, aided by parties who argue within the context, is capable of making decisions.
Moreover, when a court is asked to undertake constitutional adjudication, the most important and delicate of its responsibilities, the requirement of concrete injury further serves the function of insuring that such adjudication does not take place unnecessarily. This principle is particularly applicable here, where respondents seek an interpretation of a constitutional provision which has never before been construed by the federal courts. First, concrete injury removes from the realm of speculation whether there is a real need to exercise the power of judicial review in order to protect the interests of the complaining party.
“The desire to obtain [sweeping relief] cannot be accepted as a substitute for compliance with the general rule that the complainant must present facts sufficient to show that his individual need requires the remedy for which he asks.” McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 235 U. S. 151, 164 (1914).
Second, the discrete factual context within which the concrete injury occurred or is threatened insures the framing of relief no broader than required by the precise facts to which the court’s ruling would be applied. This is especially important when the relief sought produces a confrontation with one of the coordinate branches of the Government; here the relief sought would, in practical effect, bring about conflict with two coordinate branches.
To permit a complainant who has no concrete injury to require a court to rule on important constitutional issues in the abstract would create the potential for abuse of the judicial process, distort the role of the Judiciary in its relationship to the Executive and the Legislature and open the Judiciary to an arguable charge of providing “government by injunction.”
“The powers of the federal judiciary will be adequate for the great burdens placed upon them only if they are employed prudently, with recognition of the strengths as well as the hazards that go with our kind of representative government.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S., at 131 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
Our conclusion that there is no citizen standing here, apart from being in accord with all other federal courts of appeals that have considered the question, until the Court of Appeals’ holding now under review, is also consistent with the recent holdings of this Court. It is one thing for a court to hear an individual’s complaint that certain specific government action will cause that person private competitive injury, Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970), or a complaint that individual enjoyment of certain natural resources has been impaired by such action, United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 687 (1973), but it is another matter to allow a citizen to call on the courts to resolve abstract questions. The former provides the setting for a focused consideration of a concrete injury. In the latter, although allegations assert an arguable conflict with some limitation of the Constitution, it can be only a matter of speculation whether the claimed violation has caused concrete injury to the particular complainant.
Finally, the several considerations advanced by the District Court in support of respondents’ standing as citizens do not militate against our conclusion that it was error to grant standing to respondents as citizens. First, the District Court acknowledged that any injury resulting from the reservist status of Members of Congress was hypothetical, but stressed that the Incompatibility Clause was designed to prohibit such potential for injury. 323 F. Supp., at 840. This rationale fails, however, to compensate for the respondents’ failure to present a claim under that Clause which alleges concrete injury. The claims of respondents here, like the claim under the Ineligibility Clause in Lévitt, supra, would require courts to deal with a difficult and sensitive issue of constitutional adjudication on the complaint of one who does not allege “a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S., at 204. To support standing there must be concrete injury in a form which assures “the necessary specificity” called for by Flast, 392 U. S., at 106, and “that concrete adverseness... upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 204. Standing was thus found by premature evaluation of the merits of respondents’ complaint.
The District Court next acknowledged this Court’s longstanding reluctance to entertain “generalized grievances about the conduct of government,” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S., at 106, but distinguished respondents’ complaint from such grievances by characterizing the Incompatibility Clause as “precise [and] self-operative.” 323 F. Supp., at 840. Even accepting that characterization of the Clause it is not an adequate substitute for the judicially cognizable injury not present here. Moreover, that characterization rested, as did the preceding characterization, on an interpretation of the Clause by way of the Court’s preliminary appraisal of the merits of respondents’ claim before standing was found. In any event, the Ineligibility Clause involved in Lévitt, supra, is no less specific or less “precise [and] self-operative” than the Incompatibility Clause.
The District Court further relied on the fact that the adverse parties sharply conflicted in their interests and views and were supported by able briefs and arguments. Id., at 841. We have no doubt about the sincerity of respondents’ stated objectives and the depth of their commitment to them. But the essence of standing
“is not a question of motivation but of possession of the requisite... interest that is, or is threatened to be, injured by the unconstitutional conduct.” Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429, 435 (1952).
This same theme as to the inadequacy of motivation to support standing is suggested in the Court’s opinion in 8ierra Club, supra:
“But a mere ‘interest in a problem,’ no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render the organization ‘adversely affected’ or ‘aggrieved’ within the meaning of the APA.” 405 U. S., at 739.
Respondents’ motivation has indeed brought them sharply into conflict with petitioners, but as the Court has noted, motivation is not a substitute for the actual injury needed by the courts and adversaries to focus litigation efforts and judicial decisionmaking. Moreover, the evaluation of the quality of the presentation on the merits was a retrospective judgment that could have properly been arrived at only after standing had been found so as to permit the court to consider the merits. A logical corollary to this approach would be the manifestly untenable view that the inadequacy of the presentation on the merits would be an appropriate basis for denying standing.
Furthermore, to have reached the conclusion that respondents’ interests as citizens were meant to be protected by the Incompatibility Clause because the primary purpose of the Clause was to insure independence of each of the branches of the Federal Government, similarly involved an appraisal of the merits before the issue of standing was resolved. All citizens, of course, share equally an interest in the independence of each branch of Government. In some fashion, every provision of the Constitution was meant to serve the interests of all. Such a generalized interest, however, is too abstract to constitute a “case or controversy” appropriate for judicial resolution. The proposition that all constitutional provisions are enforceable by any citizen simply because citizens are the ultimate beneficiaries of those provisions has no boundaries.
Closely linked to the idea that generalized citizen interest is a sufficient basis for standing was the District Court’s observation that it was not irrelevant that if respondents could not obtain judicial review of petitioners’ action, “then as a practical matter no one can.” Our system of government leaves many crucial decisions to the political processes. The assumption that if respondents have no standing to sue, no one would have standing, is not a reason to find standing. See United States v. Richardson, ante, at 179.
C
Taxpayer Standing
Consideration of whether respondents have standing to sue as taxpayers raises a different question from whether they may sue as citizens. Flast v. Cohen, supra, established that status as a taxpayer can, under certain limited circumstances, supply the personal stake essential to standing. There, the Court held that, in order to ensure the necessary personal stake, there must be “a logical nexus between the [taxpayer] status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated,” 392 U. S., at 102. In Flast, the Court determined that the taxpayer demonstrated such a “logical nexus” because, (1) he challenged the exercise of “congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8...” and (2) “the challenged enactment exceed [ed] specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power” under Art. I, § 8. Id., at 102-1Ó3.
Here, the District Court, applying the Flast holding, denied respondents’ standing as taxpayers for failure to satisfy the nexus test. We agree with that conclusion since respondents did not challenge an enactment under Art. I, § 8, but rather the action of the Executive Branch in permitting Members of Congress to maintain their Reserve status.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Committee, located in California, is a national unincorporated association of present and former officers and enlisted members of the Reserves, organized for the purpose of opposing the military involvement of the United States in Vietnam and of using all lawful means to end that involvement, including efforts by its members individually to take all steps necessary and appropriate to end that involvement. The five individual respondents were all members of the Committee, residents of California, and United States citizens and taxpayers. At the time suit was filed, four of the individuals were in active Ready Reserve status; the status of the fifth, then the Committee cochairman, was unspecified.
At the time suit was filed, 130 Members of the 91st Congress were also members of the Reserves, which are divided into Ready, Standby, and Retired components. By the end of the 92d Congress, 119 Members were reservists. As of November 2, 1973, the 93d Congress has seen the number of its reservists reduced to 107, all but one of whom are commissioned officers, App. 5, and none of whom can occupy the Ready Reserve status of the individual respondents, supra, n. 1. Dept, of Defense Directive 1200.7 § v, c. 2 (July 2, 1970); 32 CFR § 125.4 (c)(2). Of the 107, 20 (including the one enlisted man) are in the active, and 12 in the inactive, Standby Reserve; and 73 are in the Retired Reserve, 16 of whom receive retirement pay. Two other Members are in the Army National Guard, and thus in the Ready Reserve, 10 U. S. C. §269 (b), but since the governors of the various States control appointments to offices in the Guard, petitioners could not provide relief regarding such reservists. The judgment of the District Court did not therefore extend to this category of reservist. 323 F. Supp. 833, 838 n. 3 (DC 1971).
Respondents appear to have had reference in part to pressure that conceivably could be applied to reservist Members of Congress through such offices as the President’s power to call reservists to active duty without their consent, 10 U. S. C. §§ 672-675, or his power to discharge commissioned reservists, who serve only at his pleasure. 10 U. S. C. § 593.
Respondents did not, in the Court of Appeals, or by cross-petition here challenge the District Court’s denial of injunctive and mandamus relief. In light of the ground for our disposition of the case, we need not and do not address ourselves to the validity or scope of the District Court’s ruling on the merits of respondents’ claim, or the relief it granted.
The lack of a fixed rule as to the proper sequence of judicial analysis of contentions involving more than one facet of the concept of justiciability was recently exhibited by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which bypassed a determination on standing to rule that a claim was not justiciable because it presented a political question:
“[T]he standing of a party need not come into question if a court determines that for other reasons the issue raised before the bench is non-justieiable.”
That court thus held in effect that if no justiciable question is presented no one has standing. DaCosta v. Laird, 471 F. 2d 1146, 1152 (1973). See also Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 731 (1972); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 100 (1968).
The Court of Appeals did no more than affirm the judgment of the District Court, including the latter’s denial of respondents’ standing as taxpayers. Petitioners may, however, have sought to raise the issue of taxpayer standing in this Court because of the ambiguous reference in the Court of Appeals’ judgment of affirmance to Flast v. Cohen, supra, a taxpayer-standing case.
The generalized nature of respondents’ claim is revealed by the scope of relief sought, i. e., removal of all reservist Members of Congress from Reserve status rather than the removal of only those reservist Members who manifested by their actions that they were influenced by their Reserve status to act adversely to respondents’ interest.
The Court cited a number of cases in support of its holding, nearly all of which contained language similar to that quoted in the text. See Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (insufficient for a party to show “merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally”); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126, 129-130 (1922) (“Plaintiff has only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted. Obviously this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute in the federal courts a suit”); Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U. S. 405, 406 (1900) (“even in a proceeding which he prosecutes for the benefit of the public... [the plaintiff] must generally aver an injury peculiar to himself, as distinguished from the great body of his fellow citizens”). See also Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475, 486 (1903) (Holmes, J.) (“The plaintiff alleges that the whole registration scheme of the Alabama constitution is a fraud upon the Constitution of the United States, and asks us to declare it void. But of course he could not maintain a bill for a mere declaration in the air”). Cf. Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U. S. 537, 550 (1915).
The Court has also recently cited with approval two of the principal cases relied upon in Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633 (1937). Frothingham v. Mellon, supra, was used for support in O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 494 (1974), as was Fairchild v. Hughes, supra, used in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 208 (1962).
This is in sharp contrast to the political processes in which the Congress can initiate inquiry and action, define issues and objectives, and exercise virtually unlimited power by way of hearings and reports, thus making a record for plenary consideration and solutions. The legislative function is inherently general rather than particular and is not intended to be responsive to adversaries asserting specific claims or interests peculiar to themselves.
We have expressed apprehension about claims of standing based on “mere ‘interest in a problem.’ ” See, e. g., Sierra Club, 405 U. S., at 739. Earlier cases of the Court evidenced comparable concern. See, e. g., Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U. S., at 552 n. 8.
Lamm v. Volpe, 449 F. 2d 1202, 1204 (CA10 1971); Pietsch v. President of United States, 434 F. 2d 861, 863 (CA2 1970) (Clark, J.); Troutman v. Shriver, 417 F. 2d 171, 174 (CA5 1969) (citing Levitt, supra); Velvel v. Nixon, 415 F. 2d 236, 239 (CA10 1969); Pauling v. McElroy, 107 U. S. App. D. C. 372, 374, 278 F. 2d 252, 254 (1960); cf. Sharrow v. Brown, 447 F. 2d 94, 97 (CA2 1971). And aside from the decision under review, the only other opinion that appears to have ruled otherwise is Atlee v. Laird, 339 F. Supp. 1347 (ED Pa. 1972), which relied upon the decision of the District Court here. Id., at 1357 n. 8.
The Court of Appeals’ reliance on Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1962), is inapposite. United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669 (1973), pointed out that a personal stake in a fraction of a vote in Baker v. Carr was sufficient to support standing. Id., at 689 n. 14. The injury asserted in Baker was thus a concrete injury to fundamental voting rights, as distinguished from the abstract injury in nonobservance of the Constitution asserted by respondents as citizens.
In Baker v. Carr, the Court cited with approval the early case of Liverpool, N. Y. & Phila. S. S. Co. v. Comm’rs of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33 (1885), where it was held that a federal court can adjudge rights only “in actual controversies.” Id., at 39.
The District Court made analogy to conflict-of-interest statutes which, it said, are directed at avoiding circumstances of potential, not actual, impropriety. We have no doubt that if the Congress enacted a statute creating such a legal right, the requisite injury for standing would be found in an invasion of that right. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S., at 493 n. 2; Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 617 n. 3 (1973); Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 154 (1970). But to satisfy the Art. Ill prerequisite the complaining party would still be required to allege a specific invasion of the right suffered by him. Standing could not be found — as it is not here — in a citizen who alleged no more than the right of all other citizens to have government conducted without what he perceived, without himself having suffered concrete harm, to be proscribed conflicts of interest.
Looking “to the substantive issues” which Flast stated to be both “appropriate and necessary” in relation to taxpayer standing was for the express purpose of determining “whether there is a logical nexus between the [taxpayer] status asserted and the claim sought to be adjud
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The appellant, Abdiel Caban, challenges the constitutionality of § 111 of the New York Domestic Relations Law (McKinney 1977), under which two of his natural children were adopted by their natural mother and stepfather without his consent. We find the statute to be unconstitutional, as the distinction it invariably makes between the rights of unmarried mothers and the rights of unmarried fathers has not been shown to be substantially related to an important state interest.
I
Abdiel Caban and appellee Maria Mohammed lived together in New York City from September 1968 until the end of 1973. During this time Caban and Mohammed represented themselves as being husband and wife, although they never legally married. Indeed, until 1974 Caban was married to another woman, from whom he was separated. While living with the appellant, Mohammed gave birth to two children: David Andrew Caban, born July 16, 1969, and Denise Caban, born March 12, 1971. Abdiel Caban was identified as the father on each child’s birth certificate, and lived with the children as their father until the end of 1973. Together with Mohammed, he contributed to the support of the family.
In December 1973, Mohammed took the two children and left the appellant to take up residence with appellee Kazin Mohammed, whom she married on January 30, 1974. For the next nine months, she took David and Denise each weekend to visit her mother, Delores Gonzales, who lived one floor above Caban. Because of his friendship with Gonzales, Caban was able to see the children each week when they came to visit their grandmother.
In September 1974, Gonzales left New York to take up residence in her native Puerto Rico. At the Mohammeds’ request, the grandmother took David and Denise with her. According to appellees, they planned to join the children in Puerto Rico as soon as they had saved enough money to start a business there. During the children’s stay with their grandmother, Mrs. Mohammed kept in touch with David and Denise by mail; Caban communicated with the children through his parents, who also resided in Puerto Rico. In November 1975, he went to Puerto Rico, where Gonzales willingly surrendered the children to Caban with the understanding that they would be returned after a few days. Caban, however, returned to New York with the children. When Mrs. Mohammed learned that the children were in Caban’s custody, she attempted to retrieve them with the aid of a police officer. After this attempt failed, the appellees instituted custody proceedings in the New York Family Court, which placed the children in the temporary custody of the Mohammeds and gave Caban and his new wife, Nina, visiting rights.
In January 1976, appellees filed a petition under § 110 of the New York Domestic Relations Law to adopt David and Denise. In March, the Cabans cross petitioned for adoption. After the Family Court stayed the custody suit pending the outcome of the adoption proceedings, a hearing was held on the petition and cross-petition before a Law Assistant to a New York Surrogate in Kings County, N. Y. At this hearing, both the Mohammeds and the Cabans were represented by counsel and were permitted to present and cross-examine witnesses.
The Surrogate granted the Mohammeds’ petition to adopt the children, thereby cutting off all of appellant’s parental rights and obligations. In his opinion, the Surrogate noted the limited right under New York law of unwed fathers in adoption proceedings: “Although a putative father’s consent to such an adoption is not a legal necessity, he is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the proposed stepfather adoption.” Moreover, the court stated that the appellant was foreclosed from adopting David and Denise, as the natural mother had withheld her consent. Thus, the court considered the evidence presented by the Cabans only insofar as it reflected upon the Mohammeds’ qualifications as prospective parents. The Surrogate found them well qualified and granted their adoption petition.
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed. It stated that appellant’s constitutional challenge to § 111 was foreclosed by the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in In re Malpica-Orsini, 36 N. Y. 2d 568, 331 N. E. 2d 486 (1975), appeal dism’d for want of substantial federal question sub nom. Orsini v. Blasi, 423 U. S. 1042 (1976). In re David Andrew C., 56 App. Div. 2d 627, 391 N. Y. S. 2d 846 (1977). The New York Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in a memorandum decision based on In re Malpica-Orsini, supra. In re David A. C., 43 N. Y. 2d 708, 372 N. E. 2d 42 (1977).
On appeal to this Court, appellant presses two claims. First, he argues that the distinction drawn under New York law between the adoption rights of an unwed father and those of other parents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, appellant contends that this Court’s decision in Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246 (1978), recognized the due process right of natural fathers to maintain a parental relationship with their children absent a finding that they are unfit as parents.
II
Section 111 of the N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law (McKinney 1977) provides in part that
“consent to adoption shall be required as follows: . . . (b) Of the parents or surviving parent, whether adult or infant, of a child born in wedlock; [and] (c) Of the mother, whether adult or infant, of a child bom out of wedlock. . .
The statute makes parental consent unnecessary, however, in certain cases, including those where the parent has abandoned or relinquished his of her rights in the child or has been adjudicated incompetent to care for the child. Absent one of these circumstances, an unwed mother has the authority under New York law to block the adoption of her child simply by withholding consent. The unwed father has no similar control over the fate of his child, even when his parental relationship is substantial — as in this case. He may prevent the termination of his parental rights only by showing that the best interests of the child would not permit the child’s adoption by the petitioning couple.
Despite the plain wording of the statute, appellees argue that unwed fathers are not treated differently under § 111 from other parents. According to appellees, the consent requirement of § 111 is merely a formal requirement, lacking in substance, as New York courts find consent to be unnecessary whenever the best interests of the child support the adoption. Because the best interests of the child always determine whether an adoption petition is granted in New York, appellees contend that all parents, including unwed fathers, are subject to the same standard.
Appellees’ interpretation of § 111 finds no support in New York case law. On the contrary, the New York Court of Appeals has stated unequivocally that the question whether consent is required is entirely separate from that of the best interests of the child. Indeed, the Surrogate’s decision in the present case, affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals, was based upon the assumption that there was a distinctive difference between the rights of Abdiel Caban, as the unwed father of David and Denise, and Maria Mohammed, as the unwed mother of the children: Adoption by Abdiel was held to be impermissible in the absence of Maria’s consent, whereas adoption by Maria could be prevented by Abdiel only if he could show that the Mohammeds’ adoption of the children would not be in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, it is clear that § 111 treats unmarried parents differently according to their sex.
III
Gender-based distinctions “must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives” in order to withstand judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 197 (1976). See also Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971). The question before us, therefore, is whether the distinction in § 111 between unmarried mothers and unmarried fathers bears a substantial relation to some important state interest. Appellees assert that the distinction is justified by a fundamental difference between maternal and paternal relations — that “a natural mother, absent special circumstances, bears a closer relationship with her child . . . than a father does.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 41.
Contrary to appellees’ argument and to the apparent presumption underlying § 111, maternal and paternal roles are not invariably different in importance. Even if unwed mothers as a class were closer than unwed fathers to their newborn infants, this generalization concerning parent-child relations would become less acceptable as a basis for legislative distinctions as the age of the child increased. The present case demonstrates that an unwed father may have a relationship with his children fully comparable to that of the mother. Appellant Caban, appellee Maria Mohammed, and their two children lived together as a natural family for several years. As members of this family, both mother and father participated in the care and support of their children. There is no reason to believe that the Caban children — aged 4 and 6 at the time of the adoption proceedings — had a relationship with their mother unrivaled by the affection and concern of their father. We reject, therefore, the claim that the broad, gender-based distinction of § 111 is required by any universal difference between maternal and paternal relations at every phase of a child’s development.
As an alternative justification for § 111, appellees argue that the distinction between unwed fathers and unwed mothers is substantially related to the State’s interest in promoting the adoption of illegitimate children. Although the legislative history of § 111 is sparse, in In re Malpica-Orsini, 36 N. Y. 2d 568, 331 N. E. 2d 486 (1975), the New York Court of Appeals identified as the legislature’s purpose in enacting § 111 the furthering of the interests of illegitimate children, for whom adoption often is the best course. The court concluded:
“To require the consent of fathers of children born out of wedlock ... , or even some of them, would have the overall effect of denying homes to the homeless and of depriving innocent children of the other blessings of adoption. The cruel and undeserved out-of-wedlock stigma would continue its visitations. At the very least, the worthy process of adoption would be severely impeded.” 36 N. Y. 2d, at 572, 331 N. E. 2d, at 489.
The court reasoned that people wishing tO' adopt a child born out of wedlock would be discouraged if the natural father could prevent the adoption by the mere withholding of his consent. Indeed, the court went so far as to suggest that “[m]arriages would be discouraged because of the reluctance of prospective husbands to involve themselves in a family situation where they might only be a foster parent and could not adopt the mother's offspring.” Id., at 573, 331 N. E. 2d, at 490. Finally, the court noted that if unwed fathers’ consent were required before adoption could take place, in many instances the adoption would have to be delayed or eliminated altogether, because of the unavailability of the natural father.
The State’s interest in providing for the well-being of illegitimate children is an important one. We do not question that the best interests of such children often may require their adoption into new families who will give them the stability of a normal, two-parent home. Moreover, adoption will remove the stigma under which illegitimate children suffer. But the unquestioned right of the State to further these desirable ends by legislation is not in itself sufficient to justify the gender-based distinction of § 111. Rather, under the relevant cases applying the Equal Protection Clause it must be shown that the distinction is structured reasonably to further these ends. As we repeated in Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S., at 76, such a statutory “classification 'must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.’ Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415 (1920).”
We find that the distinction in § 111 between unmarried mothers and unmarried fathers, as illustrated by this case, does not bear a substantial relation to the State’s interest in providing adoptive homes for its illegitimate children. It may be that, given the opportunity, some unwed fathers would prevent the adoption of their illegitimate children. This impediment to adoption usually is the result of a natural parental interest shared by both genders alike; it is not a manifestation of any profound difference between the affection and concern of mothers and fathers for their children. Neither the State nor the appellees have argued that unwed fathers are more likely to object to the adoption of their children than are unwed mothers; nor is there any self-evident reason why as a class they would be.
The New York Court of Appeals in In re Malpica-Orsini, supra, suggested that the requiring of unmarried fathers’ consent for adoption would pose a strong impediment for adoption because often it is impossible to locate unwed fathers when adoption proceedings are brought, whereas mothers are more likely to remain with their children. Even if the special difficulties attendant upon locating and identifying unwed fathers at birth would justify a legislative distinction between mothers and fathers of newborns, these difficulties need not persist past infancy. When the adoption of an older child is sought, the State’s interest in proceeding with adoption cases can be protected by means that do not draw such an inflexible gender-based distinction as that made in § 111. In those cases where the father never has come forward to participate in the rearing of his child, nothing in the Equal Protection Clause precludes the State from withholding from him the privilege of vetoing the adoption of that child. Indeed, under the statute as it now stands the surrogate may proceed in the absence of consent when the parent whose consent otherwise would be required never has come forward or has abandoned the child. See, e. g., In re Orlando F., 40 N. Y. 2d 103, 351 N. E. 2d 711 (1976). But in cases such as this, where the father has established a substantial relationship with the child and has admitted his paternity, a State should have no difficulty in identifying the father even of children born out of wedlock. Thus, no showing has been made that the different treatment afforded unmarried fathers and unmarried mothers under § 111 bears a substantial relationship to the proclaimed interest of the State in promoting the adoption of illegitimate children.
In sum, we believe that § 111 is another example of “over-broad generalizations” in gender-based classifications. See Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 211 (1977); Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S. 7, 14-15.(1975). The effect of New York’s classification is to discriminate against unwed fathers even when their identity is known and they have manifested a significant paternal interest in the child. The facts of this case illustrate the harshness of classifying unwed fathers as being invariably less qualified and entitled than mothers to exercise a concerned judgment as to the fate of their children. Section 111 both excludes some loving fathers from full participation in the decision whether their children will be adopted and, at the same time, enables some alienated mothers arbitrarily to cut off the paternal rights of fathers. We conclude that this undifferentiated distinction between unwed mothers and unwed fathers, applicable in all circumstances where adoption of a child of theirs is at issue, does not bear a substantial relationship to the State’s asserted interests.
The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Section 110 of the N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law (McKinney 1977) provides in part:
“An adult or minor husband and his adult or minor wife together may adopt a child of either of them born in or out of wedlock and an adult or minor husband or an adult or minor wife may adopt such a child of the other spouse.”
Although a natural mother in New York has many parental rights without adopting her child, New York courts have held that § 110 provides for the adoption of an illegitimate child by his mother. See In re Anonymous Adoption, 177 Misc. 683, 31 N. Y. S. 2d 595 (Surr. Ct. 1941).
Section 117 of the N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law (McKinney 1977) provides, in part, that
“[a]fter the making of an order of adoption the natural parents of the adoptive child shall be relieved of all parental duties toward and of all responsibilities for and shall have no rights over such adoptive child or to his property by descent or succession, except as hereinafter stated.”
As an exception to this general rule, § 117 provides that “[w]hen a natural or adoptive parent, having lawful custody of a child, marries or remarries and consents that the stepfather or stepmother may adopt such child, such consent shall not relieve the parent so consenting of any parental duty toward such child nor shall such consent or the order of adoption affect the rights of such consenting spouse and such adoptive child to inherit from and through each other and the natural and adopted kindred of such consenting spouse.”
In addition, § 117 (2) provides that adoption shall not affect a child’s right to distribution of property under his natural parents’ will.
As the appellant was given due notice and was permitted to participate-as a party in the adoption proceedings, he does not contend that he was denied the procedural due process held to be requisite in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972).
At the time of the proceedings before the Surrogate, § 111, as amended by 1975 N. Y. Laws, chs. 246 and 704, provided:
“Subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth consent to adoption shall be required as follows:
“1. Of the adoptive child, if over fourteen years of age, unless the judge or surrogate in his discretion dispenses with such consent;
“2. Of the parents or surviving parent, whether adult or infant, of a child bom in wedlock;
“3. Of the mother, whether adult or infant, of a child born out of wedlock;
“4. Of any person or authorized agency having lawful custody of the adoptive child.
“The consent shall not be required of a parent who has abandoned the child or who has surrendered the child to an authorized agency for the purpose of adoption under the provisions of the social services law or of a parent for whose child a guardian has been appointed under the provisions of section three hundred eighty-four of the social services law or who has been deprived of civil rights or who is insane or who has been judicially declared incompetent or who is mentally retarded as defined by the mental hygiene law or who has been adjudged to be an habitual drunkard or who has been judicially deprived of the custody of the child on account of cruelty or neglect, or pursuant to a judicial finding that the child is a permanently neglected child as defined in section six hundred eleven of the family court act of the state of New York; except that notice of the proposed adoption shall be given in such manner as the judge or surrogate may direct and an opportunity to be heard thereon may be afforded to a parent who has been deprived of civil rights and to a parent if the judge or surrogate so orders. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the notice of a proposed adoption nor any process in such proceeding shall be required to contain the name of the person or persons seeking to adopt the child. For the purposes of this section, evidence of insubstantial and infrequent contacts by a parent with his or her child shall not, of itself, be sufficient as a matter of law to preclude a finding that such parent has abandoned such child.
“Where the adoptive child is over the age of eighteen years the consents specified in subdivisions two and three of this section shall not be required, and the judge or surrogate in his discretion may direct that the consent specified in subdivision four of this section shall not be required if in his opinion the moral and temporal interests of the adoptive child will be promoted by the adoption and such consent cannot for any reason be obtained.
“An adoptive child who has once been lawfully adopted may be readopted directly from such child’s adoptive parents in the same manner as from its natural parents. In such case the consent of such natural parents shall not be required but the judge or surrogate in his discretion may require that notice be given to the natural parents in such manner as he may prescribe.”
See In re Corey L. v. Martin L., 45 N. Y. 2d 383, 391, 380 N. E. 2d 266, 270 (1978):
“Absent consent, the first focus here was on the issue of abandonment since neither decisional rule nor statute can bring the relationship to an end because someone else might rear the child in a more satisfactory fashion .... Abandonment, as it pertains to adoption, relates to such conduct on the part of a parent as evinces a purposeful ridding of parental obligations and the foregoing of parental rights — a withholding of interest, presence, affection, care and support. The best interests of the child, as such, is not an ingredient of that conduct and is not involved in this threshold question. While promotion of the best interests of the child is essential to ultimate approval of the adoption application, such interests cannot act as a substitute for a finding of abandonment.” (Citations omitted.)
The dissents speculate that the sex-based distinction of § 111 might not apply to those unwed fathers who obtain legal custody of their children. See post, at 395, and at 412-413, n. 23. But no New York court has so ruled. Indeed, one court has indicated that, at least with respect to legitimate children, the provision in § 111 (4) giving legal guardians a veto over the adoption of their wards applies only if the natural parents are dead. See In re Mendelsohn’s Adoption, 180 Misc. 147, 149, 39 N. Y. S. 2d 384, 386 (Surr. Ct. 1943). We should not overlook, therefore, the New York courts’ exclusive reliance upon § 111 (3) and instead speculate whether, if Caban had sought and obtained legal custody of his children, his legal rights would have been different under New York law.
In rejecting an unmarried father’s constitutional claim in Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246 (1978), we emphasized the importance of the appellant’s failure to act as a father toward his children, noting that he “has never exercised actual or legal custody over his child, and thus has never shouldered any significant responsibility with respect to the daily supervision, education, protection, or care of the child. Appellant does not complain of his exemption from these responsibilities and, indeed, he does not even now seek custody of his child.” Id., at 256.
In Quilloin we expressly reserved the question whether the Georgia statute similar to § 111 of the New York Domestic Relations Law unconstitutionally distinguished unwed parents according to their gender, as the claim was not properly presented. See 434 U. S., at 253 n. 13.
Consent of the unmarried father has never been required for adoption under New York law, although parental consent otherwise has been required at least since the late 19th century. See, e. g., 1896 N. Y. Laws, ch. 272. There are no legislative reports setting forth the reasons why the New York Legislature excepted unmarried fathers from the general requirement of parental consent for adoption.
In Orsini v. Blasi, 423 U. S. 1042 (1976), the Court dismissed an appeal from the New York Court of Appeals challenging the constitutionality of § 111 as applied to an unmarried father whose child had been ordered adopted by a New York Family Court. In dismissing the appeal, we indicated that a substantial federal question was lacking. This was a ruling on the merits, and therefore is entitled to precedential weight. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332, 344 (1975). At the same time, however, our decision not to review fully the questions presented in Orsini v. Blasi is not entitled to the same deference given a ruling after briefing, argument, and a written opinion. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 671 (1974). Insofar as our decision today is inconsistent with our dismissal in Orsini, we overrule our prior decision.
In his brief as amicus curiae, the New York Attorney General echoes the New York Court of Appeals’ exposition in In re Malpica-Orsini of the interests promoted by § Ill’s different treatment of unmarried fathers. See Brief for New York Attorney General as Amicus Curiae 16-20.
Because the question is not before us, we express no view whether such difficulties would justify a statute addressed particularly to newborn adoptions, setting forth more stringent requirements concerning the acknowledgment of paternity or a stricter definition of abandonment.
See Comment, The Emerging Constitutional Protection of the Putative Father’s Parental Rights, 70 Mich. L. Rev. 1581, 1590 (1972).
If the New York Court of Appeals is correct that unmarried fathers often desert their families (a view we need not question), then allowing those fathers who remain with their families a right to object to the termination of their parental rights will pose little threat to the State’s ability to order adoption in most cases. For we do not question a State’s right to do what New York has done in this portion of § 111: provide that fathers who have abandoned their children have no right to block adoption of those children.
We do not suggest, of course, that the provision of § 111 making parental consent unnecessary in cases of abandonment is the only constitutional mechanism available to New York for the protection of its interest in allowing the adoption of illegitimate children when their natural fathers are not available to be consulted. In reviewing the constitutionality of statutory classifications, “it is not the function of a court ‘to hypothesize independently on the desirability or feasibility of any possible alternative [s]’ to the statutory scheme formulated by [the State].” Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259, 274 (1978) (quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 515 (1976)). We note some alternatives to the gender-based distinction of § 111 only to emphasize that the state interests asserted in support of the statutory classification could be protected through numerous other mechanisms more closely attuned to those interests.
In Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246 (1978), we noted the importance in eases of this kind of the relationship that in fact exists between the parent and child. See n. 7, supra.
States have a legitimate interest, of course, in providing that an unmarried father’s right to object to the adoption of a child will be conditioned upon his showing that it is in fact his child. Cf. Lalli v. Lalli, supra, at 268-269. Such is not, however, the import of the New York statute here. Although New York provides for actions in its Family Courts to establish paternity, see N. Y. Family Court Act §§ 511 to 571 (McKinney 1975 and Supp. 1978-1979), there is no provision allowing men who have been determined by the court to be the father of a child born out of wedlock to object to the adoption of their children under § 111.
Appellant also challenges the constitutionality of the distinction made in § 111 between married and unmarried fathers. As we have resolved that the sex-based distinction of § 111 violates the Equal Protection Clause, we need express no view as to the validity of this additional classification.
Finally, appellant argues that he was denied substantive due process when the New York courts terminated his parental rights without first finding him to be unfit to be a parent. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972) (semble). Because we have ruled that the New York statute is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, we similarly express no view as to whether a State is constitutionally barred from ordering adoption in the absence of a determination that the parent whose rights are being terminated is unfit.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider two questions concerning the remedial powers of federal district courts in school desegregation cases, namely, whether a District Court can, as part of a desegregation decree, order compensatory or remedial educational programs for schoolchildren who have been subjected to past acts of de jure segregation, and whether, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, a federal court can require state officials found responsible for constitutional violations to bear part of the costs of those programs.
I
This case is before the Court for the second time, following our remand, Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974) (Milliken I); it marks the culmination of seven years of litigation over de jure school segregation in the Detroit public school system. For almost six years, the litigation has focused exclusively on the appropriate remedy to correct official acts of racial discrimination committed by both the Detroit School Board and the State of Michigan. No challenge is now made by the State" oFihelocal school board to the prior findings of de jure segregation.
A
In the first stage of the. remedy proceedings, which we reviewed in Milliken I, supra, the District Court, after reviewing several “Detroit-only” desegregation plans, concluded that an interdistrict plan was required to “ 'achieve the greatest degree of actual desegregation... [so that] no school, grade or classroom [would be] substantially disproportionate to the overall pupil racial composition.’ ” 3451. Supp. 914, 918 (ED Mich. 1972), quoted in Milliken I, supra, at 734. On those premises, the District Court ordered the parties to submit plans for “metropolitan desegregation” and appointed a nine-member panel to formulate a desegregation plan, which would encompass a “desegregation area” consisting of 54 school districts,
. In June 1973, a divided Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld, 484 F. 2d 215 (CA6), the District Court’s determination that a metropolitanwide plan was essential to bring about what the District Court had described as “the greatest degree of actual desegregation....” 345 F. Supp., at 918. We reversed, holding that the order exceeded appropriate limits of federal equitable authority as defined in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 24 (1971), by concluding that “as a matter of substantive constitutional right, [a] particular degree of racial balance” is required, and by subjecting other school districts, uninvolved with and unaffected by any constitutional violations, to the court’s remedial powers. Milliken I, supra. Proceeding from the Swann standard “that the scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation,” we held that, on the record before us, there was no interdistrict violation calling for an interdistrict remedy. Because the District Court’s “metropolitan remedy” went beyond the constitutional violation, we remanded the case for further proceedings “leading to prompt formulation of a decree directed to eliminating the segregation found to exist in the Detroit city schools, a remedy which has been delayed since 1970.” 418 U. S., at 753.
B
Due to the intervening death of Judge Stephen J. Roth, who had presided over the litigation from the outset, the case on remand was reassigned to Judge Robert E. DeMascio. Judge DeMascio promptly ordered respondent Bradley and the Detroit Board to submit desegregation plans limited to the Detroit school system. On April 1, 1975, both parties submitted their proposed plans. Respondent Bradley’s plan was limited solely to pupil reassignment; the proposal called for extensive transportation of students to achieve the plan’s ultimate goal of assuring that every school within the district reflected, within 15 percentage points, the racial ratio of the school district as a whole. In contrast to respondent Bradley’s proposal, the Detroit Board’s plan provided for sufficient pupil reassignment to eliminate “racially identifiable white elementary schools,” while ensuring that “every child will spend at least a portion of his education in either a neighborhood elementary school or a neighborhood junior and senior high school.” 402 F. Supp. 1096, 1116 (1975). By eschewing racial ratios for each school, the Board’s plan contemplated transportation of fewer students for shorter distances than respondent Bradley’s proposal.
In addition to student reassignments, the Board’s plan called for implementation of 13 remedial or compensatory programs, referred to in the record as “educational components.” These compensatory programs, which were proposed in addition to the plan’s provisions for magne/Lschools and vocational high schools, included three of the four components at issue in ’this 'case — in-service training for teachers and administrators, guidance and counseling programs, and revised testing procedures. Pursuant to the District Court’s direction, the State Board of Education on April 21, 1975, submitted a critique of the Detroit Board’s desegregation plan; in its report, the State Board opined that, although “[i]t is possible that none of the thirteen ‘quality education’ components is essential... to correct the constitutional violation...,” 8 of the 13 proposed programs nonetheless deserved special consideration in the desegregation setting. Of particular relevance here, the State Board said:
“Within the context of effectuating a pupil desegregation plan, the in-service training [and] guidance and counseling... components appear to deserve special emphasis.” 4 Record, Doc. 591, pp. 38-39.
After receiving the State Board’s critique, the District Court conducted extensive hearings on the two plans over a two-month period. Substantial testimony was adduced with respect to the proposed educational components, including testimony by petitioners’ expert witnesses. Based on this evidence and on reports of court-appointed experts, the District Court on August 11, 1975, approved, in principle, the Detroit Board’s inclusion of remedial and compensatory educational components in the desegregation plan.
“We find that the majority of the educational com- / ponents included in the Detroit Board plan are essential / for a school district undergoing desegregation. While it is ¡ true that the delivery of quality desegregated educational | services is the obligation of the school board, nevertheless ’t this court deems it essential to mandate educational com- \ ponents where they are needed to remedy effects of past \ segregation, to assure a successful desegregative effort and \ to minimize the possibility of resegregation.” 402 F. \^upp., at 1118.
The District Court expressly found that the two components of testing and counseling, as then administered in Detroit’s schools, were infected with the discriminatory bias of a segregated school system:
“In a segregated setting many techniques deny equal protection to black students, such as discriminatory testing [and] discriminatory counseling... Ibid.
The District Court also found that, to make desegregation work, it was necessary to include remedial reading programs and in-service training for teachers and administrators:
“In a system undergoing desegregation, teachers will require orientation and training for desegregation.... Additionally, we find that... comprehensive reading programs are essential... to a successful desegregative effort.” Ibid.
Having established these general principles, the District Court formulated several “remedial guidelines” to govern the Detroit Board’s development of a final plan. Declining “to substitute its authority for the authority of elected state and local officials to decide which educational components are beneficial, to the school community,” id., at 1145, the District Judge laid down the following guidelines with respect to each of the four educational components at issue here:
(a) Reading. Concluding that “[t]here is no educational component more directly associated with the process of desegregation than reading,” id., at 1138, the District Court directed the General Superintendent of Detroit’s schools to institute a remedial reading and communications skills program “[t]o eradicate the effects of past discrimination....” Ibid. The content of the required program was not prescribed by the court; rather, formulation and implementation of the program was left to the Superintendent and to a committee to be selected by him.
(b) In-Service Training. The court also directed the Detroit Board to formulate a comprehensive in-service teacher training program, an element “essential to a system undergoing desegregation.” Id,., at 1139. In the District Court’s view, an in-service training program for teachers and administrators, to tram professional and instructional personnel to cope with the desegregation process in Detroit, would tend to ensure that all students in a desegregated system would be treated equally by teachers and administrators able, by virtue of special training, to cope with special problems presented by desegregation, and thereby facilitate Detroit’s conversion to a unitary system.
(c) Testing. Because it found, based on record evidence, that Negro children “are especially affected by biased testing procedures,” the District Court determined that, frequently, minority students in Detroit were adversely affected by discriminatory testing procedures. Unless the school system’s tests were administered in a way “free from racial, ethnic and cultural bias,” the District Court concluded that Negro children in Detroit might thereafter be impeded in their educar tional growth. Id., at 1142. Accordingly, the court directed the Detroit Board and the State Department of Education to institute a testing program along the lines proposed by the local school board in its original desegregation plan. Ibid.
(d) Counseling and Career Guidance. Finally, the District Court addressed what expert witnesses had described as psychological pressures on Detroit’s students in a system undergoing desegregation. Counselors were required, the court concluded, both to deal with the numerous problems and tensions arising in the change from Detroit’s dual system, and, more concretely, to counsel students concerning the new vocational and technical school programs available under the plan through the cooperation of state and local officials.
Nine months later, on May 11, 1976, the District' Court A entered its final order. Emphasizing that it had “been careful to order only what is essential for a school district undergoing desegregation,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 117a, the court ordered the Detroit Board and the state defendants to institute comprehensive programs as to the four educational components by the start of the September 1976 school term. The cost of these four programs, the court concluded, was to be equally borne by the Detroit School Board and the State. To / carry out this cost sharing, the court directed the local board to calculate its highest budget allocation in any prior year for/ the several educational programs and, from that base, any/ excess cost attributable to the desegregation plan was to be paid equally by the two groups of defendants responsible for prior constitutional violations, i. e., the Detroit Board and the state defendants.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order concerning the implementation of and cost sharing for the four educational components. 540 F. 2d 229 (1976). The Court of Appeals expressly approved the District Court’s findings as to the necessity for these compensatory programs:
“This finding... is not clearly erroneous, but to the contrary is supported by ample evidence.
“The need for in-service training of the educational staff and development of nondiscriminatory testing is obvious. The former is needed to insure that the teachers and administrators will be able to work effectively in a desegregated environment. The latter is needed to insure that students are not evaluated unequally because of built-in bias in the tests administered in formerly segregated schools.
“We agree with the District Court that the reading and counseling programs are essential to the effort to combat the effects of segregation.
“Without the reading and counseling components, black students might be deprived of the motivation and achievement levels which the desegregation remedy is designed to accomplish.” Id., at 241.
After reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals confirmed that the District Court relied largely on the Detroit School Board in formulating the decree:
“This is not a situation where the District Court ‘appears to have acted solely according to its own notions of good educational policy unrelated to the demands of the Constitution.’ ” Id., at 241-242, quoting Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 521 F. 2d 465, 483 (CA10 1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1066 (1976).
After upholding the remedial-components portion of the plan, the Court of Appeals went on to affirm the District Court’s allocation of costs between the state and local officials. Analyzing this Court’s decision in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974), which reaffirmed the rule that the Eleventh Amendment bars an ordinary suit for money damages against the State without its consent, the Court of Appeals held:
“[The District Court’s order] imposes no money judgment on the State of Michigan for past de jure segregation practices. Rather, the order is directed toward the State defendants as a part of a prospective plan to comply with a constitutional requirement to eradicate all vestiges of de jure segregation.” 540 F. 2d, at 245. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further consideration of the three central city regions untouched by the District Court’s pupil reassignment plan. See n. 12, supra.
The state defendants then sought review in this Court, challenging only those portions of the District Court’s comprehensive remedial order dealing with the four educational components and with the State’s obligation to defray the costs of those programs. We granted certiorari, 429 U. S. 958 (1976), and we affirm.
II
This Court has not previously addressed directly the question whether federal courts can order remedial education programs as part of a school desegregation decree. However, the general principles governing our resolution of this issue are well settled by the prior decisions of this Court. In the first case concerning federal courts’ remedial powers in eliminating de jure school segregation, the Court laid down the basic rule which governs to this day: “In fashioning and effectuating the [desegregation] decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 300 (1955) (Brown II).
A
Application of those “equitable principles,” we have held, requires federal courts to focus upon three factors. In the first place, like other equitable remedies, the nature of the desegregation remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the constitutional violation. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S., at 16. The remedy must therefore be related to “the condition alleged to offend the Constitution....” Milliken I, 418 U. S., at 738. Second, the decree must indeed be remedial in nature, that is, it must be designed as nearly as possible “to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct.” Id., at 746. Third, the federal courts in devising a remedy must take into account the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution. In Brown II the Court squarely held that “[sjchool authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these problems... 349 U. S., at 299. (Emphasis supplied.) If, however, “school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations... judicial authority may be invoked.” Swann, supra, at 15. Once invoked, “the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.” Ibid.
B
In challenging the order before us, petitioners do not specifically question that the District Court’s mandated programs are designed, as nearly as practicable, to restore the schoolchildren of Detroit to the position they would have enjoyed absent constitutional violations by state and local officials. And, petitioners do not contend, nor could they, that the prerogatives of the Detroit School Board have been abrogated by the decree, since of course the Detroit School Board itself proposed incorporation of these programs in the first place. Petitioners’ sole contention is that, under Swann, the District Court’s order exceeds the scope of the constitutional violation. Invoking our holding in Milliken I, petitioners claim that, since the constitutional violation found by the District Court was the unlawful segregation of students on the basis of race, the, court’s decree must be-limited to remedying unlawful pupil assignments. This contention misconceives the principle petitioners seek to invoke, and we reject their argument.
The well-settled principle that the nature and scope of the remedy axe to be determined by the violation means simply that federal-court decrees must directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself. Because of this inherent limitation upon federal judicial authority, federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate the Constitution or does not flow from such a violation, see Pasadena Bd. of Education v. Spangler, 427 U. S. 424 (1976), or if they are imposed upon governmental units that were neither involved in nor affected by the constitutional violation, as in Milliken I, supra. Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U. S. 284, 292-296 (1976). But where, as here, a constitutional violation has been found, the remedy does not “exceed” the violation if the remedy is tailored to cure the “ ‘condition that offends the Constitution.' ” Milliken I, supra, at 738. (Emphasis supplied.)
The “condition” offending the Constitution is Detroit's de jure segregated school system, which was so pervasively and persistently segregated that the District Court found that the need for the educational components flowed directly from constitutional violations by both state and local officials. These specific educational remedies, although normally left to the discretion of the elected school board and professional educators, were deemed necessary to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have enjoyed in terms of education had these four components been provided in a nondiscriminatory manner in a school system free from pervasive de jure racial segregation.
In the first case invalidating a de jure system, a unanimous Court, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Warren, held in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 495 (1954) (Brown /): “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” And in United States v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 395 U. S. 225 (1969), the Court concerned itself not with pupil assignment, but with the desegregation of faculty and staff as part of the process of dismantling a dual system. In doing so, the Court, there speaking through Mr. Justice Black, focused on the reason for judicial concerns going beyond pupil assignment: “The dispute... deals with faculty and staff desegregation, a goal that we have recognized to be an important aspect of the basic task of achieving a public school system wholly free from racial discrimination.” Id., at 231-232. (Emphasis supplied.)
Montgomery County therefore stands firmly for the proposition that matters other than pupil assignment must on occasion be addressed by federal courts to eliminate the effects of prior segregation. Similarly, in Swann we reaffirmed the principle laid down in Green v. County School Bd., 391 U. S. 430 (1968), that “existing policy and practice with regard to faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities were among the most important indicia of a segregated system.” 402 U. S., at 18. In a word, discriminatory student assignment policies can themselves manifest and breed other inequalities built into a dual system founded on racial discrimination. Federal courts need not, and cannot, close their eyes to inequalities, shown by the record, which flow from a longstanding segregated system.
C
In light of the mandate of Brown I and Brown II, federal courts have, over the years, often required the inclusion of remedial programs in desegregation plans to overcome the inequalities inherent in dual school systems. In 1966, for example, the District Court for the District of South Carolina directed the inclusion of remedial courses to overcome the effects of a segregated system:
“Because the weaknesses of a dual school system may have already affected many children, the court would be remiss in its duty if any desegregation plan were approved which did not provide for remedial education courses. They shall be included in the plan.” Miller v. School District 2, Clarendon County, S. C., 256 F. Supp. 370, 377 (1966).
In 1967, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, then engaged in overseeing the desegregation of numerous school districts in the South, laid down the following requirement in an en banc decision:
“The defendants shall-provide remedial education programs which permit students attending or who have previously attended segregated schools to overcome past inadequacies in their education.” United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 380 F. 2d 385, 394, cert. denied, 389 U. S. 840 (1967). (Emphasis supplied.)
See also Stell v. Board of Public Education of Savannah, 387 F. 2d 486, 492, 496-497 (CA5 1967); Hill v. Lafourche Parish School Board, 291 F. Supp. 819, 823 (ED La. 1967); Redman v. Terrebonne Parish School Board, 293 F. Supp. 376, 379 (ED La. 1967); Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458, 489 (MD Ala. 1967); Graves v. Walton County Board of Education, 300 F. Supp. 188, 200 (MD Ga. 1968), aff’d, 410 F. 2d 1153 (CA5 1969). Two years later, the Fifth Circuit again adhered to the rule that district courts could properly seek to overcome the built-in inadequacies of a segregated educational system:
“The trial court concluded that the school board must establish remedial programs to assist students who previously attended all-Negro schools when those students transfer to formerly all-white schools.... The remedial programs... are an integral part of a program for compensatory education to be provided Negro students who have long been disadvantaged by the inequities and discrimination inherent in the dual school system. The requirement that the School Board institute remedial programs so far as they are feasible is a proper exercise of the court’s discretion.” Plaquemines Parish School Bd. v. United States, 415 F. 2d 817, 831 (1969). (Emphasis supplied.)
In the same year the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana required school authorities to come forward with a remedial educational program as part of a desegregation plan. “ 'The defendants shall provide remedial education programs which permit students... who have previously attended all-Negro schools to overcome past inadequacies in their education.’ ” Smith v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 302 F. Supp. 106, 110 (1969), aff’d, 448 F. 2d 414 (CA5 1971). See also Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 304 F. Supp. 244, 253 (ED La. 1969); Moses v. Washington Parish School Board, 302 F. Supp. 362, 367 (ED La. 1969).
In the 1970’s, the pattern has been essentially the same. The Fifth Circuit has, when the fact situation warranted, continued to call for remedial education programs in desegregation plans. E. g., United States v. Texas, 447 F. 2d 441, 448 (1971), stay denied sub nom. Edgar v. United States, 404 U. S. 1206 (1971) (Black, J., in chambers). To that end, the approved plan in United States v. Texas required:
''[Curriculum offerings and programs shall include specific educational programs designed to compensate minority group children for unequal educational opportunities resulting from past or present racial and ethnic isolation....” 447 F. 2d, at 448.
See also George v. O’Kelly, 448 F. 2d 148, 150 (CA5 1971). And, as school desegregation litigation emerged in other regions of the country, federal courts have likewise looked in part to remedial programs, when the record supported an order to that effect. See, e. g., Morgan v. Kerrigan, 401 F. Supp. 216, 235 (Mass. 1975), aff’d, 530 F. 2d 401 (CA1), cert. denied sub nom. White v. Morgan, 426 U. S. 935 (1976); Hart v. Community School Board of Brooklyn, 383 F. Supp. 699, 757 (EDNY 1974), aff’d, 512 F. 2d 37 (CA2 1975); cf. Booker v. Special School Dist. 1, Minneapolis, Minn., 351 F. Supp. 799 (Minn. 1972).
Finally, in addition to other remedial programs, which could, if circumstances warranted, include programs to remedy deficiencies, particularly in reading and communications skills, federal courts have expressly ordered special in-service training for teachers, see, e. g., United States v. Missouri, 523 F. 2d 885, 887 (CA8 1975); Smith v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, supra, at 110; Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, supra, at 253, and have altered or even suspended testing programs employed by school systems undergoing desegregation. See, e. g., Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 419 F. 2d 1211, 1219 (CA5 1969), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 1032 (1970); Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Board, 444 F. 2d 1400, 1401 (CA5 1971); Arvizu v. Waco Independent School Dist., 373 F. Supp. 1264 (WD Tex. 1973), rev’d in part on other issues, 495 F. 2d 499 (CA5 1974).
Our reference to these cases is not to be taken as necessarily approving holdings not reviewed by this Court. However, they demonstrate that the District Court in the case now before us did not break new ground in approving the School Board’s proposed plan. Quite the contrary, acting on abundant evidence in this record, the District Court approved a remedial plan going beyond mere pupil assignments, as expressly approved by Swann and Montgomery County. In so doing, the District Court was adopting specific programs proposed by local school authorities, who must be presumed to be familiar with the problems and the needs of a system undergoing desegregation.
We do not, of course, imply that the order here is a blueprint for other cases. That cannot be; in school desegregation cases, “[t]here is no universal answer to complex problems... ; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case.” Green, 391 U. S., at 439. On this record, however, we are bound to conclude that the decree before us was aptly tailored to remedy the consequences of the constitutional violation. Children who have been thus educationally and culturally set apart from the larger community will inevitably acquire habits of speech, conduct, and attitudes reflecting their cultural isolation. They are likely to acquire speech habits, for example, which vary from the environment in which they must ultimately function and compete, if they are to enter and be a part of that community. This is not peculiar to race; in this setting, it can affect any children who, as a group, are isolated by force of law from the mainstream. Cf. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 (1974).
Pupil assignment alone does not automatically remedy the impact of previous, unlawful educational isolation; the consequences linger and can be dealt with only by independent measures. In short, speech habits acquired in a segregated system do not vanish simply by moving the child to a desegregated school. The root condition shown by this record must be treated directly by special training at the hands of teachers prepared for that task. This is what the District Judge in the case drew from the record before him as to the consequences of Detroit’s de jure system, and we cannot conclude that the remedies decreed exceeded the scope of the violations found.
Nor do we find any other reason to believe that the broad and flexible equity powers of the court were abused in this case. The established role of local school authorities was maintained inviolate, and the remedy is indeed remedial, The order does not punish anyone, nor does it impair or jeopardize the educational system in Detroit. The District Court, in short, was true to the principle laid down in Brown II:
“In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles. Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs. These cases call for the exercise of these traditional attributes of equity power.” 349 U. S., at 300 (footnotes omitted).
Ill
Petitioners also contend that the District Court’s order, even if otherwise proper, violates the Eleventh Amendment. In their view, the requirement that the state defendants pay one-half the additional costs attributable to the four educational components is, “in practical effect, indistinguishable from an award of money damages against the state based upon the asserted prior misconduct of state officials.” Brief for Petitioners 34. Arguing from this premise, petitioners conclude that the “award” in this case is barred under this Court’s holding in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974).
Edelman involved a suit for money damages against the State, as well as for prospective injunctive relief. The suit was brought by an individual who claimed that Illinois officials had improperly withheld disability benefit payments from him and from the members of his class. Applying traditional Eleventh Amendment principles, we held that the suit was barred to the extent the suit sought “the award of an accrued monetary liability...” which represented “retroactive payments.” Id., at 663-664. (Emphasis supplied.) Conversely, the Court held that the suit was proper to the extent it sought “payment of state funds... as a necessary consequence of compliance in the future with a substantive federal-question determination....” Id., at 668. (Emphasis supplied.)
The decree to share the future costs of educational components in this case fits squarely within the prospective-compliance exception reaffirmed by Edelman. That exception, which had its genesis in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), permits federal courts to enjoin state officials to conform their conduct to requirements of federal law, notwithstanding a direct and substantial impact on the state treasury. 415 U. S., at 667. The order challenged here does no more than that. The decree requires state officials, held responsible for unconstitutional conduct, in findings which are not challenged, to eliminate a de jure segregated school system. More precisely, the burden of state officials is that set forth in Swann — -to take the necessary steps “to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation.” 402 U. S., at 15. The educational components, which the District Court ordered into effect prospectively, are plainly designed to wipe out continuing conditions of inequality produced by the inherently unequal dual school system long maintained by Detroit.
These programs were not, and as a practical matter could not be, intended to wipe the slate clean by one bold stroke, as could a retroactive award of money in Edelman. Rather, by the nature of the antecedent violation, which on this record caused significant deficiencies in communications skills— reading and speaking — the victims of Detroit’s de jure segregated system will continue to experience the effects of segregation until such future time as the remedial programs can help dissipate the continuing effects of past misconduct. Reading and speech deficiencies cannot be eliminated by judicial fiat; they will require time, patience, and the skills of specially trained teachers. That the programs are also “compensatory” in nature does not change the fact that they are part of a plan that operates prospectively to bring about the delayed benefits of a unitary school system. We therefore hold that such prospective relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Finally, there is no merit to petitioners’ claims that the relief ordered here violates the Tenth Amendment and general principles of federalism. The Tenth Amendment’s reservation of nondelegated powers to the States is not implicated by a federal-court judgment enforcing the express prohibitions of unlawful state conduct enacted by the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). Nor are principles of federalism abrogated by the decree. The District Court has neither attempted to restructure local governmental entities nor to mandate a particular method or structure of state or local financing. Cf. San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 (1973). The District Court has, rather, properly enforced the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment consistent with our prior holdings, and in a manner that does not jeopardize the integrity of the structure or functions of state and local government.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
The violations of the Detroit Board of Education, which included the improper use of optional attendance zones, racially based transportation of schoolchildren, improper creation and alteration of attendance zones, grade structures, and feeder school patterns, are described in the District Court’s initial “Ruling on Issue of Segregation.” 338 F. Supp. 582, 587-588 (ED Mich. 1971). The District Court further found that “[t]he State and its agencies... have acted directly to control and maintain the pattern of segregation in the Detroit schools.” Id., at 589. Indeed, when the Detroit School Board attempted to voluntarily initiate an intradistriet remedy to ameliorate the effect of the past segregation practices, the Michigan Legislature enacted a law forbidding the carrying out of this remedy. Those conclusions as to liability were affirmed on appeal, 484 F. 2d 215, 221-241 (CA6 1973), and were not challenged in this Court. 418 U. S. 717 (1974) (Milliken I).
Separate opinions were filed in Milliken I. Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring, stated that the metropolitanwide remedy contemplated by the District Court was “in error for the simple reason that the remedy... was not commensurate with the constitutional violation found.” 418 U. S., at 764. Dissenting opinions were filed by Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall. The dissenting opinions took the position, in brief, that the remedy was appropriate, given the State’s undisputed constitutional violations, the control of local education by state authorities, and the manageability of any necessary administrative modifications to effectuate a metropolitanwide remedy.
According to the then most recent statistical data, as of September 27, 1974, 257,396 students were enrolled in the Detroit public schools, a figure which reflected a decrease of 28,116 students in the system since the 1960-1961 school year. 402 F. Supp. 1096, 1106-1107 (1975). Of this total student population, 71.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The Court resolves in this opinion a question of standing to appeal. In 2011, after the 2010 census, Virginia redrew legislative districts for the State's Senate and House of Delegates. Voters in 12 of the impacted House districts sued two Virginia state agencies and four election officials (collectively, State Defendants) charging that the redrawn districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia House of Delegates and its Speaker (collectively, the House) intervened as defendants and carried the laboring oar in urging the constitutionality of the challenged districts at a bench trial, see Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 141 F. Supp. 3d 505 (E.D. Va. 2015), on appeal to this Court, see Bethune-Hillv.Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 788, 197 L.Ed.2d 85 (2017), and at a second bench trial. In June 2018, after the second bench trial, a three-judge District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia, dividing 2 to 1, held that in 11 of the districts "the [S]tate ha[d] [unconstitutionally] sorted voters... based on the color of their skin." Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 326 F. Supp. 3d 128, 180 (2018). The court therefore enjoined Virginia "from conducting any elections... for the office of Delegate... in the Challenged Districts until a new redistricting plan is adopted." Id., at 227. Recognizing the General Assembly's "primary jurisdiction" over redistricting, the District Court gave the General Assembly approximately four months to "adop[t] a new redistricting plan that eliminate[d] the constitutional infirmity." Ibid.
A few weeks after the three-judge District Court's ruling, Virginia's Attorney General announced, both publicly and in a filing with the District Court, that the State would not pursue an appeal to this Court. Continuing the litigation, the Attorney General concluded, "would not be in the best interest of the Commonwealth or its citizens." Defendants' Opposition to Intervenor-Defendants' Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Appeal Under 28 U.S. C. § 1253 in No. 3:14-cv-852 (ED Va.), Doc. 246, p. 1. The House, however, filed an appeal to this Court, App. to Juris. Statement 357-358, which the State Defendants moved to dismiss for want of standing. We postponed probable jurisdiction, 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 481, 202 L.Ed.2d 374 (2018), and now grant the State Defendants' motion. The House, we hold, lacks authority to displace Virginia's Attorney General as representative of the State. We further hold that the House, as a single chamber of a bicameral legislature, has no standing to appeal the invalidation of the redistricting plan separately from the State of which it is a part.
I
To reach the merits of a case, an Article III court must have jurisdiction. "One essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so." Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 704, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013). The three elements of standing, this Court has reiterated, are (1) a concrete and particularized injury, that (2) is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Ibid. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ). Although rulings on standing often turn on a plaintiff's stake in initially filing suit, "Article III demands that an 'actual controversy' persist throughout all stages of litigation." Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 705, 133 S.Ct. 2652 (quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90-91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) ). The standing requirement therefore "must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance." Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997). As a jurisdictional requirement, standing to litigate cannot be waived or forfeited. And when standing is questioned by a court or an opposing party, the litigant invoking the court's jurisdiction must do more than simply allege a nonobvious harm. See Wittmanv.Personhuballah, 578 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct. 1732, 1736-1737, 195 L.Ed.2d 37 (2016). To cross the standing threshold, the litigant must explain how the elements essential to standing are met.
Before the District Court, the House participated in both bench trials as an intervenor in support of the State Defendants. And in the prior appeal to this Court, the House participated as an appellee. Because neither role entailed invoking a court's jurisdiction, it was not previously incumbent on the House to demonstrate its standing. That situation changed when the House alone endeavored to appeal from the District Court's order holding 11 districts unconstitutional, thereby seeking to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. As the Court has repeatedly recognized, to appeal a decision that the primary party does not challenge, an intervenor must independently demonstrate standing. Wittman, 578 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1732, 195 L.Ed.2d 37 ; Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986). We find unconvincing the House's arguments that it has standing, either to represent the State's interests or in its own right.
II
A
The House urges first that it has standing to represent the State's interests. Of course, "a State has standing to defend the constitutionality of its statute." Id., at 62, 106 S.Ct. 1697. No doubt, then, the State itself could press this appeal. And, as this Court has held, "a State must be able to designate agents to represent it in federal court." Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 710, 133 S.Ct. 2652. So if the State had designated the House to represent its interests, and if the House had in fact carried out that mission, we would agree that the House could stand in for the State. Neither precondition, however, is met here.
To begin with, the House has not identified any legal basis for its claimed authority to litigate on the State's behalf. Authority and responsibility for representing the State's interests in civil litigation, Virginia law prescribes, rest exclusively with the State's Attorney General:
"All legal service in civil matters for the Commonwealth, the Governor, and every state department, institution, division, commission, board, bureau, agency, entity, official, court, or judge... shall be rendered and performed by the Attorney General, except as provided in this chapter and except for [certain judicial misconduct proceedings]." Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-507(A) (2017).
Virginia has thus chosen to speak as a sovereign entity with a single voice. In this regard, the State has adopted an approach resembling that of the Federal Government, which "centraliz[es]" the decision whether to seek certiorari by "reserving litigation in this Court to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General." United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693, 706, 108 S.Ct. 1502, 99 L.Ed.2d 785 (1988) (dismissing a writ of certiorari sought by a special prosecutor without authorization from the Solicitor General); see 28 U.S. C. § 518(a) ; 28 CFR § 0.20(a) (2018). Virginia, had it so chosen, could have authorized the House to litigate on the State's behalf, either generally or in a defined class of cases. Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 710, 133 S.Ct. 2652. Some States have done just that. Indiana, for example, empowers "[t]he House of Representatives and Senate of the Indiana General Assembly... to employ attorneys other than the Attorney General to defend any law enacted creating legislative or congressional districts for the State of Indiana." Ind. Code § 2-3-8-1 (2011). But the choice belongs to Virginia, and the House's argument that it has authority to represent the State's interests is foreclosed by the State's contrary decision.
The House observes that Virginia state courts have permitted it to intervene to defend legislation. But the sole case the House cites on this point- Vesilind v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 295 Va. 427, 813 S. E. 2d 739 (2018) -does not bear the weight the House would place upon it. In Vesilind, the House intervened in support of defendants in the trial court, and continued to defend the trial court's favorable judgment on appeal. Id., at 433-434, 813 S. E. 2d at 742. The House's participation in Vesilind thus occurred in the same defensive posture as did the House's participation in earlier phases of this case, when the House did not need to establish standing. Moreover, the House has pointed to nothing in the Virginia courts' decisions in the Vesilind litigation suggesting that the courts understood the House to be representing the interests of the State itself.
Nonetheless, the House insists, this Court's decision in Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 108 S.Ct. 388, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987), dictates that we treat Vesilind as establishing conclusively the House's authority to litigate on the State's behalf. True, in Karcher, the Court noted a record, similar to that in Vesilind, of litigation by state legislative bodies in state court, and concluded without extensive explanation that "the New Jersey Legislature had authority under state law to represent the State's interests...." 484 U.S. at 82, 108 S.Ct. 388. Of crucial significance, however, the Court in Karcher noted no New Jersey statutory provision akin to Virginia's law vesting the Attorney General with exclusive authority to speak for the Commonwealth in civil litigation. Karcher therefore scarcely impels the conclusion that, despite Virginia's clear enactment making the Attorney General the State's sole representative in civil litigation, Virginia has designated the House as its agent to assert the State's interests in this Court.
Moreover, even if, contrary to the governing statute, we indulged the assumption that Virginia had authorized the House to represent the State's interests, as a factual matter the House never indicated in the District Court that it was appearing in that capacity. Throughout this litigation, the House has purported to represent its own interests. Thus, in its motion to intervene, the House observed that it was "the legislative body that actually drew the redistricting plan at issue,"
and argued that the existing parties-including the State Defendants-could not adequately protect its interests. App. 2965-2967. Nowhere in its motion did the House suggest it was intervening as agent of the State. That silence undermines the House's attempt to proceed before us on behalf of the State. As another portion of the Court's Karcher decision clarifies, a party may not wear on appeal a hat different from the one it wore at trial. 484 U.S. at 78, 108 S.Ct. 388 (parties may not appeal in particular capacities "unless the record shows that they participated in those capacities below").
B
The House also maintains that, even if it lacks standing to pursue this appeal as the State's agent, it has standing in its own right. To support standing, an injury must be "legally and judicially cognizable." Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997). This Court has never held that a judicial decision invalidating a state law as unconstitutional inflicts a discrete, cognizable injury on each organ of government that participated in the law's passage. The Court's precedent thus lends no support for the notion that one House of a bicameral legislature, resting solely on its role in the legislative process, may appeal on its own behalf a judgment invalidating a state enactment.
Seeking to demonstrate its asserted injury, the House emphasizes its role in enacting redistricting legislation in particular. The House observes that, under Virginia law, "members of the Senate and of the House of Delegates of the General Assembly shall be elected from electoral districts established by the General Assembly." Va. Const., Art. 2, § 6. The House has standing, it contends, because it is "the legislative body that actually drew the redistricting plan," and because, the House asserts, any remedial order will transfer redistricting authority from it to the District Court. Brief for Appellants 23, 26-28 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the Virginia constitutional provision the House cites allocates redistricting authority to the "General Assembly," of which the House constitutes only a part.
That fact distinguishes this case from Arizona State Legislaturev.Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015), in which the Court recognized the standing of the Arizona House and Senate-acting together -to challenge a referendum that gave redistricting authority exclusively to an independent commission, thereby allegedly usurping the legislature's authority under the Federal Constitution over congressional redistricting. In contrast to this case, in Arizona State Legislature there was no mismatch between the body seeking to litigate and the body to which the relevant constitutional provision allegedly assigned exclusive redistricting authority. See 576 U.S., at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2663-2664. Just as individual members lack standing to assert the institutional interests of a legislature, see Raines, 521 U.S. at 829, 117 S.Ct. 2312, a single House of a bicameral legislature lacks capacity to assert interests belonging to the legislature as a whole.
Moreover, in Arizona State Legislature, the challenged referendum was assailed on the ground that it permanently deprived the legislative plaintiffs of their role in the redistricting process. Here, by contrast, the challenged order does not alter the General Assembly's dominant initiating and ongoing role in redistricting. Compare Arizona State Legislature, 576 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2665 (allegation of nullification of "any vote by the Legislature, now or in the future, purporting to adopt a redistricting plan" (internal quotation marks omitted)), with 326 F. Supp. 3d at 227 (recognizing the General Assembly's "primary jurisdiction" over redistricting and giving the General Assembly first crack at enacting a revised redistricting plan).
Nor does Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939), aid the House. There, the Court recognized the standing of 20 state legislators who voted against a resolution ratifying the proposed Child Labor Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Id., at 446, 59 S.Ct. 972. The resolution passed, the opposing legislators stated, only because the Lieutenant Governor cast a tie-breaking vote-a procedure the legislators argued was impermissible under Article V of the Federal Constitution. See Arizona State Legislature, 576 U.S., at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2664-2666 (citing Coleman, 307 U.S. at 446, 59 S.Ct. 972 ). As the Court has since observed, Coleman stands "at most" "for the proposition that legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative Act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified." Raines, 521 U.S. at 823, 117 S.Ct. 2312. Nothing of that sort happened here. Unlike Coleman, this case does not concern the results of a legislative chamber's poll or the validity of any counted or uncounted vote. At issue here, instead, is the constitutionality of a concededly enacted redistricting plan. As we have already explained, a single House of a bicameral legislature generally lacks standing to appeal in cases of this order.
Aside from its role in enacting the invalidated redistricting plan, the House, echoed by the dissent, see post, at 1956 - 1958, asserts that the House has standing because altered district boundaries may affect its composition. For support, the House and the dissent rely on Sixty-seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens, 406 U.S. 187, 92 S.Ct. 1477, 32 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972) (per curiam ), in which this Court allowed the Minnesota Senate to challenge a District Court malapportionment litigation order that reduced the Senate's size from 67 to 35 members. The Court said in Beens : "[C]ertainly the [Minnesota Senate] is directly affected by the District Court's orders," rendering the Senate "an appropriate legal entity for purpose of intervention and, as a consequence, of an appeal in a case of this kind." Id., at 194, 92 S.Ct. 1477.
Beens predated this Court's decisions in Diamondv.Charles and other cases holding that intervenor status alone is insufficient to establish standing to appeal. Whether Beens established law on the question of standing, as distinct from intervention, is thus less than pellucid. But even assuming, arguendo, that Beens was, and remains, binding precedent on standing, the order there at issue injured the Minnesota Senate in a way the order challenged here does not injure the Virginia House. Cutting the size of a legislative chamber in half would necessarily alter its day-to-day operations. Among other things, leadership selection, committee structures, and voting rules would likely require alteration. By contrast, although redrawing district lines indeed may affect the membership of the chamber, the House as an institution has no cognizable interest in the identity of its members. Although the House urges that changes to district lines will "profoundly disrupt its day-to-day operations," Reply Brief 3, it is scarcely obvious how or why that is so. As the party invoking this Court's jurisdiction, the House bears the burden of doing more than "simply alleg[ing] a nonobvious harm." Wittman, 578 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1737.
Analogizing to "group[s] other than a legislative body," the dissent insists that the House has suffered an "obvious" injury. Post, at 1957. But groups like the string quartet and basketball team posited by the dissent select their own members. Similarly, the political parties involved in the cases the dissent cites, see post, at 1957, n. 1 (citing New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202, 128 S.Ct. 791, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008), and Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 229-230, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989) ), select their own leadership and candidates. In stark contrast, the House does not select its own members. Instead, it is a representative body composed of members chosen by the people. Changes to its membership brought about by the voting public thus inflict no cognizable injury on the House.
The House additionally asserts injury from the creation of what it calls "divided constituencies," suggesting that a court order causing legislators to seek reelection in districts different from those they currently represent affects the House's representational nature. But legislative districts change frequently-indeed, after every decennial census-and the Virginia Constitution resolves any confusion over which district is being represented. It provides that delegates continue to represent the districts that elected them, even if their reelection campaigns will be waged in different districts. Va. Const., Art. 2, § 6 ("A member in office at the time that a decennial redistricting law is enacted shall complete his term of office and shall continue to represent the district from which he was elected for the duration of such term of office...."). We see little reason why the same would not hold true after districting changes caused by judicial decisions, and we thus foresee no representational confusion. And if harms centered on costlier or more difficult election campaigns are cognizable-a question that, as in Wittman, 578 U.S., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1736-1737, we need not decide today-those harms would be suffered by individual legislators or candidates, not by the House as a body.
In short, Virginia would rather stop than fight on. One House of its bicameral legislature cannot alone continue the litigation against the will of its partners in the legislative process.
* * *
For the reasons stated, we dismiss the House's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice BREYER, and Justice KAVANAUGH join, dissenting.
I would hold that the Virginia House of Delegates has standing to take this appeal. The Court disagrees for two reasons: first, because Virginia law does not authorize the House to defend the invalidated redistricting plan on behalf of the Commonwealth, see ante, at 1951 - 1953, and, second, because the imposition of the District Court's districting plan would not cause the House the kind of harm required by Article III of the Constitution, see ante, at 1952 - 1956. I am convinced that the second holding is wrong and therefore will not address the first.
I
Our decision in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992), identified the three elements that constitute the "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" demanded by Article III. A party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court must have "(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc.v.Robins, 578 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). The Virginia House of Delegates satisfies all those requirements in this case.
I begin with "injury in fact." It is clear, in my judgment, that the new districting plan ordered by the lower court will harm the House in a very fundamental way. A legislative districting plan powerfully affects a legislative body's output of work. Each legislator represents a particular district, and each district contains a particular set of constituents with particular interests and views. Cf., e.g., App. 165 (noting the "varied factors that can create or contribute to communities of interest" in districts (House Committee on Privileges and Elections resolution)). The interests and views of these constituents generally have an important effect on everything that a legislator does-meeting with the representatives of organizations and groups seeking the legislator's help in one way or another, drafting and sponsoring bills, pushing for and participating in hearings, writing or approving reports, and of course, voting. When the boundaries of a district are changed, the constituents and communities of interest present within the district are altered, and this is likely to change the way in which the district's representative does his or her work. And while every individual voter will end up being represented by a legislator no matter which districting plan is ultimately used, it matters a lot how voters with shared interests and views are concentrated or split up. The cumulative effects of all the decisions that go into a districting plan have an important impact on the overall work of the body.
All of this should really go without saying. After all, it is precisely because of the connections between the way districts are drawn, the composition of a legislature, and the things that a legislature does that so much effort is invested in drawing, contesting, and defending districting plans. Districting matters because it has institutional and legislative consequences. To suggest otherwise, to argue that substituting one plan for another has no effect on the work or output of the legislative body whose districts are changed, would really be quite astounding. If the selection of a districting plan did not alter what the legislative body does, why would there be such pitched battles over redistricting efforts?
What the Court says on this point is striking. According to the Court, "the House as an institution has no cognizable interest in the identity of its members," and thus suffers no injury from the imposition of a districting plan that "may affect the membership of the chamber" or the "content of legislation its future members may elect to enact." Ante, at 1955, and n. 6 (emphasis deleted). Really? It seems obvious that any group consisting of members who must work together to achieve the group's aims has a keen interest in the identity of its members, and it follows that the group also has a strong interest in how its members are selected. And what is more important to such a group than the content of its work?
Apply what the Court says to a group other than a legislative body and it is immediately obvious that the Court is wrong. Does a string quartet have an interest in the identity of its cellist? Does a basketball team have an interest in the identity of its point guard? Does a board of directors have an interest in the identity of its chairperson? Does it matter to these groups how their members are selected? Do these groups care if the selection method affects their performance? Of course.
The Virginia House of Delegates exists for a purpose: to represent and serve the interests of the people of the Commonwealth. The way in which its members are selected has a powerful effect on how it goes about this purpose -a proposition reflected by the Commonwealth's choice to mandate certain districting criteria in its constitution. See Va. Const., Art. II, § 6. As far as the House's standing, we must assume that the districting plan enacted by the legislature embodies the House's judgment regarding the method of selecting members that best enables it to serve the people of the Commonwealth. (Whether this is a permissible judgment is a merits question, not a question of standing. Cf. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 502, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) ). It therefore follows that discarding that plan and substituting another inflicts injury in fact.
Our most pertinent precedent supports the standing of the House on this ground. In Sixty-seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens, 406 U.S. 187, 92 S.Ct. 1477, 32 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972) (per curiam ), we held that the Minnesota Senate had standing to appeal a district court order reapportioning the Senate's seats. In reaching that conclusion, we noted that "certainly" such an order "directly affected" the Senate. Id., at 194, 92 S.Ct. 1477. The same is true here. There can be no doubt that the new districting plan "directly affect[s]" the House whose districts it redefines and whose legislatively drawn districts have been replaced with a court-ordered map. That the Beens Court drew its "directly affect[s]" language from a case involving a standard reapportionment challenge, see Silver v. Jordan, 241 F. Supp. 576, 579 (S.D. Cal. 1964) (per curiam ), aff'd, 381 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1572, 14 L.Ed.2d 689 (1965) (per curiam ), only serves to confirm that the House's injury is sufficient to demonstrate standing under Beens.
In an effort to distinguish Beens, it is argued that the District Court decision at issue there, which slashed the number of senators in half, "ha[d] a distinct and more direct effect on the body itself than a mere shift in district lines." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17; see Brief for State Appellees 38. But even if the effect of the court order was greater in Beens than it is here, it is the existence-not the extent-of an injury that matters for purposes of Article III standing.
The Court suggests that the effects of the court-ordered districting plan in Beens were different from the effects of the plan now before us because the former concerned the legislature's internal operations. See ante, at 1954 - 1955. But even if the imposition of the court-ordered plan in this case would not affect the internal operations of the House (and that is by no means clear), it is very strange to think that changes to such things as "committee structures" and "voting rules," see ante, at 1954 - 1955, are more important than changes in legislative output.
In short, the invalidation of the House's redistricting plan and its replacement with a court-ordered map would cause the House to suffer a "concrete" injury. And as Article III demands, see Spokeo, 578 U.S., at ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1547-1548, that injury would also be "particularized" (because it would target the House); "imminent" (because it would certainly occur if this appeal is dismissed); "traceable" to the imposition of the new, court-ordered plan; and "redress[able]" by the relief the House seeks here. Ibid.
II
Although the opinion of the Court begins by citing the three fundamental Article III standing requirements just discussed, see ante, at 1950 - 1951, it is revealing that the Court never asserts that the effect of the court-ordered plan at issue would not cause the House "concrete" harm. Instead, the Court claims only that any harm would not be " 'judicially cognizable,' " ante, at 1952 - 1953; see also ante, at 1955. The Court lifts this term from Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997), where the Court held that individual Members of Congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. But the decision in Raines rested heavily on federal separation-of-powers concerns, which are notably absent here. See id., at 819-820, 826-829, 117 S.Ct. 2312 ; id., at 832-835, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment). And although the Court does not say so expressly, what I take from its use of the term "judicially cognizable" injury rather than "concrete" injury is that the decision here is not really based on the Lujan factors, which set out the "irreducible" minimum demanded by Article III. 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Instead, the argument seems to be that the House's injury is insufficient for some other, only-hinted-at reason.
Both the United States, appearing as an amicus, and the Commonwealth of Virginia are more explicit. The Solicitor General's brief argues as follows:
"In the federal system, the Constitution gives Congress only 'legislative Powers,' U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 1, and the 'power to seek judicial relief... cannot possibly be regarded as merely in aid of the legislative function.' Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 138 [96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659] (1976) (per curiam). As a result, 'once Congress makes its choice in enacting legislation, its participation ends.' Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 733 [106 S.Ct. 3181, 92 L.Ed.2d 583] (1986).... The same is true here. A branch of a state government that makes rather than enforces the law does not itself have a cognizable Article III interest in the defense of its laws." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14-15 (emphasis added).
The Virginia Solicitor General makes a similar argument. See Brief for State Appellees 42-44.
These arguments are seriously flawed because the States are under no obligation to follow the Federal Constitution's model when it comes to the separation of powers. See Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 689, n. 4, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980) ; cf. Raines, supra, at 824, n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 2312 ; Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. ----, ----, n. 12, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2665, n. 12, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015). If one House of Congress or one or more Members of Congress attempt to invoke the power of a federal court, the court must consider whether this attempt is consistent with the structure created by the Federal Constitution. An interest asserted by a Member of Congress or by one or both Houses of Congress that is inconsistent with that structure may not be judicially cognizable. But I do not see how we can say anything similar about the standing of state legislators or state legislative bodies. Cf. Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 81-82, 108 S.Ct. 388, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987). The separation of powers (or the lack thereof) under a state constitution is purely a matter of state law, and neither the Court nor the Virginia Solicitor General has provided any support for the proposition that Virginia law bars the House from defending, in its own right, the constitutionality of a districting plan.
* * *
For these reasons, I would hold that the House of Delegates has standing, and I therefore respectfully dissent.
After the General Assembly failed to enact a new redistricting plan within the four months allowed by the District Court, that court entered a remedial order delineating districts for the 2019 election. The House has noticed an appeal to this Court from that order as well,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 THOMASdelivered the opinion of the Court.
In an effort to improve the collection of sales and use taxes for items purchased online, the State of Colorado passed a law requiring retailers that do not collect Colorado sales or use tax to notify Colorado customers of their use-tax liability and to report tax-related information to customers and the Colorado Department of Revenue. We must decide whether the Tax Injunction Act, which provides that federal district courts "shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law," 28 U.S.C. § 1341, bars a suit to enjoin the enforcement of this law. We hold that it does not.
I
A
Like many States, Colorado has a complementary sales-and-use tax regime. Colorado imposes both a 2.9 percent tax on the sale of tangible personal property within the State, Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 39-26-104(1)(a), 39-26-106(1)(a)(II) (2014), and an equivalent use tax for any property stored, used, or consumed in Colorado on which a sales tax was not paid to a retailer, §§ 39-26-202(1)(b), 39-26-204(1). Retailers with a physical presence in Colorado must collect the sales or use tax from consumers at the point of sale and remit the proceeds to the Colorado Department of Revenue (Department). §§ 39-26-105(1), 39-26-106(2)(a). But under our negative Commerce Clause precedents, Colorado may not require retailers who lack a physical presence in the State to collect these taxes on behalf of the Department. See Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,504 U.S. 298, 315-318, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992). Thus, Colorado requires its consumers who purchase tangible personal property from a retailer that does not collect these taxes (a "noncollecting retailer") to fill out a return and remit the taxes to the Department directly. § 39-26-204(1).
Voluntary compliance with the latter requirement is relatively low, leading to a significant loss of tax revenue, especially as Internet retailers have increasingly displaced their brick-and-mortar kin. In the decade before this suit was filed in 2010, e-commerce more than tripled. App. 28. With approximately 25 percent of taxes unpaid on Internet sales, Colorado estimated in 2010 that its revenue loss attributable to noncompliance would grow by more than $20 million each year. App. 30-31.
In hopes of stopping this trend, Colorado enacted legislation in 2010 imposing notice and reporting obligations on noncollecting retailers whose gross sales in Colorado exceed $100,000. Three provisions of that Act, along with their implementing regulations, are at issue here.
First, noncollecting retailers must "notify Colorado purchasers that sales or use tax is due on certain purchases ... and that the state of Colorado requires the purchaser to file a sales or use tax return."§ 39-21-112(3.5)(c)(I); see also 1 Colo.Code Regs. § 201-1:39-21-112.3.5(2) (2014), online at http://www.sos.co.us/CRR (as visited Feb. 27, 2015, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file). The retailer must provide this notice during each transaction with a Colorado purchaser, ibid.,and is subject to a penalty of $5 for each transaction in which it fails to do so, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-21-112(3.5)(c)(II).
Second, by January 31 of each year, each noncollecting retailer must send a report to all Colorado purchasers who bought more than $500 worth of goods from the retailer in the previous year. § 39-21-112(3.5)(d)(I); 1 Colo.Code Regs. §§ 201-1:39-21-112.3.5(3)(a), (c). That report must list the dates, categories, and amounts of those purchases. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-21-112(3.5)(d)(I); see also 1 Colo.Code Regs. §§ 201-1:39-21-112.3.5(3)(a), (c). It must also contain a notice stating that Colorado "requires a sales or use tax return to be filed and sales or use tax paid on certain Colorado purchases made by the purchaser from the retailer." Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-21-112(3.5)(d)(I)(A). The retailer is subject to a penalty of $10 for each report it fails to send. § 39-21-112(3.5)(d)(III)(A); see also 1 Colo.Code Regs. § 201-1:39-21-112.3.5(3)(d).
Finally, by March 1 of each year, noncollecting retailers must send a statement to the Department listing the names of their Colorado customers, their known addresses, and the total amount each Colorado customer paid for Colorado purchases in the prior calendar year. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-21-112(3.5)(d)(II)(A); 1 Colo.Code Regs. § 201-1:39-21-112.3.5(4). A noncollecting retailer that fails to make this report is subject to a penalty of $10 for each customer that it should have listed in the report. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-21-112(3.5)(d)(III)(B); see also 1 Colo.Code Regs. § 201-1:39-21-112.3.5(4)(f).
B
Petitioner Direct Marketing Association is a trade association of businesses and organizations that market products directly to consumers, including those in Colorado, via catalogs, print advertisements, broadcast media, and the Internet. Many of its members have no physical presence in Colorado and choose not to collect Colorado sales and use taxes on Colorado purchases. As a result, they are subject to Colorado's notice and reporting requirements.
In 2010, Direct Marketing Association brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Executive Director of the Department, alleging that the notice and reporting requirements violate provisions of the United States and Colorado Constitutions. As relevant here, Direct Marketing Association alleged that the provisions (1) discriminate against interstate commerce and (2) impose undue burdens on interstate commerce, all in violation of this Court's negative Commerce Clause precedents. At the request of both parties, the District Court stayed all challenges except these two, in order to facilitate expedited consideration. It then granted partial summary judgment to Direct Marketing Association and permanently enjoined enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-1 to B-25.
Exercising appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. Without reaching the merits, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the suit because of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Acknowledging that the suit "differs from the prototypical TIA case," the Court of Appeals nevertheless found it barred by the TIA because, if successful, it "would limit, restrict, or hold back the state's chosen method of enforcing its tax laws and generating revenue." 735 F.3d 904, 913 (2013).
We granted certiorari, 573 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2901, 189 L.Ed.2d 855 (2014), and now reverse.
II
Enacted in 1937, the TIA provides that federal district courts "shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State." § 1341. The question before us is whether the relief sought here would "enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law." Because we conclude that it would not, we need not consider whether "a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of" Colorado.
A
The District Court enjoined state officials from enforcing the notice and reporting requirements. Because an injunction is clearly a form of equitable relief barred by the TIA, the question becomes whether the enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements is an act of "assessment, levy or collection." We need not comprehensively define these terms to conclude that they do not encompass enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements at issue.
In defining the terms of the TIA, we have looked to federal tax law as a guide. See, e.g.,Hibbs v. Winn,542 U.S. 88, 100, 124 S.Ct. 2276, 159 L.Ed.2d 172 (2004). Although the TIA does not concern federal taxes, it was modeled on the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which does. See Jefferson County v. Acker,527 U.S. 423, 434-435, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999). The AIA provides in relevant part that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person." 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). We assume that words used in both Acts are generally used in the same way, and we discern the meaning of the terms in the AIA by reference to the broader Tax Code. Hibbs, supra,at 102-105, 124 S.Ct. 2276; id.,at 115, 124 S.Ct. 2276(KENNEDY, J., dissenting). Read in light of the Federal Tax Code at the time the TIA was enacted (as well as today), these three terms refer to discrete phases of the taxation process that do not include informational notices or private reports of information relevant to tax liability.
To begin, the Federal Tax Code has long treated information gathering as a phase of tax administration procedure that occurs before assessment, levy, or collection. See §§ 6001-6117; §§ 1500-1524 (1934 ed.); see also § 1533 ("All provisions of law for the ascertainment of liability to any tax, or the assessment or collection thereof, shall be held to apply ..."). This step includes private reporting of information used to determine tax liability, see, e.g., § 1511(a), including reports by third parties who do not owe the tax, see, e.g.,§ 6041 et seq. (2012 ed.); see also §§ 1512(a)-(b) (1934 ed.) (authorizing a collector or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, when a taxpayer fails to file a return, to make a return "from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise").
"Assessment" is the next step in the process, and it refers to the official recording of a taxpayer's liability, which occurs after information relevant to the calculation of that liability is reported to the taxing authority. See § 1530. In Hibbs,the Court noted that "assessment," as used in the Internal Revenue Code, "involves a 'recording' of the amount the taxpayer owes the Government." 542 U.S., at 100, 124 S.Ct. 2276(quoting § 6203 (2000 ed.)). It might also be understood more broadly to encompass the process by which that amount is calculated. See United States v. Galletti,541 U.S. 114, 122, 124 S.Ct. 1548, 158 L.Ed.2d 279 (2004); see also Hibbs, supra,at 100, n. 3, 124 S.Ct. 2276. But even understood more broadly, "assessment" has long been treated in the Tax Code as an official action taken based on information already reported to the taxing authority. For example, not many years before it passed the TIA, Congress passed a law providing that the filing of a return would start the running of the clock for a timely assessment. See, e.g., Revenue Act of 1924, Pub.L. 68-176, § 277(a), 43 Stat. 299. Thus, assessment was understood as a step in the taxation process that occurred after, and was distinct from, the step of reporting information pertaining to tax liability.
"Levy," at least as it is defined in the Federal Tax Code, refers to a specific mode of collection under which the Secretary of the Treasury distrains and seizes a recalcitrant taxpayer's property. See 26 U.S.C. § 6331 (2012 ed.); § 1582 (1934 ed.). Because the word "levy" does not appear in the AIA, however, one could argue that its meaning in the TIA is not tied to the meaning of the term as used in federal tax law. If that were the case, one might look to contemporaneous dictionaries, which defined "levy" as the legislative function of laying or imposing a tax and the executive functions of assessing, recording, and collecting the amount a taxpayer owes. See Black's Law Dictionary 1093 (3d ed. 1933) (Black's); see also Webster's New International Dictionary 1423 (2d ed. 1939) ("To raise or collect, as by assessment, execution, or other legal process, etc.; to exact or impose by authority ..."); §§ 1540, 1544 (using "levying" and "levied" in the more general sense of an executive imposition of a tax liability). But under any of these definitions, "levy" would be limited to an official governmental action imposing, determining the amount of, or securing payment on a tax.
Finally, "collection" is the act of obtaining payment of taxes due. See Black's 349 (defining "collect" as "to obtain payment or liquidation" of a debt or claim). It might be understood narrowly as a step in the taxation process that occurs after a formal assessment. Consistent with this understanding, we have previously described it as part of the "enforcement process ... that 'assessment' sets in motion." Hibbs, supra,at 102, n. 4, 124 S.Ct. 2276. The Federal Tax Code at the time the TIA was enacted provided for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to certify a list of assessments "to the proper collectors ... who [would] proceed to collect and account for the taxes and penalties so certified." § 1531. That collection process began with the collector "giv[ing] notice to each person liable to pay any taxes stated [in the list] ... stating the amount of such taxes and demanding payment thereof."
§ 1545(a). When a person failed to pay, the Government had various means to collect the amount due, including liens, § 1560, distraint, § 1580, forfeiture, and other legal proceedings, § 1640. Today's Tax Code continues to authorize collection of taxes by these methods. § 6302 (2012 ed.). "Collection" might also be understood more broadly to encompass the receipt of a tax payment before a formal assessment occurs. For example, at the time the TIA was enacted, the Tax Code provided for the assessment of money already received by a person "required to collector withhold any internal-revenue tax from any other person," suggesting that at least some act of collection might occur before a formal assessment. § 1551 (1934 ed.) (emphasis added). Either way, "collection" is a separate step in the taxation process from assessment and the reporting on which assessment is based.
So defined, these terms do not encompass Colorado's enforcement of its notice and reporting requirements. The Executive Director does not seriously contend that the provisions at issue here involve a "levy"; instead she portrays them as part of the process of assessment and collection. But the notice and reporting requirements precede the steps of "assessment" and "collection." The notice given to Colorado consumers, for example, informs them of their use-tax liability and prompts them to keep a record of taxable purchases that they will report to the State at some future point. The annual summary that the retailers send to consumers provides them with a reminder of that use-tax liability and the information they need to fill out their annual returns. And the report the retailers file with the Department facilitates audits to determine tax deficiencies. After each of these notices or reports is filed, the State still needs to take further action to assess the taxpayer's use-tax liability and to collect payment from him. See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-26-204(3)(describing the procedure for "assessing and collecting [use] taxes" on the basis of returns filed by consumers and collecting retailers). Colorado law provides for specific assessment and collection procedures that are triggered after the State has received the returns and made the deficiency determinations that the notice and reporting requirements are meant to facilitate. See § 39-26-210; 1 Colo.Code Regs. § 201-1:39-21-107(1) ("The statute of limitations on assessments of ... sales [and] use ... tax ... shall be three years from the date the return was filed ...").
Enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements may improve Colorado's ability to assess and ultimately collect its sales and use taxes from consumers, but the TIA is not keyed to all activities that may improve a State's ability to assess and collect taxes. Such a rule would be inconsistent not only with the text of the statute, but also with our rule favoring clear boundaries in the interpretation of jurisdictional statutes. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend,559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010). The TIA is keyed to the acts of assessment, levy, and collection themselves, and enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements is none of these.
B
Apparently concluding that enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements was not itself an act of "assessment, levy or collection," the Court of Appeals did not rely on those terms to hold that the TIA barred the suit. Instead, it adopted a broad definition of the word "restrain" in the TIA, which bars not only suits to "enjoin ... assessment, levy or collection" of a state tax but also suits to "suspend or restrain" those activities. Specifically, the Court of Appeals concluded that the TIA bars any suit that would "limit, restrict, or hold back" the assessment, levy, or collection of state taxes. 735 F.3d, at 913. Because the notice and reporting requirements are intended to facilitate collection of taxes, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the relief Direct Marketing Association sought and received would "limit, restrict, or hold back" the Department's collection efforts. That was error.
"Restrain," standing alone, can have several meanings. One is the broad meaning given by the Court of Appeals, which captures orders that merely inhibitacts of "assessment, levy and collection." See Black's 1548. Another, narrower meaning, however, is "[t]o prohibit from action; to put compulsion upon ... to enjoin," ibid.,which captures only those orders that stop (or perhaps compel) acts of "assessment, levy and collection."
To resolve this ambiguity, we look to the context in which the word is used. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.,519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). The statutory context provides several clues that lead us to conclude that the TIA uses the word "restrain" in its narrower sense. Looking to the company "restrain" keeps, Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co.,367 U.S. 303, 307, 81 S.Ct. 1579, 6 L.Ed.2d 859 (1961), we first note that the words "enjoin" and "suspend" are terms of art in equity, see Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary,454 U.S. 100, 126, and n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981)(Brennan, J., concurring). They refer to different equitable remedies that restrict or stop official action to varying degrees, strongly suggesting that "restrain" does the same. See Hibbs,542 U.S., at 118, 124 S.Ct. 2276(KENNEDY, J., dissenting); see also Jefferson County,527 U.S., at 433, 119 S.Ct. 2069.
Additionally, as used in the TIA, "restrain" acts on a carefully selected list of technical terms-"assessment, levy, collection"-not on an all-encompassing term, like "taxation." To give "restrain" the broad meaning selected by the Court of Appeals would be to defeat the precision of that list, as virtually any court action related to any phase of taxation might be said to "hold back" "collection." Such a broad construction would thus render "assessment [and] levy"-not to mention "enjoin [and] suspend"-mere surplusage, a result we try to avoid. See Hibbs, supra,at 101, 124 S.Ct. 2276(interpreting the terms of the TIA to avoid superfluity).
Assigning the word "restrain" its meaning in equity is also consistent with our recognition that the TIA "has its roots in equity practice." Tully v. Griffin, Inc.,429 U.S. 68, 73, 97 S.Ct. 219, 50 L.Ed.2d 227 (1976). Under the comity doctrine that the TIA partially codifies, Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc.,560 U.S. 413, 431-432, 130 S.Ct. 2323, 176 L.Ed.2d 1131 (2010), courts of equity exercised their "sound discretion" to withhold certain forms of extraordinary relief, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman,319 U.S. 293, 297, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407 (1943); see also Dows v. Chicago,11 Wall. 108, 110, 20 L.Ed. 65 (1871). Even while refusing to grant certain forms of equitable relief, those courts did not refuse to hear every suit that would have a negative impact on States' revenues. See, e.g., Henrietta Mills v. Rutherford County,281 U.S. 121, 127, 50 S.Ct. 270, 74 L.Ed. 737 (1930); see also 5 R. Paul & J. Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation § 42.139 (1934)(discussing the word "restraining" in the AIA in its equitable sense). The Court of Appeals' definition of "restrain," however, leads the TIA to bar every suit with such a negative impact. This history thus further supports the conclusion that Congress used "restrain" in its narrower, equitable sense, rather than in the broad sense chosen by the Court of Appeals.
Finally, adopting a narrower definition is consistent with the rule that "[j]urisdictional rules should be clear."Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg.,545 U.S. 308, 321, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005)(THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Hertz Corp., supra,at 94, 130 S.Ct. 1181. The question-at least for negative injunctions-is whether the relief to some degree stops "assessment, levy or collection," not whether it merely inhibits them. The Court of Appeals' definition of "restrain," by contrast, produces a " 'vague and obscure' " boundary that would result in both needless litigation and uncalled-for dismissal, Sisson v. Ruby,497 U.S. 358, 375, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990)(SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment), all in the name of a jurisdictional statute meant to protect state resources.
Applying the correct definition, a suit cannot be understood to "restrain" the "assessment, levy or collection" of a state tax if it merely inhibits those activities.
III
We take no position on whether a suit such as this one might nevertheless be barred under the "comity doctrine," which "counsels lower federal courts to resist engagement in certain cases falling within their jurisdiction."
Levin, supra,at 421, 130 S.Ct. 2323. Under this doctrine, federal courts refrain from "interfer[ing] ... with the fiscal operations of the state governments ... in all cases where the Federal rights of the persons could otherwise be preserved unimpaired." Id.,at 422, 130 S.Ct. 2323(internal quotation marks omitted).
Unlike the TIA, the comity doctrine is nonjurisdictional. And here, Colorado did not seek comity from either of the courts below. Moreover, we do not understand the Court of Appeals' footnote concerning comity to be a holding that comity compels dismissal. See 735 F.3d, at 920, n. 11("Although we remand to dismiss [petitioner's] claims pursuant to the TIA, we note that the doctrine of comity also militates in favor of dismissal"). Accordingly, we leave it to the Tenth Circuit to decide on remand whether the comity argument remains available to Colorado.
* * *
Because the TIA does not bar petitioner's suit, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Like the Court of Appeals, we express no view on the merits of those claims and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Our decision in California v. Grace Brethren Church,457 U.S. 393, 102 S.Ct. 2498, 73 L.Ed.2d 93 (1982), is not to the contrary. In that case, California churches and religious schools sought "to enjoin the State from collecting both tax information and the state [unemployment] tax," based, in part, on the argument that "recordkeeping, registration, and reporting requirements" violate the Establishment Clause by creating the potential for excessive entanglement with religion. Id.,at 398, 415, 102 S.Ct. 2498. We held that the TIA barred that suit. Id.,at 396, 102 S.Ct. 2498. But nowhere in their brief to this Court did the plaintiffs in Grace Brethren Churchseparate out their request to enjoin the tax from their request for relief from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements. See Brief for Grace Brethren Church et al., in California v. Grace Brethren Church,O.T. 1981, No. 81-31 etc., pp. 34-38. Grace Brethren Churchthus cannot fairly be read as resolving, or even considering, the question presented in this case.
Because the text of the TIA resolves this case, we decline the parties' invitation to derive various per serules from our decision in Hibbs v. Winn,542 U.S. 88, 124 S.Ct. 2276, 159 L.Ed.2d 172 (2004). In Hibbs,the Court held that the TIA did not bar an Establishment Clause challenge to a state tax credit for charitable donations to organizations that provided scholarships for children to attend parochial schools. Id.,at 94-96, 124 S.Ct. 2276. Direct Marketing Association argues that Hibbsstands for the proposition that the TIA has no application to third-party suits by nontaxpayers who do not challenge their own liability. Brief for Petitioner 18-21. The Executive Director acknowledges that Hibbscreated an exception to the TIA, but argues that the exception does not apply to suits that restrain activities that have a collection-propelling function. Brief for Respondent 25-33.
In Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc.,560 U.S. 413, 130 S.Ct. 2323, 176 L.Ed.2d 1131 (2010), we emphasized the narrow reach of Hibbs,explaining that it was not "a run-of-the-mine tax case," 560 U.S., at 430, 130 S.Ct. 2323. As we explained, Hibbsheld only "that the TIA did not preclude a federal challenge by a third party who objected to a tax credit received by others, but in no way objected to her own liability under any revenue-raising tax provision." 560 U.S., at 430, 130 S.Ct. 2323; accord, id.,at 434, 130 S.Ct. 2323(THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Because we have already concluded that the TIA does not preclude this challenge, it is unnecessary to consider whether and how the narrow rule announced in Hibbswould apply to suits like this one.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law provides that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a Government-owned corporation supplying electric power to millions of Americans, "[m]ay sue and be sued in its corporate name." Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (TVA Act), 48 Stat. 60, 16 U.S.C. § 831c(b). That provision serves to waive sovereign immunity from suit. Today, we consider how far the waiver goes. We reject the view, adopted below and pressed by the Government, that the TVA remains immune from all tort suits arising from its performance of so-called discretionary functions. The TVA's sue-and-be-sued clause is broad and contains no such limit. Under the clause-and consistent with our precedents construing similar ones-the TVA is subject to suits challenging any of its commercial activities. The law thus places the TVA in the same position as a private corporation supplying electricity. But the TVA might have immunity from suits contesting one of its governmental activities, of a kind not typically carried out by private parties. We remand this case for consideration of whether that limited immunity could apply here.
I
Congress created the TVA-a "wholly owned public corporation of the United States"-in the throes of the Great Depression to promote the Tennessee Valley's economic development. TVA v. Hill , 437 U.S. 153, 157, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978). In its early decades, the TVA focused on reforesting the countryside, improving farmers' fertilization practices, and building dams on the Tennessee River. See Brief for Respondent 3. The corporation also soon began constructing new power plants for the region. And over the years, as it completed other projects, the TVA devoted more and more of its efforts to producing and selling electric power. Today, the TVA operates around 60 power plants and provides electricity to more than nine million people in seven States. See id., at 3-4. The rates it charges (along with the bonds it issues) bring in over $ 10 billion in annual revenues, making federal appropriations unnecessary. See ibid. ; GAO, FY 2018 Financial Report of the United States Government 53 (GAO-19-294R, 2019).
As even that short description may suggest, the TVA is something of a hybrid, combining traditionally governmental functions with typically commercial ones. On the one hand, the TVA possesses powers and responsibilities reserved to sovereign actors. It may, for example, "exercise the right of eminent domain" and "condemn all property" necessary to carry out its goals. 16 U.S.C. §§ 831c(h), (i). Similarly, it may appoint employees as "law enforcement agents" with powers to investigate crimes and make arrests. § 831c-3(a) ; see § 831c-3(b)(2). But on the other hand, much of what the TVA does could be done-no, is done routinely-by non-governmental parties. Just as the TVA produces and sells electricity in its region, privately owned power companies (e.g., Con Edison, Dominion Energy) do so in theirs. As to those commonplace commercial functions, the emphasis in the oft-used label "public corporation" rests heavily on the latter word. Hill , 437 U.S., at 157, 98 S.Ct. 2279.
In establishing this mixed entity, Congress decided (as it had for similar government businesses) that the TVA could "sue and be sued in its corporate name." § 831c(b) ; see, e.g., Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act, § 4, 47 Stat. 6; Federal Home Loan Bank Act, § 12, 47 Stat. 735. Without such a clause, the TVA (as an entity of the Federal Government) would have enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit. See Loeffler v. Frank , 486 U.S. 549, 554, 108 S.Ct. 1965, 100 L.Ed.2d 549 (1988). By instead providing that the TVA could "be sued," Congress waived at least some of the corporation's immunity. (Just how much is the question here.) Slightly more than a decade after creating the TVA, Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. , to waive immunity from tort suits involving agencies across the Government. See § 1346(b)(1) (waiving immunity from damages claims based on "the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government"). That statute carved out an exception for claims based on a federal employee's performance of a "discretionary function." § 2680(a). But Congress specifically excluded from all the FTCA's provisions-including the discretionary function exception-"[a]ny claim arising from the activities of the [TVA]." § 2680(l ).
This case involves such a claim. See App. 22-33 (Complaint). One summer day, TVA employees embarked on work to replace a power line over the Tennessee River. When a cable they were using failed, the power line fell into the water. The TVA informed the Coast Guard, which announced that it was closing part of the river; and the TVA itself positioned two patrol boats near the downed line. But several hours later, just as the TVA workers began to raise the line, petitioner Gary Thacker drove his boat into the area at high speed. The boat and line collided, seriously injuring Thacker and killing a passenger. Thacker sued for negligence, alleging that the TVA had failed to "exercise reasonable care" in "assembl[ing] and install[ing] power lines" and in "warning boaters" like him "of the hazards it created." Id., at 31.
The TVA moved to dismiss the suit, claiming sovereign immunity. The District Court granted the motion. It reasoned that the TVA, no less than other government agencies, is entitled to immunity from any suit based on an employee's exercise of discretionary functions. See 188 F.Supp.3d 1243, 1245 (ND Ala. 2016). And it thought that the TVA's actions surrounding the boating accident were discretionary because "they involve[d] some judgment and choice." Ibid. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the same ground. According to the circuit court, the TVA has immunity for discretionary functions even when they are part of the "TVA's commercial, power-generating activities." 868 F.3d 979, 981 (2017). In deciding whether a suit implicates those functions, the court explained that it "use[s] the same test that applies when the government invokes the discretionary-function exception to the [FTCA]." Id., at 982. And that test, the court agreed, foreclosed Thacker's suit because the challenged actions were "a matter of choice." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We granted certiorari to decide whether the waiver of sovereign immunity in TVA's sue-and-be-sued clause is subject to a discretionary function exception, of the kind in the FTCA. 585 U.S. ---- (2018). We hold it is not.
II
Nothing in the statute establishing the TVA (again, the TVA Act for short) expressly recognizes immunity for discretionary functions. As noted above, that law provides simply that the TVA "[m]ay sue and be sued." 16 U.S.C. § 831c(b) ; see supra, at 1439 - 1440. Such a sue-and-be-sued clause serves to waive sovereign immunity otherwise belonging to an agency of the Federal Government. See Loeffler , 486 U.S., at 554, 108 S.Ct. 1965. By the TVA Act's terms, that waiver is subject to "[e]xcept[ions]" as "specifically provided in" the statute itself. § 831c. But the TVA Act contains no exceptions relevant to tort claims, let alone one turning on whether the challenged conduct is discretionary.
Nor does the FTCA's exception for discretionary functions apply to the TVA. As described earlier, see supra, at 1439 - 1440, the FTCA retained the Federal Government's immunity from tort suits challenging discretionary conduct, even while allowing other tort claims to go forward. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2680(a) ; United States v. Gaubert , 499 U.S. 315, 322-325, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (describing the discretionary function exception's scope). But Congress made clear that the FTCA does "not apply to[ ] [a]ny claim arising from the activities of the [TVA]." § 2680(l ). That means the FTCA's discretionary function provision has no relevance to this case. Even the Government concedes as much. It acknowledges that the FTCA's discretionary function exception "does not govern [Thacker's] suit." Brief for Respondent 15. Rather, it says, the TVA Act's sue-and-be-sued clause does so. See id., at 6. And that is the very clause we have just described as containing no express exception for discretionary functions.
But that is not quite the end of the story because in Federal Housing Administration v. Burr , 309 U.S. 242, 60 S.Ct. 488, 84 L.Ed. 724 (1940), this Court recognized that a sue-and-be-sued clause might contain "implied exceptions." Id., at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488. The Court in that case permitted a suit to proceed against a government entity (providing mortgage insurance) whose organic statute had a sue-and-be-sued clause much like the TVA Act's. And the Court made clear that in green-lighting the suit, it was doing what courts normally should. Sue-and-be-sued clauses, the Court explained, "should be liberally construed." Ibid. ; see FDIC v. Meyer , 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (similarly calling such clauses "broad"). Those words "in their usual and ordinary sense," the Court noted, "embrace all civil process incident to the commencement or continuance of legal proceedings." Burr , 309 U.S., at 245-246, 60 S.Ct. 488. And Congress generally "intend[s] the full consequences of what it sa[ys]"-even if "inconvenient, costly, and inefficient." Id., at 249, 60 S.Ct. 488 (quotation modified). But not quite always, the Court continued. And when not-when Congress meant to use the words "sue and be sued" in a more "narrow sense"-a court should recognize "an implied restriction." Id., at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488. In particular, Burr stated, a court should take that route if one of the following circumstances is "clearly shown": either the "type[ ] of suit [at issue is] not consistent with the statutory or constitutional scheme" or the restriction is "necessary to avoid grave interference with the performance of a governmental function." Ibid.
Although the courts below never considered Burr , the Government tries to use its framework to defend their decisions. See Brief for Respondent 17-40. According to the Government, we should establish a limit on the TVA's sue-and-be-sued clause-like the one in the FTCA-for all suits challenging discretionary functions. That is for two reasons, tracking Burr 's statement of when to recognize an "implied exception" to a sue-and-be-sued clause. 309 U.S., at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488. First, the Government argues that allowing those suits would conflict with the "constitutional scheme"-more precisely, with "separation-of-powers principles"-by subjecting the TVA's discretionary conduct to "judicial second-guessing." Brief for Respondent 19, 21 (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the Government maintains that permitting those suits would necessarily "interfere[ ] with important governmental functions." Id., at 36; see id., at 39-40; Tr. of Oral Arg. 39-41. We disagree.
At the outset, we balk at using Burr to provide a government entity excluded from the FTCA with a replica of that statute's discretionary function exception. Congress made a considered decision not to apply the FTCA to the TVA (even as Congress applied that legislation to some other public corporations, see 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a) ). See supra, at 1439 - 1440, 1440 - 1441. The Government effectively asks us to negate that legislative choice. Or otherwise put, it asks us to let the FTCA in through the back door, when Congress has locked the front one. We have once before rejected such a maneuver. In FDIC v. Meyer , a plaintiff brought a constitutional tort claim against a government agency with another broad sue-and-be-sued clause. The agency claimed immunity, stressing that the claim would have fallen outside the FTCA's immunity waiver (which extends only to conventional torts). We dismissed the argument. "In essence," we observed, the "FDIC asks us to engraft" a part of the FTCA "onto [the agency's] sue-and-be-sued clause." 510 U.S., at 480, 114 S.Ct. 996. But that would mean doing what Congress had not. See id., at 483, 114 S.Ct. 996. And so too here, if we were to bestow the FTCA's discretionary function exception on the TVA through the conduit of Burr . Indeed, the Government's proposal would make the TVA's tort liability largely coextensive with that of all the agencies the FTCA governs. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34. Far from acting to achieve such parity, Congress did everything possible to avoid it.
In any event, the Government is wrong to think that waiving the TVA's immunity from suits based on discretionary functions would offend the separation of powers. As this Court explained in Burr , the scope of immunity that federal corporations enjoy is up to Congress. That body "has full power to endow [such an entity] with the government's immunity from suit." 309 U.S., at 244, 60 S.Ct. 488. And equally, it has full power to "waive [that] immunity" and "subject[ the entity] to the judicial process" to whatever extent it wishes. Ibid. When Congress takes the latter route-even when it goes so far as to waive the corporation's immunity for discretionary functions-its action raises no separation of powers problems. The right governmental actor (Congress) is making a decision within its bailiwick (to waive immunity) that authorizes an appropriate body (a court) to render a legal judgment. Indeed, the Government itself conceded at oral argument that Congress, when creating a public corporation, may constitutionally waive its "immunity [for] discretionary functions." Tr. of Oral Arg. 37. But once that is acknowledged, the Government's argument from "separation-of-powers principles" collapses. Brief for Respondent 19. Those principles can offer no reason to limit a statutory waiver that even without any emendation complies with the constitutional scheme.
Finally, the Government overreaches when it says that all suits based on the TVA's discretionary conduct will "grave[ly] interfere[ ]" with "governmental function[s]." Burr , 309 U.S., at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488. That is so, at the least, because the discretionary acts of hybrid entities like the TVA may be not governmental but commercial in nature. And a suit challenging a commercial act will not "grave[ly]"-or, indeed, at all-interfere with the "governmental functions" Burr cared about protecting. The Government contests that point, arguing that this Court has not meant to distinguish between the governmental and the commercial in construing sue-and-be-sued clauses. See Brief for Respondent 39-40. But both Burr and later decisions do so explicitly. Burr took as its "premise" that an agency "launched [with such a clause] into the commercial world" and "authorize[d] to engage" in "business transactions with the public" should have the same "amenab[ility] to judicial process [as] a private enterprise under like circumstances." 309 U.S., at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488. Meyer also made clear that such an agency "could not escape the liability a private enterprise would face in similar circumstances." 510 U.S., at 482, 114 S.Ct. 996 ; see ibid. ("[T]he liability of a private enterprise [is] a floor below which the agency's liability [may] not fall"). And twice the Court held that the liability of the Postal Service (another sue-and-be-sued agency) should be "similar[ ] to [that of] other self-sustaining commercial ventures." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Postal Service , 467 U.S. 512, 525, 104 S.Ct. 2549, 81 L.Ed.2d 446 (1984) ; see Loeffler , 486 U.S., at 556, 108 S.Ct. 1965. The point of those decisions, contra the Government, is that (barring special constitutional or statutory issues not present here) suits based on a public corporation's commercial activity may proceed as they would against a private company; only suits challenging the entity's governmental activity may run into an implied limit on its sue-and-be-sued clause.
Burr and its progeny thus require a far more refined analysis than the Government offers here. The reasons those decisions give to recognize a restriction on a sue-and-be-sued clause do not justify the wholesale incorporation of the discretionary function exception. As explained above, the "constitutional scheme" has nothing to say about lawsuits challenging a public corporation's discretionary activity-except to leave their fate to Congress. Burr , 309 U.S., at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488 ; see supra, at 1442. For its part, Congress has not said in enacting sue-and-be-sued clauses that it wants to prohibit all such suits-quite the contrary. And no concern for "governmental functions" can immunize discretionary activities that are commercial in kind. Burr , 309 U.S., at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488 ; see supra, at 1442 - 1443. When the TVA or similar body operates in the marketplace as private companies do, it is as liable as they are for choices and judgments. The possibility of immunity arises only when a suit challenges governmental activities-the kinds of functions private parties typically do not perform. And even then, an entity with a sue-and-be-sued clause may receive immunity only if it is "clearly shown" that prohibiting the "type[ ] of suit [at issue] is necessary to avoid grave interference" with a governmental function's performance. Burr , 309 U.S., at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488. That is a high bar. But it is no higher than appropriate given Congress's enactment of so broad an immunity waiver-which demands, as we have held, a "liberal construction." Ibid. (quotation modified).
III
All that remains is to decide this case in accord with what we have said so far. But as we often note at this point, "we are 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). In wrongly relying on the discretionary function exception, the courts below never addressed the issues we have found relevant in deciding whether this suit may go forward. Those courts should have the first chance to do so, as guided by the principles set out above and a few last remarks about applying them here.
As described earlier, the TVA sometimes resembles a government actor, sometimes a commercial one. See supra, at 1439 - 1440. Consider a few diverse examples. When the TVA exercises the power of eminent domain, taking landowners' property for public purposes, no one would confuse it for a private company. So too when the TVA exercises its law enforcement powers to arrest individuals. But in other operations-and over the years, a growing number-the TVA acts like any other company producing and supplying electric power. It is an accident of history, not a difference in function, that explains why most Tennesseans get their electricity from a public enterprise and most Virginians get theirs from a private one. Whatever their ownership structures, the two companies do basically the same things to deliver power to customers.
So to determine if the TVA has immunity here, the court on remand must first decide whether the conduct alleged to be negligent is governmental or commercial in nature. For the reasons given above, if the conduct is commercial-the kind of thing any power company might do-the TVA cannot invoke sovereign immunity. In that event, the TVA's sue-and-be-sued clause renders it liable to the same extent as a private party. Only if the conduct at issue is governmental might the court decide that an implied limit on the clause bars the suit. But even assuming governmental activity, the court must find that prohibiting the "type[ ] of suit [at issue] is necessary to avoid grave interference" with that function's performance. Burr, 309 U.S. at 245, 60 S.Ct. 488. Unless it is, Congress's express statement that the TVA may "be sued" continues to demand that this suit go forward.
We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case 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.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Kathy Keeton sued respondent Hustler Magazine, Inc., and other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleging jurisdiction over her libel complaint by reason of diversity of citizenship. The District Court dismissed her suit because it believed that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbade the application of New Hampshire’s long-arm statute in order to acquire personal jurisdiction over respondent. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, 682 F. 2d 33 (1982), summarizing its concerns with the statement that “the New Hampshire tail is too small to wag so large an out-of-state dog.” Id., at 36. We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 1169 (1983), and we now reverse.
Petitioner Keeton is a resident of New York. Her only connection with New Hampshire is the circulation there of copies of a magazine that she assists in producing. The magazine bears petitioner’s name in several places crediting her with editorial and other work. Respondent Hustler Magazine, Inc., is an Ohio corporation, with its principal place of business in California. Respondent’s contacts with New Hampshire consist of the sale of some 10,000 to 15,000 copies of Hustler Magazine in that State each month. See App. 81a-86a. Petitioner claims to have been libeled in five separate issues of respondent’s magazine published between September 1975 and May 1976.
The Court of Appeals, in its opinion affirming the District Court’s dismissal of petitioner’s complaint, held that petitioner’s lack of contacts with New Hampshire rendered the State’s interest in redressing the tort of libel to petitioner too attenuated for an assertion of personal jurisdiction over respondent. The Court of Appeals observed that the “single publication rule” ordinarily applicable in multistate libel cases would require it to award petitioner “damages caused in all states” should she prevail in her suit, even though the bulk of petitioner’s alleged injuries had been sustained outside New Hampshire. 682 F. 2d, at 35. The court also stressed New Hampshire’s unusually long (6-year) limitations period for libel actions. New Hampshire was the only State where petitioner’s suit would not have been time-barred when it was filed. Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeals concluded that it would be “unfair” to assert jurisdiction over respondent. New Hampshire has a minimal interest in applying its unusual statute of limitations to, and awarding damages for, injuries to a nonresident occurring outside the State, particularly since petitioner suffered such a small proportion of her total claimed injury within the State. Id., at 35-36.
We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Respondent’s regular circulation of magazines in the forum State is sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine. This is so even if New Hampshire courts, and thus the District Court under Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co., 313 U. S. 487 (1941), would apply the so-called “single publication rule” to enable petitioner to recover in the New Hampshire action her damages from “publications” of the alleged libel throughout the United States.
The District Court found that “[t]he general course of conduct in circulating magazines throughout the state was purposefully directed at New Hampshire, and inevitably affected persons in the state.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a. Such regular monthly sales of thousands of magazines cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterized as random, isolated, or fortuitous. It is, therefore, unquestionable that New Hampshire jurisdiction over a complaint based on those contacts would ordinarily satisfy the requirement of the Due Process Clause that a State’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant be predicated on “minimum contacts” between the defendant and the State. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 297-298 (1980); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 317 (1945). And, as the Court of Appeals acknowledged, New Hampshire has adopted a “long-arm” statute authorizing service of process on nonresident corporations whenever permitted by the Due Process Clause. 682 F. 2d, at 33. Thus, all the requisites for personal jurisdiction over Hustler Magazine, Inc., in New Hampshire are present.
We think that the three concerns advanced by the Court of Appeals, whether considered singly or together, are not sufficiently weighty to merit a different result. The “single publication rule,” New Hampshire’s unusually long statute of limitations, and plaintiff’s lack of contacts with the forum State do not defeat jurisdiction otherwise proper under both New Hampshire law and the Due Process Clause.
In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 204 (1977). See also Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U. S. 320, 332 (1980). Thus, it is certainly relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry that petitioner is seeking to recover damages suffered in all States in this one suit. The contacts between respondent and the forum must be judged in the light of that claim, rather than a claim only for damages sustained in New Hampshire. That is, the contacts between respondent and New Hampshire must be such that it is “fair” to compel respondent to defend a multistate lawsuit in New Hampshire seeking nationwide damages for all copies of the five issues in question, even though only a small portion of those copies were distributed in New Hampshire.
The Court of Appeals expressed the view that New Hampshire’s “interest” in asserting jurisdiction over plaintiff’s mul-tistate claim was minimal. We agree that the “fairness” of haling respondent into a New Hampshire court depends to some extent on whether respondent’s activities relating to New Hampshire are such as to give that State a legitimate interest in holding respondent answerable on a claim related to those activities. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, at 292; McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220, 223 (1957). But insofar as the State’s “interest” in adjudicating the dispute is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment due process equation, as a surrogate for some of the factors already mentioned, see Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 702-703, n. 10 (1982), we think the interest is sufficient.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that petitioner was suing, at least in part, for damages suffered in New Hampshire. 682 F. 2d, at 34. And it is beyond dispute that New Hampshire has a significant interest in redressing injuries that actually occur within the State.
“ ‘A state has an especial interest in exercising judicial jurisdiction over those who commit torts within its territory. This is because torts involve wrongful conduct which a state seeks to deter, and against which it attempts to afford protection, by providing that a tort-feasor shall be liable for damages which are the proximate result of his tort.’” Leeper v. Leeper, 114 N. H. 294, 298, 319 A. 2d 626, 629 (1974) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 36, Comment c (1971)).
This interest extends to libel actions brought by nonresidents. False statements of fact harm both the subject of the falsehood and the readers of the statement. New Hampshire may rightly employ its libel laws to discourage the deception of its citizens. There is “no constitutional value in false statements of fact.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 340 (1974).
New Hampshire may also extend its concern to the injury that in-state libel causes within New Hampshire to a nonresident. The tort of libel is generally held to occur wherever the offending material is circulated. Restatement (Second) of Torts §577A, Comment a (1977). The reputation of the libel victim may suffer harm even in a State in which he has hitherto been anonymous. The communication of the libel may create a negative reputation among the residents of a jurisdiction where the plaintiff’s previous reputation was, however small, at least unblemished.
New Hampshire has clearly expressed its interest in protecting such persons from libel, as well as in safeguarding its populace from falsehoods. Its criminal defamation statute bears no restriction to libels of which residents are the victim. Moreover, in 1971 New Hampshire specifically deleted from its long-arm statute the requirement that a tort be committed “against a resident of New Hampshire.”
New Hampshire also has a substantial interest in cooperating with other States, through the.“single publication rule,” to provide a forum for efficiently litigating all issues and damages claims arising out of a libel in a unitary proceeding. This rule reduces the potential serious drain of libel cases on judicial resources. It also serves to protect defendants from harassment resulting from multiple suits. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A, Comment / (1977). In sum, the combination of New Hampshire’s interest in redressing injuries that occur within the State and its interest in cooperating with other States in the application of the “single publication rule” demonstrates the propriety of requiring respondent to answer to a multistate libel action in New Hampshire.
The Court of Appeals also thought that there was an element of due process “unfairness” arising from the fact that the statutes of limitations in every jurisdiction except New Hampshire had run on the plaintiff’s claim in this case. Strictly speaking, however, any potential unfairness in applying New Hampshire’s statute of limitations to all aspects of this nationwide suit has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate the claims. “The issue is personal jurisdiction, not choice of law.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 285, 254 (1958). The question of the applicability of New Hampshire’s statute of limitations to claims for out-of-state damages presents itself in the course of litigation only after jurisdiction over respondent is established, and we do not think that such choice-of-law concerns should complicate or distort the jurisdictional inquiry.
The chance duration of statutes of limitations in nonforum jurisdictions has nothing to do with the contacts among respondent, New Hampshire, and this multistate libel action. Whether Ohio’s limitations period is six months or six years does not alter the jurisdictional calculus in New Hampshire. Petitioner’s successful search for a State with a lengthy statute of limitations is no different from the litigation strategy of countless plaintiffs who seek a forum with favorable substantive or procedural rules or sympathetic local populations. Certainly Hustler Magazine, Inc., which chose to enter the New Hampshire market, can be charged with knowledge of its laws and no doubt would have claimed the benefit of them if it had a complaint against a subscriber, distributor, or other commercial partner.
Finally, implicit in the Court of Appeals’ analysis of New Hampshire’s interest is an emphasis on the extremely limited contacts of the plaintiff with New Hampshire. But we have not to date required a plaintiff to have “minimum contacts” with the forum State before permitting that State to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. On the contrary, we have upheld the assertion of jurisdiction where such contacts were entirely lacking. In Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U. S. 437 (1952), none of the parties was a resident of the forum State; indeed, neither the plaintiff nor the subject matter of his action had any relation to that State. Jurisdiction was based solely on the fact that the defendant corporation had been carrying on in the forum “a continuous and systematic, but limited, part of its general business.” Id., at 438. In the instant case, respondent’s activities in the forum may not be so substantial as to support jurisdiction over a cause of action unrelated to those activities. But respondent is carrying on a “part of its general business” in New Hampshire, and that is sufficient to support jurisdiction when the cause of action arises out of the very activity being conducted, in part, in New Hampshire.
The plaintiff’s residence is not, of course, completely irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry. As noted, that inquiry focuses on the relations among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Plaintiff’s residence may well play an important role in determining the propriety of entertaining a suit against the defendant in the forum. That is, plaintiff’s residence in the forum may, because of defendant’s relationship with the plaintiff, enhance defendant’s contacts with the forum. Plaintiff’s residence may be the focus of the activities of the defendant out of which the suit arises. See Calder v. Jones, post, at 788-789; McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220 (1957). But plaintiff’s residence in the forum State is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant’s contacts.
It is undoubtedly true that the bulk of the harm done to petitioner occurred outside New Hampshire. But that will be true in almost every libel action brought somewhere other than the plaintiff’s domicile. There is no justification for restricting libel actions to the plaintiff’s home forum. The victim of a libel, like the victim of any other tort, may choose to bring suit in any forum with which the defendant has “certain minimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 [(1940)].” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 316.
Where, as in this case, respondent Hustler Magazine, Inc., has continuously and deliberately exploited the New Hampshire market, it must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there in a libel action based on the contents of its magazine. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S., at 297-298. And, since respondent can be charged with knowledge of the “single publication rule,” it must anticipate that such a suit will seek nationwide damages. Respondent produces a national publication aimed at a nationwide audience. There is no unfairness in calling it to answer for the contents of that publication wherever a substantial number of copies are regularly sold and distributed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Initially, petitioner brought suit for libel and invasion of privacy in Ohio, where the magazine was published. Her libel claim, however, was dismissed as barred by the Ohio statute of limitations, and her invasion-of-privacy claim was dismissed as barred by the New York statute of limitations, which the Ohio court considered to be “migratory.” Petitioner then filed the present action in October 1980.
The “single publication rule” has been summarized as follows:
“As to any single publication, (a) only one action for damages can be maintained; (b) all damages suffered in all jurisdictions can be recovered in the one action; and (c) a judgment for or against the plaintiff upon the merits of any action for damages bars any other action for damages between the same parties in all jurisdictions.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A(4) (1977).
“It is the general rule that each communication of the same defamatory matter by the same defamer, whether to a new person or to the same person, is a separate and distinct publication, for which a separate cause of action arises.” Id., § 577A, Comment a. The “single publication rule” is an exception to this general rule.
New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. §300:14 (1977) provides in relevant part:
“If a foreign corporation . . . commits a tort in whole or in part in New Hampshire, such ac[t] shall be deemed to be doing business in New Hampshire by such foreign corporation and shall be deemed equivalent to the appointment by such foreign corporation of the secretary of the state of New Hampshire and his successors to be its true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all lawful process in any actions or proceedings against such foreign corporation arising from or growing out of such . . . tort.”
This statute has been construed in the New Hampshire courts to extend jurisdiction over nonresident corporations to the fullest extent permitted under the Federal Constitution. See, e. g.,Roy v. North American Newspaper Alliance, Inc., 106 N. H. 92, 95, 205 A. 2d 844, 846 (1964).
We do not, therefore, rely for our holding on the fact that petitioner’s name appears in fine print in several places in a magazine circulating in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. §644:11(1) (1974) makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to “purposely communicat[e] to any person, orally or in writing, any information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.” (Emphasis added.)
See N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 300:14 (1977), History.
The great majority of the States now follow the “single publication rule.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A, Appendix, Reporter’s Note (1977).
Of course, to conclude that petitioner may properly seek multistate damages in this New Hampshire suit is not to conclude that such damages should, in fact, be awarded if petitioner makes out her case for libel. The actual applicability of the “single publication rule” in the peculiar circumstances of this case is a matter of substantive law, not personal jurisdiction. We conclude only that the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s multistate libel suit.
Under traditional choice-of-law principles, the law of the forum State governs on matters of procedure. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 122 (1971). In New Hampshire, statutes of limitations are considered procedural. Gordon v. Gordon, 118 N. H. 356, 360, 387 A. 2d 339, 342 (1978); Barrett v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 104 N. H. 70, 178 A. 2d 291 (1962). There has been considerable academic criticism of the rule that permits a forum State to apply its own statute of limitations regardless of the significance of contacts between the forum State and the litigation. See, e. g., R. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws §9.2B, p. 517 (2d ed. 1980); Martin, Constitutional Limitations on Choice of Law, 61 Cornell L. Rev. 185, 221 (1976); Comment, The Statute of Limitations and the Conflict of Laws, 28 Yale L. J. 492, 496-497 (1919). But we find it unnecessary to express an opinion at this time as to whether any arguable unfairness rises to the level of a due process violation.
The defendant corporation’s contacts with the forum State in Perkins were more substantial than those of respondent with New Hampshire in this case. In Perkins, the corporation’s mining operations, located in the Philippine Islands, were completely halted during the Japanese occupation. The president, who was also general manager and principal stockholder of the company, returned to his home in Ohio where he carried on “a eontinuous and systematic supervision of the necessarily limited wartime activities of the company.” 342 U. S., at 448. The company’s files were kept in Ohio, several directors’ meetings were held there, substantial accounts were maintained in Ohio banks, and all key business decisions were made in the State. Ibid. In those circumstances, Ohio was the corporation’s principal, if temporary, place of business so that Ohio jurisdiction was proper even over a cause of action unrelated to the activities in the State.
As noted in Calder v. Jones, post, at 790-791, we reject categorically the suggestion that invisible radiations from the First Amendment may defeat jurisdiction otherwise proper under the Due Process Clause.
In addition to Hustler Magazine, Inc., Larry Flynt, the publisher, editor, and owner of the magazine, and L. F. P., Inc., Hustler’s holding company, were named as defendants in the District Court. It does not of course follow from the fact that jurisdiction may be asserted over Hustler Magazine, Inc., that jurisdiction may also be asserted over either of the other defendants. In Colder v. Jones, post, at 790, we today reject the suggestion that employees who act in their official capacity are somehow shielded from suit in their individual capacity. But jurisdiction over an employee does not automatically follow from jurisdiction over the corporation which employs him; nor does jurisdiction over a parent corporation automatically establish jurisdiction over a wholly owned subsidiary. Consolidated Textile Co. v. Gregory, 289 U. S. 85, 88 (1933); Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 205 U. S. 364, 391 (1907). Each defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be assessed individually. See Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U. S. 320, 332 (1980) (“The requirements of International Shoe . . . must be met as to each defendant over whom a state court exercises jurisdiction”). Because the Court of Appeals concluded that jurisdiction could not be had even against Hustler Magazine, Inc., it did not inquire into the propriety of jurisdiction over the other defendants. Such inquiry is, of course, open upon remand.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The sole question here is whether §§3116 and 3115 of the Internal Revenue Code make it a criminal offense to possess property intended for use in producing nontax-paid distilled spirits in violation of the Code. Appellee was indicted under these sections for wilfully and knowingly possessing 800 pounds of sugar and parts of a still for the proscribed purpose. On motion the District Court, relying on dictum in a court of appeals decision, dismissed the indictment on the ground that § 3116 is “preventative and remedial rather than criminal, and that it does not define a criminal offense.” The Government appealed directly to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731. 346 U. S. 930.
Section 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code is captioned “Forfeitures and seizures,” and provides in pertinent part: “It shall be unlawful to have or possess any liquor or property intended for use in violating the provisions of this part, or the internal-revenue laws . . . and no property rights shall exist in any such liquor or property. . . . Nothing in this section shall in any manner limit or affect any criminal or forfeiture provision of the internal-revenue laws, or of any other law. . . .” The section also provides for search warrants and for procedure in seizure and forfeiture. Section 3115 bears the caption “Penalties” and provides that anyone violating any of the provisions of “this part” for which offense a special penalty is not prescribed “shall be liable, for the first offense, to a penalty of not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or both . . . .” The two sections are included within the same “part” of the Code.
The appellant’s position is that § 3115 makes violation of any of the provisions of “this part” a criminal offense punishable by fine and imprisonment; § 3116 contains a provision making it unlawful to possess property intended for use in violating the provisions of that part or the internal revenue laws; hence the indictment alleging a violation of §§ 3116 and 3115 by such possession charges a crime. We agree and so hold. We think the plain language of the two sections read together can lead only to the conclusion that the acts proscribed in § 3116 not only may result in forfeiture but likewise are made criminal and punishable under the general penalty provisions of § 3115.
The sections here involved were borrowed, with changes insignificant for present purposes, from the National Prohibition Act of 1919, 41 Stat. 305 et seq. There the sections appeared as §§ 25 (compare § 3116) and 29 (compare § 3115) of Title II, and presented a statutory pattern virtually identical to the present one. It is most persuasive that the courts consistently upheld criminal prosecutions brought under these sections for the analogous act of possessing property designed for the manufacture of liquor intended for use in violation of Title II of the Prohibition Act.
This consistency of interpretation, followed by Congress’ utilization in the Code of the same provisions, is also helpful in dealing with the limitation in § 3115 which makes the penalties of that section applicable only where no “special penalty” is provided for the offense. As a de novo proposition it might be argued that in § 3116 a special penalty, forfeiture, is provided. But this argument was available with equal force under the Prohibition Act and appears to have barred no prosecution. Moreover, § 3116 contains a provision that “Nothing in this section shall in any manner limit or affect any criminal . . . provision of the internal-revenue laws.” This would seem to settle the point.
Clearly Congress may impose both a criminal and a civil sanction in respect to the same act; this is neither unusual nor constitutionally objectionable. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391, 399-400 (1938). Likewise it is common in drafting legislation to declare certain acts unlawful in one section and set forth penalties for their commission in another.
The only suggestion on the face of the statute that § 3116 was meant to be remedial and nothing more comes from its caption, “Forfeitures and seizures,” supplied by the codifiers in 1939. But, in enacting the Code, Congress provided that “The arrangement and classification of the several provisions of the Internal Revenue Title have been made for the purpose of a more convenient and orderly arrangement of the same, and, therefore, no inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction' shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion thereof, nor shall any outline, analysis, cross reference, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of said Title be given any legal effect.” 53 Stat. la. To accomplish its primary purpose of bringing together all operative revenue laws and making them more comprehensible, the Code made “liberal use of catchwords.” Typically, § 3116 is included in a subchapter entitled “Industrial Alcohol” and in a part entitled “Industrial Alcohol Plants”; yet even under a most narrow interpretation of its terms the section is in no sense limited to industrial alcohol.
So far as light is to be had from legislative history, it is meager and inconclusive, in no way militating against the meaning we attribute to the statute.
Reversed.
Kent v. United States, 157 F. 2d 1 (1946). See also United States v. Windle, 158 F. 2d 196 (1946). In those cases the Government had invoked only the forfeiture provisions of the section; as applied to such a civil proceeding, characterization of the section as preventative and remedial was obviously accurate. The two reported cases which previously have faced squarely the present question have upheld the indictments. United States v. Blair, 97 F. Supp. 718 (1951); United States v. Harvin, 91 F. Supp. 249 (1950). See also Godette v. United States, 199 F. 2d 331 (1952), in which the present issue apparently was not raised.
Part II (“Industrial Alcohol Plants”) of Subchapter C (“Industrial Alcohol”) of Chapter 26 (“Liquor”). The full text of the two sections is as follows:
“§ 3115. Penalties — (a) Violations as to operation of plants or unlawful withdrawal of taxable alcohol.
“Whoever operates an industrial alcohol plant or a denaturing plant without complying with the provisions of this part and lawful regulations made thereunder, or whoever withdraws or attempts to withdraw or secure tax free any alcohol subject to tax, or whoever otherwise violates any of the provisions of this part or of regulations lawfully made thereunder shall be liable, for the first offense, to a penalty of not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or both, and for a second or cognate offense to a penalty of not less than $100 nor more than $10,000, and to imprisonment of not less than thirty days nor more than one year. It shall be lawful for the Commissioner in all cases of second or cognate offense to refuse to issue for a period of one year a permit for the manufacture or use of alcohol upon the premises of any person responsible in any degree for the violation.
“(b) Violations in general.
“Any person violating the provisions of this part or of any regulations issued thereunder, for which offense a special penalty is not prescribed, shall be liable to the penalty or penalties prescribed in subsection (a). It shall be the duty of the prosecuting officer to ascertain, in the case of every violation of this part or the regulations made thereunder, for which offense a special penalty is not prescribed, whether the defendant has been previously convicted and to plead the prior conviction in the affidavit, information, or indictment.
“(c) Previous conviction.
“If any act or offense is a violation of this part, and also of any other law in regard to the manufacture or taxation of, or traffic in, intoxicating liquor, a conviction for such act or offense under the one shall be a bar to prosecution therefor under the other.
Ҥ 3116. Forfeitures and seizures.
“It shall be unlawful to have or possess any liquor or property intended for use in violating the provisions of this part, or the internal-revenue laws, or regulations prescribed under such part or laws, or which has been so used, and no property rights shall exist in any such liquor or property. A search warrant may issue as provided in Title XI of the act of June 15, 1917, 40 Stat. 228, for the seizure of such liquor or property. Nothing in this section shall in any manner limit or affect any criminal or forfeiture provision of the internal-revenue laws, or of any other law. The seizure and forfeiture of any liquor or property under the provisions of this part, and the disposition of such liquor or property subsequent to seizure and forfeiture, or the disposition of the proceeds from the sale of such liquor or property, shall be in accordance with existing laws or those hereafter in existence relating to seizures, forfeitures, and disposition of property or proceeds, for violation of the internal-revenue laws.”
E. g., Reynolds v. United States, 280 F. 1 (1922); Adamson v. United States, 296 F. 110 (1924); Staker v. United States, 5 F. 2d 312 (1925); Patrilo v. United States, 7 F. 2d 804, 805 (1925). Compare Page v. United States, 278 F. 41 (1922).
E. g., Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 215, 216; Internal Revenue Code (narcotics), 26 U. S. C. §§ 2553, 2554, 2557.
H. R. Rep. No. 6, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 3; S. Rep. No. 20, 76th Cong., 1st 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:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1966, South Carolina enacted a statute that altered Edgefield County’s election practices but the statute was not submitted to federal officials for their approval as required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1971, the statute was amended, modifying the 1966 election practices, and state officials submitted the amendment to the Attorney General for his approval. In response to a request from the Attorney General, state officials provided him with additional documentation in support of their submission, including the 1966 statute. The Attorney General approved the submission, stating that he did not object to the change in question. The question in this case is whether the Attorney General’s approval of the 1971 submission can be deemed to have the effect of ratifying the changes embodied in the 1966 enactment. We hold that the 1966 changes have not been approved.
HH
As of November 1, 1964, local political authority in Edge-field County, South Carolina, was vested in a County Supervisor and a Board of County Commissioners. The County Supervisor, the chairman of the three-member Board, was elected at large for a 4-year term. The County Supervisor had jurisdiction over public roads, matters relating to county taxes and expenditures, and certain other matters. The other two seats on the Board were appointed offices. These two commissioners were appointed by the Governor, also for 4-year terms, upon the recommendation of a majority of the county’s delegation in the state legislature after a countywide straw vote on prospective appointees. There were no residency requirements for commissioners. The Board had limited administrative and ministerial powers.
On June 1, 1966, the South Carolina General Assembly enacted Act No. 1104, which was effective as a matter of state law when it was signed by the Governor on June 7, 1966. The Act created a new form of government for Edgefield County, altering the county’s election practices. The office of County Supervisor and the Board of County Commissioners were abolished upon expiration of the incumbents’ terms. A three-member County Council with broad legislative and administrative powers was created, and the county was divided into three residency districts for purposes of electing Council members. To qualify as a candidate for a seat on the Council under the Act, an individual must be a qualified voter in one of the three districts and is required to register as a candidate from that district. The Council members, however, are elected at large: voters throughout the county cast votes for a candidate from each district, and the candidate in each district with the largest number of votes occupies that district’s seat on the Council. Council members are elected for 2-year terms, and the members themselves annually elect a chairman.
The 1966 Act was amended in 1971 by Act No. 521, “An Act to Amend Act No. 1104 of 1966... So As To Increase The Number of Districts And The Number of County Council Members.” The 1971 amendment increased the number of residency districts, and thus the number of Council members, from three to five. Necessarily the change in the number of districts resulted in new district boundaries. Otherwise, the 1971 amendment did not alter the 1966 Act.
County Council elections in Edgefield County have been conducted under the basic scheme established by the 1966 Act since the first elections held pursuant to the Act in November 1966.
In 1971, state officials sent a letter to the Attorney General of the United States stating: “In accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, there are submitted herewith copies” of 18 listed recent state enactments, which included the 1971 amendment regarding Edge-field County. The Justice Department responded to the request for clearance of the 1971 amendment by stating: “After a preliminary examination of H2206 [the 1971 amendment], it does not appear that we have sufficient information to evaluate the change you have submitted.” The Justice Department therefore requested additional information from state officials—maps showing boundaries of current districts, population and registration statistics, recent election returns, “a copy of the election statute now in force”—and noted that the time limitation on consideration of the request would begin to run when the relevant information “necessary to evaluate H2206” was provided. State officials forwarded the requested information “concerning the legislation that required further clarification (H2206)” to the Justice Department, including a copy of the 1966 Act. The Justice Department letter in response stated that it was “concerning the submission of H2206 to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended,” and then stated: “The Attorney General does not interpose any objections to the change in question.”
II
The appellants, black voters residing in Edgefield County, South Carolina, commenced a class action in 1974 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina challenging the county’s election practices on constitutional grounds. Specifically, they alleged in their complaint against appellees, various county officials including the County Council members, that the county’s at-large method of electing the County Council diluted the voting strength of black voters and that the county’s residency districts were malapportioned. The District Court entered judgment in favor of appellants on the malapportionment claim, but that judgment was reversed on appeal. Lytle v. Commissioners of Election, 376 F. Supp. 304 (SC), rev’d, 509 F. 2d 1049, 1032 (CA4), cert. denied sub nom. McCain v. Lybrand, 419 U. S. 1032 (1974). After years of litigation and unsuccessful settlement negotiations, the District Court entered judgment in favor of appellants on their constitutional claim challenging the method of electing the Council at large from residency districts and enjoined further elections for the County Council until adoption of a new method of election, Record, Doc. Nos. 27, 28 (orders of Apr. 17, 1980, and Apr. 22, 1980). A few months later, the District Court vacated the judgment and ordered further proceedings in light of this Court’s intervening decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980). Record, Doc. No. 31 (order of Aug. 8, 1980).
While continuing to press their constitutional claim in the District Court, appellants then filed an amended complaint, alleging that the 1966 Act had never been submitted to federal officials as required by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. A three-judge District Court was convened to decide this claim. That court reviewed South Carolina’s 1971 submission and noted that the Justice Department had been made aware of the provisions of the 1966 Act. The District Court concluded that the Justice Department’s request for additional information “indicates that Justice Department’s review of [the 1971 Act] encompassed all aspects of the Act, including the effect of the at-large with residency requirement voting that had been implemented in 1966.” App. to Juris. Statement 12a. The District Court did not find, however, that the Justice Department had been provided with any information concerning voting practices prior to 1966, or that it had been made aware of the fact that the 1966 Act embodied election practices different from those that had been in effect before 1966. Nevertheless, the District Court concluded that the Attorney General’s approval of the 1971 Act, which both changed the 1966 Act by increasing the size of the Council and reenacted its remaining provisions, “renders moot any objection to the superceded 1966 provisions.” Id., at 13a.
After obtaining the views of the Solicitor General, who urged summary reversal of the District Court’s judgment, we noted probable jurisdiction, 462 U. S. 1130 (1983), and for the reasons which follow, we now reverse.
I — I f — ( HH
The Fifteenth Amendment commands: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), was enacted by Congress as a response to the “unremitting and ingenious defiance” of the command of the Fifteenth Amendment for nearly a century by state officials in certain parts of the Nation. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). Congress concluded that case-by-case litigation under previous legislation was an unsatisfactory method to uncover and remedy the systematic discriminatory election practices in certain areas: such lawsuits were too onerous and time-consuming to prepare, obstructionist tactics by those determined to perpetuate discrimination yielded unacceptable delay, and even successful lawsuits too often merely resulted in a change in methods of discrimination. E. g., H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 9-11 (1965). Congress decided “to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims,” 383 U. S., at 328, and enacted “stringent new remedies” designed to “banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting” once and for all, id., at 308.
The “preclearance” requirement mandated by §5 of the Act is perhaps the most stringent of these remedies, and certainly the most extraordinary. It prohibits jurisdictions which had engaged in certain violations of the Fifteenth Amendment from implementing any election practices different from those in effect on November 1, 1964, pending scrutiny by federal officials to determine whether the changes are racially discriminatory in purpose or effect. “The language of § 5 clearly provides that it applies only to proposed changes in voting procedures.” Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 138 (1976). Statutory provisions constituting changes in election practices are not “effective as laws until and unless [they are] cleared pursuant to §5.” Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975) (per curiam). The rationale of this “uncommon exercise” of congressional power which sustained its constitutional validity was a presumption that jurisdictions which had “resorted to the extraordinary stratagem of contriving new rules of various kinds for the sole purpose of perpetuating voting discrimination in the face of adverse federal court decrees” would be likely to engage in “similar maneuvers in the future in order to evade the remedies for voting discrimination contained in the Act itself.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 334, 335 (footnote omitted). This provision must, of course, be interpreted in light of its prophylactic purpose and the historical experience which it reflects. See, e. g., McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130, 151 (1981).
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as originally enacted, required a covered State or political subdivision desiring to implement any election practices different from those in effect on November 1, 1964, to obtain a declaratory judgment from a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia holding that the change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color” before the new practice could be implemented. 79 Stat. 439. A proviso in § 5, however, established an alternative method of obtaining federal clearance of the measure: if the new election practice was submitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorney General did not interpose an objection within 60 days of the submission, the jurisdiction was permitted to implement the change.
The original voting rights bill did not contain this alternative preclearance method; but after concerns arose that the declaratory judgment route would unduly delay implementation of nondiscriminatory legislation, it appears that the proviso was added “to provide a speedy alternative method of compliance to covered States.” Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491, 503 (1977). While the legislative history of the proviso is sparse, ibid., the history which does exist and the lack of controversy surrounding the proviso indicate that Congress in no way intended that the substantive protections of § 5 be sacrificed in the name of expediency, though it did logically anticipate that most jurisdictions would opt for the alternative preclearance method and that declaratory judgment actions would likely be limited to those occasions on which the Attorney General interposed an objection, see H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1965); Hearings on S. 1564 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 237 (1965) (statement of Attorney General Katzenbach). We have previously recognized that the declaratory judgment proceeding is the “basic mechanism” for preclearance established by the Act, United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm’rs, 435 U. S. 110, 136 (1978), and that the “provision for submission to the Attorney General merely gives the covered State a rapid method of rendering a new state election law enforceable.” Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 549 (1969); Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526, 538 (1973). Indeed, irrespective of which avenue of preclearance the covered jurisdiction chooses, it has the same burden of demonstrating that the changes are not motivated by a discriminatory purpose and will not have an adverse impact on minority voters, McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130, 137 (1981); Georgia v. United States, swpra, at 538, and federal officials are confronted with the same “difficult substantive issue.” Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 558.
In evaluating the use of the alternative procedure of submitting proposed changes to the Attorney General, it must be remembered that § 5 “was enacted in large part because of the acknowledged and anticipated inability of the Justice Department — given limited resources — to investigate independently all changes with respect to voting enacted by States and subdivisions covered by the Act.” Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 392, n. 10 (1971). Moreover, it is apparent that ambiguity concerning the scope of a preclearance is more likely if the State opts for the more expeditious method: silence constitutes consent under that method, and even when the Attorney General affirmatively states he has no objection, ambiguity may be present if the State’s submission itself is ambiguous. The potential for such ambiguity was particularly pronounced prior to the adoption of detailed regulations by the Justice Department governing preclear-anee submissions, when covered jurisdictions often merely sent a copy of new legislation to the Attorney General with a general statement that it was being submitted pursuant to §5.
Congress has amended the Voting Rights Act several times, each time continuing the basic structure of the original preclearance provision. In the legislative history of the extensions of the Act, §5 has been deemed to be a “vital element” of the Act to ensure that “new subterfuges will be promptly discovered and enjoined.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-397, p. 8 (1969). But Congress recognized that it was only as vital as state compliance allowed it to be. Unfortunately it appeared that “States rarely obeyed the mandate of that section, and the Federal Government was too timid in its enforcement.” Hearings on H. R. 4249 before the Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (1969) (statement of Rep. McCulloch). Few changes were submitted; and only a handful of objections were interposed: “Where local officials have passed discriminatory laws, generally they have not been submitted to the Department of Justice.” Hearings on H. R. 4249 before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 220 (1969) (statement of Attorney General Mitchell). While compliance with §5 increased after the 1970 extension of the Voting Rights Act, and the provision was believed to have been largely responsible for gains achieved in minority political participation, H. R. Rep. No. 94-196, pp. 10-11 (1975), the continuing “widespread failure to submit proposed changes in election law for Section 5 review before attempting to implement the change” was recently viewed as “significant evidence of the continuing need for the preclearance requirement.” S. Rep. No. 97-417, p. 12 (1982). The Attorney General has attempted to use several methods to identify unsubmitted changes, including the preclearance process itself, but the widespread noncompliance with the preclearance requirement, particularly acute shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, combined with the absence of an independent mechanism in the Justice Department to monitor changes, has permitted circumvention of the requirement which itself was designed to eliminate circumvention of the goals of the Act. H. R. Rep. No. 97-227, p. 13 (1981). Recent efforts to review finally the many unsubmitted changes made shortly after the passage of the Act in 1965 have received unqualified congressional endorsement. Ibid.
In light of the structure, purpose, history, and operation of § 5, we have rejected the suggestion that the “Act contemplates that a ‘submission’ occurs when the Attorney General merely becomes aware of legislation, no matter in what manner,” and instead have held that “[a] fair interpretation of the Act requires that the State in some unambiguous and recordable manner submit any legislation or regulation in question directly to the Attorney General with a request for his consideration pursuant to the Act.” Whitley v. Williams, decided with Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 571. More recently we stated: “While the Act does provide that inaction by the Attorney General may, under certain circumstances, constitute federal preclearance of a change, the purposes of the Act would plainly be subverted if the Attorney General could ever be deemed to have approved a voting change when the proposal was neither properly submitted nor in fact evaluated by him.” United States v. Sheffield Board of Comm’rs, supra, at 136. This interpretation of the provision is faithful to its history and purpose, while at the same time leaving ample room for minimizing the “potential severity of the §5 remedy,” Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S., at 504.
IV
Edgefield County is admittedly a political subdivision of South Carolina subject to the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and it is conceded that the 1966 Act was subject to the preclearance requirement of § 5 of the Act. It is also undisputed that the 1966 Act was never submitted to the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for §5 review. Accordingly, unless the pre-clearance of the 1971 amendment can be deemed to ratify the changes embodied in the 1966 Act, § 5 of the Voting Rights Act plainly invalidates those changes and the District Court must fashion appropriate relief.
As we previously observed, the preclearance procedures mandated by §5 of the Voting Rights Act focus entirely on changes in election practices. Supra, at 245. The title of the 1971 amendment unambiguously identified the changes in election practices which it effected — an increase in the number of Council members and residency districts — and served to define the scope of the preclearance request. An examination of the correspondence concerning the 1971 submission, supra, at 240-241, plainly shows that only the 1971 amendment was being considered for preclearance, and further indicates that the request for preclearance was viewed as limited to the change in elections practices effected by it.
Thus South Carolina’s submission of the 1971 amendment increasing the size of the Edgefield County Council apparently required the Attorney General to determine whether either the change in the district boundaries or the change in the number of districts had a discriminatory purpose or effect, but would not appear to have required him to pass on the question whether the 1966 changes represented a setback for minority voters in Edgefield County. The jurisdiction has never submitted that question to the Attorney General and has never attempted to shoulder its burden of demonstrating that the 1966 changes were nondiscriminatory.
The District Court held, however, that the Attorney General’s request for additional information (including a copy of the 1966 statute and information concerning previous candidates, election results, and residency district boundaries) indicated that he had considered all aspects of the electoral scheme, including the changes effected in the 1966 Act. App. to Juris. Statement 12a. In the alternative, it held that since the 1971 amendment retained the changes effected by the 1966 Act, the lack of objection to the 1971 submission necessarily constituted approval of those changes as well and rendered the failure to preclear the 1966 Act moot. Id., at 13a.
The significance the District Court attached to the Attorney General’s request for additional information was wholly unwarranted. It is plain that the information which the Attorney General requested and received was merely relevant to an identification of the changes which he had been requested to approve or to an evaluation of the purpose and effect of the changes made by the 1971 amendment which he did approve: the 1966 Act and the other information served as a benchmark allowing him to quantify the extent of the increase in the size of the Council and to compare the new district boundaries with the earlier ones. His request for and receipt of this information in no way suggest that he approved changes that he was not requested to approve.
Moreover, the information obtained in response to the Attorney General’s request did not enable him to ascertain whether a covered change was made by the 1966 Act, much less evaluate whether the changes made by the 1966 scheme — and unaffected by the 1971 amendment — were discriminatory in purpose or effect when compared to the 1964 practices. In order to pass on the 1966 Act, he would have needed information concerning the pre-1966 election law and its practical effects. He neither requested nor received such information. Just as “no one would argue” that the Attorney General’s “difficult and complex” decision “should be made without adequate information,” Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S., at 540, an argument that such a decision has been made when the record indicates adequate information was lacking carries little weight. And it would require a wild flight of imagination to suggest that the Attorney General recognized that the 1966 Act effected changes which had required preclearance and had never been precleared, and then did not ask state officials to explain the failure to pre-clear those changes, but instead embarked on the task of gathering the information necessary to evaluate those alterations on his own rather than requesting state officials to provide the information to him as he had just done regarding the changes made by the 1971 amendment. It is even more unlikely that he would have kept his consideration and approval of the changes made by the 1966 Act a secret from state officials in his letter preclearing the 1971 amendment.
In concluding that there is insufficient evidence for a finding that the Attorney General actually considered the changes made by the 1966 Act in preclearing the 1971 amendment, we note that at the time of the 1971 submission, the Attorney General was completing promulgation of regulations governing § 5 submissions. The regulations shed light on the correct interpretation of the scope of the changes encompassed by the Attorney General’s preclearance letter, since they make clear the nature of the information necessary to constitute a valid “submission.” See 28 CFR § 51.2(c) (1972). The regulations indicate that the focus of the Attorney General’s scrutiny of a statute was, understandably, limited to the specific changes submitted for consideration. Finally, the Justice Department has recently indicated that the changes made in the 1966 Act and retained in the 1971 amendment have not been precleared, see App. to Juris. Statement 40a-42a, and such after-the-fact Justice Department statements have been previously relied upon in determining; whether a particular change was actually precleared in analogous circumstances, see United States v. Georgia, Civ. Action No. C76-1531A (ND Ga., Sept. 30, 1977), summarily aff’d, 436 U. S. 941 (1978).
The District Court also erred in viewing the submission’s scope as encompassing all features of the 1971 amendment, rather than the changes effected by that particular enactment. When a jurisdiction adopts legislation that makes clearly defined changes in its election practices, sending that legislation to the Attorney General merely with a general request for preclearance pursuant to §5 constitutes a submission of the changes made by the enactment and cannot be deemed a submission of changes made by previous legislation which themselves were independently subject to § 5 pre-clearance. The fact that a covered jurisdiction adopted a new election practice after the effective date of the Voting Rights Act raises, in effect, a statutory inference that the practice may have been adopted for a discriminatory purpose or may have a discriminatory effect and places the burden on the jurisdiction to establish that the practice is not discriminatory. A request for preclearance of certain identified changes in election practices which fails to identify other practices as new ones thus cannot be considered an adequate submission of the latter practices. In this case, the 1971 submission failed to inform the Attorney General that the provisions of the 1971 amendment which merely re-codified various practices contained in the 1966 Act were themselves changes that might give rise to an inference of discrimination.
To the extent there was any ambiguity in the scope of the preclearance request, the structure and purpose of the preclearance requirement plainly counsel against resolving such ambiguities in favor of the submitting jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case. The preclearance process is by design a stringent one; it is predicated on the congressional finding that there is a risk that covered jurisdictions may attempt to circumvent the protections afforded by the Act; the burden of proof (the risk of nonpersuasion) is placed upon the covered jurisdiction; and submissions under the alternative preclearance method — adopted for the convenience of the covered jurisdictions while Congress recognized the inability of the Justice Department independently to monitor and to identify changes in election practices — should be carefully construed to protect the remedial aims of the Act. Moreover, the congressional assessment of the practical operation of the provision in the years since its adoption clearly indicates Congress’ continuing intent to guard against any diminution in the potency of the provision, and an intent to continue to insist upon submission of changes which had previously not been submitted. The broad scope given to the 1971 submission by the District Court, and its conclusion that submitting the 1971 amendment rendered the failure to pre-clear the 1966 Act moot, are inconsistent with the foregoing governing principles.
In summary, to the extent the judgment below may be interpreted as resting upon a factual finding that the Attorney General actually considered and approved the changes made by the 1966 Act in the course of the submission of the 1971 amendment, after reviewing the evidence ourselves we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” and we thus overturn that finding as clearly erroneous. The District Court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the lack of objection to the 1971 submission rendered the failure to preclear the 1966 Act moot.
Accordingly, we reverse the District Court’s judgment and remand to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun, Justice Powell, and Justice Rehnquist concur in the judgment..
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires certain States and political subdivisions to submit all changes in election practices to a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General of the United States. Covered jurisdictions may not implement any new election practices until the three-judge panel enters a declaratory judgment approving the changes or the Attorney General accepts the changes by either explicitly stating he does not object to them or by failing to interpose an objection within a prescribed time period. See infra, at 244-249.
App. 142-153.
See ibid.; see generally Blanding v. Dubose, 509 F. Supp. 1334, 1335 (SC 1981), rev’d, 454 U. S. 393 (1982).
It was authorized to buy or sell property, to exercise the powers of eminent domain, to make appropriations and levy taxes, to provide necessary county services, to receive and disburse funds, to incur indebtedness, to issue bonds, to prescribe methods of accounting for accounting officers, and to employ county employees. The 1966 Act required the Council to employ a county administrative officer who could not be a Council member. Act No. 55 of February 23, 1967, made employment of a county administrative officer permissive rather than mandatory.
Prior to the 1971 amendment, the 1966 Act had been amended in 1967 by Act No. 55 and in 1968 by Act No. 1318. App. 171-177. These earlier amendments apparently did not change any election practices and are not at issue in this case.
App. to Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae la-2a (letter of July 21, 1971).
Defendants’ Exhibit X, p. 1.
Id., at 1, 2.
Defendants’ Exhibit Y. It is not entirely clear that the entire text of the 1966 Act was provided to the Attorney General, but for our purposes we shall assume that the Attorney General was aware of the full text.
Defendants’ Exhibit Z.
The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, Pub. L. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437, and was amended and extended in 1970, Pub. L. 91-285, 84 Stat. 314, in 1975, Pub. L. 94-73, 89 Stat. 400, and in 1982, Pub. L. 97-205, 96 Stat. 131.
The current codification of § 5 is as follows:
Ҥ 1973c. Alteration of voting qualifications and procedures; action by state or political subdivision for declaratory judgment of no denial or abridgement of voting rights; three judge district court; appeal to Supreme Court
“Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the first sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the second sentence of'section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1968, or whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the third sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1972, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f )(2) of this title, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. Neither an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General’s failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. In the event the Attorney General affirmatively indicates that no objection will be made within the sixty-day period following receipt of a submission, the Attorney General may reserve the right to reexamine the submission if additional information comes to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period which would otherwise require objection in accordance with this section. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c.
Proposed guidelines were first published for comment in the Federal Register, 36 Fed. Reg. 9781 (1971), then were published in final form, 36 Fed. Reg. 18186 (1971), and have been codified since 1972, 28 CFR § 51.2(c) (1982).
See n. 11, supra.
The Committee Report also expresses concern with respect to the failure of jurisdictions to heed objections interposed by the Attorney General. Indeed, it cites the local officials’ response to the Attorney General’s 1976 objection to the Edgefield County at-large election system, see n. 30, infra, as an example of local defiance of § 5. H. R. Rep. No. 97-227, p. 13 (1981).
See 28 CFR pt. 55 (1982). The District Court expressly so found. See App. to Juris. Statement 6a.
The parties so stipulated. App. 131. See also App. to Juris. Statement 6a.
The only questions in an action alleging a violation of the § 5 preclearance requirement are (1) whether a change is covered by § 5, (2) if the change is covered, whether § 5’s approval requirements have been satisfied, and (3) if the requirements have not been satisfied, what relief is appropriate. Lockhart v. United States, 460 U. S. 125, 129, n. 3 (1983). The question whether the 1966 Act had a discriminatory purpose or effect is not an issue at this stage of the § 5 litigation: that question must be initially decided by the District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General. Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 383-385 (1971); Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 558-559 (1969). Nor is there any question that the Act was required to be submitted for preclearance — the parties have stipulated that submission was required
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In these cases, involving alleged damage to fishing grounds caused by discharges and ocean dumping of sewage and other waste, we are faced with questions concerning the availability of a damages remedy, based either on federal common law or on the provisions of two Acts — the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III), and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), 86 Stat. 1052, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1401 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III).
I
Respondents are an organization whose members harvest fish and shellfish off the coast of New York and New Jersey, and one individual member of that organization. In 1977, they brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against petitioners — various governmental entities and officials from New York, New Jersey, and the Federal Government. Their complaint alleged that sewage, sewage “sludge,” and other waste materials were being discharged into New York Harbor and the Hudson River by some of the petitioners. In addition it complained of the dumping of such materials directly into the ocean from maritime vessels. The complaint alleged that, as a result of these activities, the Atlantic Ocean was becoming polluted, and it made special reference to a massive growth of algae said to have appeared offshore in 1976. It then stated that this pollution was causing the “collapse of the fishing, clamming and lobster industries which operate in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean.”
Invoking a wide variety of legal theories, respondents sought injunctive and declaratory relief, $250 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages. The District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners on all counts of the complaint.
In holdings relevant here, the District Court rejected respondents’ nuisance claim under federal common law, see Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91 (1972), on the ground that such a cause of action is not available to private parties. With respect to the claims based on alleged violations of the FWPCA, the court noted that respondents had failed to comply with the 60-day notice requirement of the “citizen suit” provision in § 505 (b)(1)(A) of the Act, 86 Stat. 888, 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (b)(1)(A). This provision allows suits under the Act by private citizens, but authorizes only prospective relief, and the citizen plaintiffs first must give notice to the EPA, the State, and any alleged violator. Ibid. Because respondents did not give the requisite notice, the court refused to allow them to proceed with a claim under the Act independent of the citizen-suit provision and based on the general jurisdictional grant in 28 U. S. C. § 1331. The court applied the same analysis to respondents’ claims under the MPRSA, which contains similar citizen-suit and notice provisions. 33 U. S. C. § 1415 (g). Finally, the court rejected a possible claim of maritime tort, both because respondents had failed to plead such claim explicitly and because they had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the federal and state Tort Claims Acts.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed as to the claims based on the FWPCA, the MPRSA, the federal common law of nuisance, and maritime tort. Na tional Sea Clammers Assn. v. City of New York, 616 F. 2d 1222 (1980). With respect to the FWPCA, the court held that failure to comply with the 60-day notice provision in § 505 (b)(1)(A), 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (b)(1)(A), does not preclude suits under the Act in addition to the specific “citizen suits” authorized in § 505. It based this conclusion on the saving clause in § 505 (e), 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (e), preserving “any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any effluent standard or limitation or to seek any other relief.” 616 F. 2d, at 1226-1228; see n. 10, supra. The Court of Appeals then went on to apply our precedents in the area of implied statutory rights of action, and concluded that “Congress intended to permit the federal courts to entertain a private cause of action implied from the terms of the [FWPCA], preserved by the savings clause of the Act, on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals who have been or will be injured by pollution in violation of its terms.” 616, F. 2d, at 1230-1231.
The court then applied this same analysis to the MPRSA, concluding again that the District Court had erred in dismissing respondents’ claims under this Act. Although the court was not explicit on this question, it apparently concluded that suits for damages, as well as for injunctive relief, could be brought under the FWPCA and the MPRSA.
With respect to the federal common-law nuisance claims, the Court of Appeals rejected the District Court’s conclusion that private parties may not bring such claims. It also held, applying common-law principles, that respondents “alleged sufficient individual damage to permit them to recover damages for this essentially public nuisance.” Id., at 1234. It thus went considerably beyond Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91 (1972), which involved purely prospective relief sought by a state plaintiff.
Petitions for a writ of certiorari raising a variety of arguments were filed in this Court by a group of New Jersey sewerage authorities (No. 79-1711), by the Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties in New Jersey (No. 79-1754), by the City and Mayor of New York (No. 79-1760), and by all of the federal defendants named in this suit (No. 80-12). We granted these petitions, limiting review to three questions: (i) whether FWPCA and MPRSA imply a private right of action independent of their citizen-suit provisions, (ii) whether all federal common-law nuisance actions concerning ocean pollution now are pre-empted by the legislative scheme contained in the FWPCA and the MPRSA, and (iii) if not, whether a private citizen has standing to sue for damages under the federal common law of nuisance. We hold that there is no implied right of action under these statutes and that the federal common law of nuisance has been fully pre-empted in the area of ocean pollution.
II
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was first enacted in 1948. Act of June 30, 1948, 62 Stat. 1155. It emphasized state enforcement of water quality standards. When this legislation proved ineffective, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. The Amendments shifted the emphasis to “direct restrictions on discharges,” EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U. S. 200, 204 (1976), and made it “unlawful for any person to discharge a pollutant without obtaining a permit and complying with its terms,” id., at 205. While still allowing for state administration and enforcement under federally approved state plans, §§ 402 (b), (c), 33 U. S. C. §§ 1342 (b), (c), the Amendments created various federal minimum effluent standards, §§ 301-307, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311-1317.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052, sought to create comprehensive federal regulation of the dumping of materials into ocean waters near the United States coastline. Section 101 (a) of the Act requires a permit for any dumping into ocean waters, when the material is transported from the United States or on an American vessel or aircraft. 33 U. S. C. § 1411 (a). In addition, it requires a permit for the dumping of material transported from outside the United States into the territorial seas or in the zone extending 12 miles from the coastline, “to the extent that it may affect the territorial sea or the territory of the United States.” § 1411 (b).
The exact nature of respondents’ claims under these two Acts is not clear, but the claims appear to fall into two categories. The main contention is that the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have permitted the New Jersey and New York defendants to discharge and dump pollutants in amounts that are not permitted by the Acts. In addition, they seem to allege that the New York and New Jersey defendants have violated the terms of their permits. The question before us is whether respondents may raise either of these claims in a private suit for injunctive and monetary relief, where such a suit is not expressly authorized by either of these Acts.
A
It is unnecessary to discuss at length the principles set out in recent decisions concerning the recurring question whether Congress intended to create a private right of action under a federal statute without saying so explicitly. The key to the inquiry is the intent of the Legislature. Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U. S. 630, 639 (1981); California v. Sierra Club, 451 U. S. 287, 293 (1981); Universities Research Assn. v. Coutu, 450 U. S. 754, 770 (1981); Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11, 15 (1979); Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560, 568 (1979). We look first, of course, to the statutory language, particularly to the provisions made therein for enforcement and relief. Then we review the legislative history and other traditional aids of statutory interpretation to determine congressional intent.
These Acts contain unusually elaborate enforcement provisions, conferring authority to sue for this purpose both on government officials and private citizens. The FWPCA, for example, authorizes the EPA Administrator to respond to violations of the Act with compliance orders and civil suits. § 309, 33 U. S. C. § 1319. He may seek a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day, § 309 (d), 33 U. S. C. § 1319 (d), and criminal penalties also are available, § 309 (c), 33 U. S. C. § 1319 (c). States desiring to administer their own permit programs must demonstrate that state officials possess adequate authority to abate violations through civil or criminal penalties or other means of enforcement. §402 (b)(7), 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (b)(7). In addition, under § 509 (b), 33 U. S. C. § 1369 (b), “any interested person” may seek judicial review in the United States courts of appeals of various particular actions by the Administrator, including establishment of effluent standards and issuance of permits for discharge of pollutants. Where review could have been obtained under this provision, the action at issue may not be challenged in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding for enforcement. § 1369 (b)(2).
These enforcement mechanisms, most of which have their counterpart under the MPRSA, are supplemented by the express citizen-suit provisions in § 505 (a) of the FWPCA, 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (a), and § 105 (g) of the MPRSA, 33 U. S. C. § 1415 (g). See nn. 9, 11, supra. These citizen-suit provisions authorize private persons to sue for injunctions to enforce these statutes. Plaintiffs invoking these provisions first must comply with specified procedures — which respondents here ignored — including in most cases 60 days’ prior notice to potential defendants.
In view of these elaborate enforcement provisions it cannot be assumed that Congress intended to authorize by implication additional judicial remedies for private citizens suing under MPRSA and FWPCA. As we stated in Trans-america Mortgage Advisors, supra, “it is an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.” 444 U. S., at 19. See also Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, supra, at 571-574. In the absence of strong indicia of a contrary congressional intent, we are compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate.
As noted above, the Court of Appeals avoided this inference. Discussing the FWPCA, it held that the existence of a citizen-suit provision in § 505 (a) does not rule out implied forms of private enforcement of the Act. It arrived at this conclusion by asserting that Congress intended in § 505 (a) to create a limited cause of action for “private attorneys general” — “non-injured member[s] of the public” suing to promote the general welfare rather than to redress an injury to their own welfare. 616 F. 2d, at 1227. It went on to conclude:
“A private party who is injured by the alleged violation, as these plaintiffs allege they were, has an alternate basis for suit under section 505 (e), 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (e), and the general federal question jurisdiction of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (1976). Section 505 (e) is a savings clause that preserves all rights to enforce the Act or seek relief against the Administrator. Coupled with the general federal question jurisdiction it permits this suit to be brought by these parties.” Ibid. (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).
There are at least three problems with this reasoning. First, the language of the saving clause on which the Court of Appeals relied, see n. 10, supra, is quite ambiguous concerning the intent of Congress to “preserve” remedies under the FWPCA itself. It merely states that nothing in the citizen-suit provision “shall restrict any right which any person... may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any effluent standard or limitation or to seek any other relief.” It is doubtful that the phrase “any statute” includes the very statute in which this statement was contained.
Moreover, the reasoning on which the Court of Appeals relied is flawed for another reason. It draws a distinction between “non-injured” plaintiffs who may bring citizen suits to enforce provisions of these Acts, and the “injured” plaintiffs in this litigation who claim a right to sue under the Acts, not by virtue of the citizen-suit provisions, but rather under the language of the saving clauses. In fact, it is clear that the citizen-suit provisions apply only to persons who can claim some sort of injury and there is, therefore, no reason to infer the existence of a separate right of 'action for “injured” plaintiffs. “Citizen” is defined in the citizen-suit section of the FWPCA as “a person or persons having an interest which is or may be adversely affected.” § 505 (g), 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (g). It is clear from the. Senate Conference Report that this phrase was intended by Congress to allow suits by all persons possessing standing under this Court’s decision in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727 (1972). See S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1236, p. 146 (1972). This broad category of potential plaintiffs necessarily includes both plaintiffs seeking to enforce these statutes as private attorneys general, whose injuries are “noneconomic” and probably noncom-pensable, and persons like respondents who assert that they have suffered tangible economic injuries because of statutory violations.
Finally, the Court of Appeals failed to take account of the rest of the enforcement scheme expressly provided by Congress — including the opportunity for “any interested person” to seek judicial review of a number of EPA actions within 90 days, § 509 (b), 33 U. S. C. § 1369 (b). See supra, at 13-14.
The Court of Appeals also applied its reasoning to the MPRSA. But here again we are persuaded that Congress evidenced no intent to authorize by implication private remedies under these Acts apart from the expressly authorized citizen suits. The relevant provisions in the MPRSA are in many respects almost identical to those of the FWPCA. 33 U. S. C. § 1415 (g). Although they do not expressly limit citizen suits to those who have suffered some injury from a violation of the Act, we are not persuaded by this fact alone that Congress affirmatively intended to imply the existence of a parallel private remedy, after setting out expressly the manner in which private citizens can seek to enjoin violations.
In Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975), the Court identified several factors that are relevant to the question of implied private remedies. These include the legislative history. See ibid. (“Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one?”). This history does not lead to a contrary conclusion with respect to implied remedies under either Act. Indeed, the Report and debates provide affirmative support for the view that Congress intended the limitations imposed on citizen suits to apply to all private suits under these Acts. Thus, both the structure of the Acts and their legislative history lead us to conclude that Congress intended that private remedies in addition to those expressly provided should not be implied. Where, as here, Congress has made clear that implied private actions are not contemplated, the courts are not authorized to ignore this legislative judgment.
B
Although the parties have not suggested it, there remains a possible alternative source of express congressional authorization of private suits under these Acts. Last Term, in Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U. S. 1 (1980), the Court construed 42 U. S. C. § 1983 as authorizing suits to redress violations by state officials of rights created by federal statutes. Accordingly, it could be argued that respondents may sue the municipalities and sewerage boards among the petitioners under the FWPCA and MPRSA by virtue of a right of action created by § 1983.
It is appropriate to reach the question of the applicability of Maine v. Thiboutot to this setting, despite the failure of respondents to raise it here or below. This litigation began long before that decision. Moreover, if controlling, this argument would obviate the need to consider whether Congress intended to authorize private suits to enforce these particular federal statutes. The claim brought here arguably falls within the scope of Maine v. Thiboutot because it involves a suit by a private party claiming that a federal statute has been violated under color of state law, causing an injury. The Court, however, has recognized two exceptions to the application of § 1983 to statutory violations. In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1 (1981), we remanded certain claims for a determination (i) whether Congress had foreclosed private enforcement of that statute in the enactment itself, and (ii) whether the statute at issue there was the kind that created enforceable “rights” under § 1983. Id., at 28. In the present cases, because we find that Congress foreclosed a § 1983 remedy under these Acts, we need not reach the second question whether these Acts created “rights, privileges, or immunities” within the meaning of § 1983.
When the remedial devices provided in a particular Act are sufficiently comprehensive, they may suffice to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under § 1983. As Justice Stewart, who later joined the majority in Maine v. Thiboutot, stated in Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U. S. 600, 673, n. 2 (1979) (dissenting opinion), when “a state official is alleged to have violated a federal statute which provides its own comprehensive enforcement scheme, the requirements of that enforcement procedure may not be bypassed by bringing suit directly under § 1983.” As discussed above, the FWPCA and MPRSA do provide quite comprehensive enforcement mechanisms. It is hard to believe that Congress intended to preserve the § 1983 right of action when it created so many specific statutory remedies, including the two citizen-suit provisions. See Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Virginia State Water Control Board, 501 F. Supp. 821 (ED Va. 1980) (rejecting a § 1983 action under the FWPCA against the Chairman of a State Water Board, with reasoning based on the comprehensiveness of the remedies provided and the federalism concerns raised). We therefore conclude that the existence of these express remedies demonstrates not only that Congress intended to foreclose implied private actions but also that it intended to supplant any remedy that otherwise would be available under § 1983. Cf. Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14, 23 (1980).
Ill
The remaining two issues on which we granted certiorari relate to respondents’ federal claims based on the federal common law of nuisance. The principal precedent on which these claims were based is Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91 (1972), where the Court found that the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider the federal common-law issues raised by a suit for injunctive relief by the State of Illinois against various Wisconsin municipalities and public sewerage commissions, involving the discharge of sewage into Lake Michigan. In these cases, we need not decide whether a cause of action may be brought under federal common law by a private plaintiff, seeking damages. The Court has now held that the federal common law of nuisance in the area of water pollution is entirely pre-empted by the more comprehensive scope of the FWPCA, which was completely revised soon after the decision in Illinois v. Milwaukee. See Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304 (1981).
This decision disposes entirely of respondents' federal common-law claims, since there is no reason to suppose that the pre-emptive effect of the FWPCA is any less when pollution of coastal waters is at issue. To the extent that this litigation involves ocean waters not covered by the FWPCA, and regulated under the MPRSA, we see no cause for different treatment of the pre-emption question. The regulatory scheme of the MPRSA is no less comprehensive, with respect to ocean dumping, than are analogous provisions of the FWPCA.
We therefore must dismiss the federal common-law claims because their underlying legal basis is now pre-empted by statute. As discussed above, we also dismiss the claims under the MPRSA and the FWPCA because respondents lack a right of action under those statutes. We vacate the judgment below with respect to these two claims, and remand for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
The New York defendants were the New York Department of Environmental Conservation; Ogden R. Reid, individually and as Commissioner of that Department; the City of New York; Abraham Beame, Mayor of New York City; the West Long Beach Sewer District; the County of Westchester Department of Environmental Facilities; the city of Long Beach; and the city of Glen Cove.
The New Jersey defendants were the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; David J. Bardin, individually and as Commissioner of that Department; the Bergen County Sewer Authority; the Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties; the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners; the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority; the Linden-Roselle Sewerage Authority; and the Middletown Sewerage Authority.
The federal defendants were the Environmental Protection Agency; Russell E. Train, individually and as EPA Administrator; the Army Corps of Engineers; and Martin R. Hoffman, individually and as Secretary of the Army.
The complaint alleged that this growth of algae was caused by the discharges of sewage and “covered an area of the Atlantic Ocean ranging from approximately the southwest portion of Long Island, New York to a point approximately due east of Cape May, New Jersey, and extending from a few miles offshore to more than 20 miles out to sea,’ Complaint ¶ 35, App. 25a. Respondents’ brief in this Court states that when
“this massive algal bloom died, its residuals settled on the ocean floor, creating a condition of anoxia, or oxygen deficiency, in and about the water near the ocean’s floor. This condition resulted in the death and destruction of an enormous amount of marine life, particularly with respect to the shellfish and other ocean-bottom dwellers and other marine life unable to escape the blighted area.” Brief for Respondents 4.
Complaint ¶ 39, App. 26a.
Respondents based claims on the FWPCA; the MPRSA; federal common law; § 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U. S. C. § 407; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U. S. C. §4321 et seq.; New York and New Jersey environmental statutes; the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; 46 U. S. C. § 740; the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (b), 2671 et seq.; and state tort law.
The court previously had dismissed claims against the New York and New Jersey environmental protection agencies and their directors. These defendants are not among the petitioners in this Court.
The court’s judgment with respect to the pendent state-law claims was without prejudice.
Section 505, as set forth in 33 U. S. C. §1365, provides, in part:
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf—
“(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation, or
“(2) against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator.
“The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce such an effluent standard or limitation, or such an order, or to order the Administrator to perform such act or duty, as the case may be, and to apply any appropriate civil penalties under section 1319 (d) of this title.
“(b) No action may be commenced—
“(1) under subsection (a) (1) of this section—
“(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice of the alleged violation (i) to the Administrator, (ii) to the State in which the alleged violation occurs, and (iii) to any alleged violator of the standard, limitation, or order, or
“(B) if the Administrator or State has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a court of the United States, or a State to require compliance with the standard, limitation, or order, but in any such action in a court of the United States any citizen may intervene as a matter of right.
“(2) under subsection (a)(2) of this section prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice of such action to the Administrator, except that such action may be brought immediately after such notification in the case of an action under this section respecting a violation of sections 1316 and 1317 (a) of this title. Notice under this subsection shall be given in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation.”
The Administrator may intervene in any citizen suit. §505 (c)(2), 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (c)(2).
See n. 27, infra (legislative history emphasizing the limited forms of relief available under the Act).
In this opinion we refer to sections of the original FWPCA, added in the 1972 Amendments, with parallel citations to the United States Code.
In so holding the court rejected an argument that the notice requirement is inapplicable because of the “saving clause” in § 505 (e), which states:
“Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any effluent standard or limitation or to seek any other relief (including relief against the Administrator or a State agency).” 33 U. S. C. § 1365 (e).
The citizen-suit provision in the MPRSA provides in part:
“(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf to enjoin any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency (to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution), who is alleged to be in violation of any prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit established or issued by or under this subchap-ter..The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce such prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit, as the case may be.
“(2) No action may be commenced — •
“(A) prior to sixty days after notice of the violation has been given to the Administrator or to the Secretary, and to any alleged violator of the prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit; or
“ (B) if the Attorney General has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil action in a court of the United States to require compliance with the prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit; or
“(C) if the Administrator has commenced action to impose a penalty pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, or if the Administrator, or the Secretary, has initiated permit revocation or suspension proceedings under subsection (f) of this section; or
“(D) if the United States has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a criminal action in a court of the United States or a State to redress a violation of this subchapter.” 33 U. S. C. §§ 1415 (g) (1), (2).
The United States may intervene in any citizen suit brought under the Act. 33 U. S. C. § 1415 (g)(3)(B).
Like the FWPCA, the MPRSA contains a “saving clause,” which states:
“The injunctive relief provided by this subsection shall not restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any standard or limitation or to seek any other relief (including relief against the Administrator, the Secretary, or a State agency).” § 1415 (g)(5).
See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (b), 2671 et seq.; N. Y. Gen. Mun. Law §§ 50-e, 50 — i (McKinney 1977 and Supp. 1980-1981); N. J. Stat. Ann. §59:1-1 et seq. (West Supp. 1981-1982). The District Court noted that respondents had given timely notice to one defendant — New York City.
The petitions for certiorari in this Court raised questions concerning the applicability of state Tort Claims Acts and the Eleventh Amendment to tort suits in federal court. These questions are not, however, within the scope of the questions on which review was granted.
Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11 (1979); Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560 (1979); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 (1979); Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66 (1975).
After holding that there is an implied right of action under the FWPCA, the court stated:
“Having so held, we reject the federal government defendants’ sovereign immunity argument. The 1976 amendments to section 1331 of title 28 make clear that sovereign immunity has been waived in all suits by plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief against federal agencies or officers. Whether damages can be recovered from the federal government is a separate question to which the Federal Tort Claims Act speaks.” 616 F. 2d, at 1231 (footnote omitted).
This passage suggests that, as a general matter, the court had concluded that the statutory rights of action it was recognizing included damages relief. An additional indication is the fact that, by the time of the Court of Appeals decision, any relief other than damages could not have been too important to respondents. The algal bloom about which respondents complain died in 1976. The Court of Appeals decision was not handed down until 1980. Under the MPRSA, 33 U. S. C. § 1412a (a) (1976 ed., Supp. III), the EPA is required to end all ocean dumping of sewage sludge by December 31, 1981.
The court also held that respondents had offered allegations sufficient to make out a claim of maritime tort, cognizable under admiralty jurisdiction. 616 F. 2d, at 1236. It did not decide whether the Federal Tort Claims Act, with its various procedural requirements, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (b), 2671 et seq., applies to any of respondents’ federal-law claims against federal defendants, 616 F. 2d, at 1237, although it did hold that the Act precluded a "money damage recovery against federal agencies based on state law,” id., at 1236.
See n. 3, supra. Petitioners in Nos. 79-1711, 79-1754, and 80-12 also named the remaining petitioners as respondents, based on cross-claims filed in the District Court.
We therefore need not discuss the question whether the federal common law of nuisance could ever be the basis of a suit for damages by a private party.
The Act applies to discharges of pollutants from any source into navigable waters, including the “territorial seas,” 33 U. S. C. §§ 1362 (7), (12), and applies as well to discharges from sources “other than a vessel or other floating craft” into the “contiguous zone” and the high seas, §§ 1362 (9), (10), (12). See S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 75 (1971).
These permits are issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 33 U. S. C. § 1412, except in the case of dredged materials, which may be dumped under a permit issued by the Secretary of the Army, § 1413.
The Court of Appeals did state that the saving clause in § 505 (e) of the FWPCA “provides an independent remedy for injured parties unburdened by the notice requirements of section 505 (b).” 616 F. 2d, at 1227. But the court did not conclude that the saving clause is itself an express authorization of private damages suits. Instead, it held that the saving clause acted to preserve any existing right to enforce the Act, in addition to the explicit, citizen-suit remedy in § 505 (b). The court went
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 whether the introduction into evidence of a person’s business records, seized during a search of his offices, violates the Fifth Amendment’s command that “[n]o person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” We also must determine whether the particular searches and seizures here were “unreasonable” and thus violated the prohibition of the Fourth Amendment.
I
In early 1972, a Bi-County Fraud Unit, acting under the joint auspices of the State’s Attorneys’ Offices of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Md., began an investigation of real estate settlement activities in the Washington, D. C., area. At the time, petitioner Andre-sen was an attorney who, as a sole practitioner, specialized in real estate settlements in Montgomery County. During the Fraud Unit’s investigation, his activities came under scrutiny, particularly in connection with a transaction involving Lot 13T in the Potomac Woods subdivision of Montgomery County. The investigation, which included interviews with the purchaser, the mortgage holder, and other lienholders of Lot 13T, as well as an examination of county land records, disclosed that petitioner, acting as settlement attorney, had defrauded Standard-Young Associates, the purchaser of Lot 13T. Petitioner had represented that the property was free of liens and that, accordingly, no title insurance was necessary, when in fact, he knew that there were two outstanding liens on the property. In addition, investigators learned that the lienholders, by threatening to foreclose their liens, had forced a halt to the purchaser’s construction on the property. When Standard-Young had confronted petitioner with this information, he responded by issuing, as an agent of a title insurance company, a title policy guaranteeing clear title to the property. By this action, petitioner also defrauded that insurance company by requiring it to pay the outstanding liens.
The investigators, concluding that there was probable cause to believe that petitioner had committed the state crime of false pretenses, see Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 140 (1976), against Standard-Young, applied for warrants to search petitioner’s law office and the separate office of Mount Vernon Development Corporation, of which petitioner was incorporator, sole shareholder, resident agent, and director. The application sought permission to search for specified documents pertaining to the sale and conveyance of Lot 13T. A judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Montgomery County concluded that there was probable cause and issued the warrants.
The searches of the two offices were conducted simultaneously during daylight hours on October 31, 1972. Petitioner was present during the search of his law office and was free to move about. Counsel for him was present during the latter half of the search. Between 2% and 3% of the files in the office were seized. A single investigator, in the presence of a police officer, conducted the search of Mount Vernon Development Corporation. This search, taking about four hours, resulted in the seizure of less than 5% of the corporation’s files.
Petitioner eventually was charged, partly by information and partly by indictment, with the crime of false pretenses, based on his misrepresentation to Standard-Young concerning Lot 13T, and with fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary, based on similar false claims made to three home purchasers. Before trial began, petitioner moved to suppress the seized documents. The trial court held a full suppression hearing. At the hearing, the State returned to petitioner 45 of the 52 items taken from the offices of the corporation. The trial court suppressed six other corporation items on the ground that there was no connection between them and the crimes charged. The net result was that the only item seized from the corporation’s offices that was not returned by the State or suppressed was a single file labeled “Potomac Woods General.” In addition, the State returned to petitioner seven of the 28 items seized from his law office, and the trial court suppressed four other law office items based on its determination that there was no connection between them and the crime charged.
With respect to all the items not suppressed or returned, the trial court ruled that admitting them into evidence would not violate the Fifth and Fourth Amendments. It reasoned that the searches and seizures did not force petitioner to be a witness against himself because he had not been required to produce the seized documents, nor would he be compelled to authenticate them. Moreover, the search warrants were based on probable cause, and the documents not returned or suppressed were either directly related to Lot 13T, and therefore within the express language of the warrants, or properly seized and otherwise admissible to show a pattern of criminal conduct relevant to the charge concerning Lot 13T.
At trial, the State proved its case primarily by public land records and by records provided by the complaining purchasers, lienholders, and the title insurance company. It did introduce into evidence, however, a number of the seized items. Three documents from the “Potomac Woods General” file, seized during the search of petitioner's corporation, were admitted. These were notes in the handwriting of an employee who used them to prepare abstracts in the course of his duties as a title searcher and law clerk. The notes concerned deeds of trust affecting the Potomac Woods subdivision and related to the transaction involving Lot 13T. Five items seized from petitioner's law office were also admitted. One contained information relating to the transactions with one of the defrauded home buyers. The second was a file partially devoted to the Lot 13T transaction; among the documents were settlement statements, the deed conveying the property to Standard-Young Associates, and the original and a copy of a notice to the buyer about releases of liens. The third item was a file devoted exclusively to Lot 13T. The fourth item consisted of a copy of a deed of trust, dated March 27, 1972, from the seller of certain lots in the Potomac Woods subdivision to a lienholder. The fifth item contained drafts of documents and memoranda written in petitioner’s handwriting.
After a trial by jury, petitioner was found guilty upon five counts of false pretenses and three counts of fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary. He was sentenced to eight concurrent two-year prison terms.
On appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, four of the five false-pretenses counts were reversed because the indictment had failed to allege intent to defraud, a necessary element of the state offense. Only the count pertaining to Standard-Young’s purchase of Lot 13T remained. With respect to this count of false pretenses and the three counts of misappropriation by a fiduciary, the Court of Special Appeals rejected petitioner’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment Claims. Specifically, it held that the warrants were supported by probable cause, that they did not authorize a general search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the items admitted into evidence against petitioner at trial were within the scope of the warrants or were otherwise properly seized. It agreed with the trial court that the search had not violated petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights because petitioner had not been compelled to do anything. 24 Md. App. 128, 331 A. 2d 78 (1975).
We granted certiorari limited to the Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues. 423 U. S. 822 (1975).
II
The Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 8 (1964), provides that “[n]o person.,. shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” As the Court often has noted, the development of this protection was in part a response to certain historical practices, such as ecclesiastical inquisitions and the proceedings of the Star Chamber, “which placed a premium on compelling subjects of the investigation to admit guilt from their own lips.” Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 440 (1974). See generally L. Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment (1968). The “historic function” of the privilege has been to protect a “ ‘natural individual from compulsory incrimination through his own testimony or personal records.' ” Bellis v. United States, 417 U. S. 85, 89-90 (1974), quoting from United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, 701 (1944).
There is no question that the records seized from petitioner’s offices and introduced against him were incriminating. Moreover, it is undisputed that some of these business records contain statements made by petitioner. Cf. United States v. Mara, 410 U. S. 19, 21-22 (1973); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1 (1973); Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263, 266-267 (1967); United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967); and Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966). The question, therefore, is whether the seizure of these business records, and their admission into evidence at his trial, compelled petitioner to testify against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This question may be said to have been reserved in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 302-303 (1967), and it was adverted to in United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 441 n. 3 (1976).
Petitioner contends that “the Fifth Amendment prohibition against compulsory self-incrimination applies as well to personal business papers seized from his offices as it does to the same papers being required to be produced under a subpoena.” Brief for Petitioner 9. He bases his argument, naturally, on dicta in a number of cases which imply, or state, that the search for and seizure of a person's private papers violate the privilege against self-incrimination. Thus, in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 633 (1886), the Court said: “[W]e have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself.” And in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 76 (1906), it was observed that “the substance of the offense is the compulsory production of private papers, whether under a search warrant or a subpoena duces tecum, against which the person... is entitled to protection.”
We do not agree, however, that these broad statements compel suppression of this petitioner’s business records as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. In the very recent case of Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391 (1976), the Court held that an attorney’s production, pursuant to a lawful summons, of his client’s tax records in his hands did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege of the taxpayer “because enforcement against a taxpayer’s lawyer would not ‘compel’ the taxpayer to do anything — and certainly would not compel him to be a ‘witness’ against himself.” Id., at 397. We recognized that the continued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court’s earlier cases had been discredited by later opinions. Id., at 407-409. In those earlier cases, the legal predicate for the inadmissibility of the evidence seized was a violation of the Fourth Amendment; the unlawfulness of the.search and seizure was thought to supply the compulsion of the accused necessary to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Compulsion of the accused was also absent in Couch v. United States, 409 TJ. S. 322 (1973), where the Court held that a summons served on a taxpayer’s accountant requiring him to produce the taxpayer’s personal business records in his possession did not violate the taxpayer’s Fifth Amendment rights.
Similarly, in this case, petitioner was not asked to say or to do anything. The records seized contained statements that petitioner had voluntarily committed to writing. The search for and seizure of these records were conducted by law enforcement personnel. Finally, when these records were introduced at trial, they were authenticated by a handwriting expert, not by petitioner. Any compulsion of petitioner to speak, other than the inherent psychological pressure to respond at trial to unfavorable evidence, was not present.
This case thus falls within the principle stated by Mr. Justice Holmes: “A party is privileged from producing the evidence but not from its production.” Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457, 458 (1913). This principle recognizes that the protection afforded by the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment “adheres basically to the person, not to information that may incriminate him.” Couch v. United States, 409 U. S., at 328. Thus, although the Fifth Amendment may protect an individual from complying with a subpoena for the production of his personal records in his possession because the very act of production may constitute a compulsory authentication of incriminating information, see Fisher v. United States, supra, a seizure of the same materials by law enforcement officers differs in a crucial respect — the individual against whom the search is directed is not required to aid in the discovery, production, or authentication of incriminating evidence.
A contrary determination that the seizure of a person’s business records and their introduction into evidence at a criminal trial violates the Fifth Amendment, would undermine the principles announced in earlier cases. Nearly a half century ago, in Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192 (1927), the Court upheld, against both Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, the admission into evidence of business records seized during a search of the accused’s illegal liquor business. And in Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217 (1960), the Court again upheld, against both Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, the introduction into evidence at an espionage trial of false identity papers and a coded message seized during a search of the accused’s hotel room. These cases recognize a general rule: "There is no special sanctity in papers, as distinguished from other forms of property, to render them immune from search and seizure, if only they fall within the scope of the principles of the cases in which other property may be seized, and if they be adequately described in the affidavit and warrant.” Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 309 (1921).
Moreover, a contrary determination would prohibit the admission of evidence traditionally used in criminal cases and traditionally admissible despite the Fifth Amendment. For example, it would bar the admission of an accused’s gambling records in a prosecution for gambling; a note given temporarily to a bank teller during a robbery and subsequently seized in the accused's automobile or home in a prosecution for bank robbery; and incriminating notes prepared, but not sent, by an accused in a kidnaping or blackmail prosecution.
We find a useful analogy to the Fifth Amendment question in those cases that deal with the “seizure” of oral communications. As the Court has explained, “‘[t]he constitutional privilege against self-incrimination... is designed to prevent the use of legal process to force from the lips of the accused individual the evidence necessary to convict him or to force him to produce and authenticate any personal documents or effects that might incriminate him.' ” Bellis v. United States, 417 U. S., at 88, quoting United States v. White, 322 U. S., at 698. The significant aspect of this principle was apparent and applied in Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293 (1966), where the Court rejected the contention that an informant's “seizure” of the accused’s conversation with him, and his subsequent testimony at trial concerning that conversation, violated the Fifth Amendment. The rationale was that, although the accused’s statements may have been elicited by the informant for the purpose of gathering evidence against him, they were made voluntarily. We see no reasoned distinction to be made between the compulsion upon the accused in that case and the compulsion in this one. In each, the communication, whether oral or written, was made voluntarily. The fact that seizure was contemporaneous with the communication in Hoffa but subsequent to the communication here does not affect the question whether the accused was compelled to speak.
Finally, we do not believe that permitting the introduction into evidence of a person’s business records seized during an otherwise lawful search would offend or undermine any of the policies undergirding the privilege. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 55 (1964).
In this case, petitioner, at the time he recorded his communication, at the time of the search, and at the time the records were admitted at trial, was not subjected to “the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.” Ibid. Indeed, he was never required to say or to do anything under penalty of sanction. Similarly, permitting the admission of the records in question does not convert our accusatorial system of justice into an inquisitorial system. “The requirement of specific charges, their proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the protection of the accused from confessions extorted through whatever form of police pressures, the right to a prompt hearing before a magistrate, the right to assistance of counsel, to be supplied by government when circumstances make it necessary, the duty to advise an accused of his constitutional rights — these are all characteristics of the ac-cusatorial system and manifestations of its demands.” Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 54 (1949). None of these attributes is endangered by the introduction of business records “independently secured through skillful investigation.” Ibid. Further, the search for and seizure of business records pose no danger greater than that inherent in every search that evidence will be “elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses.” 378 U. S., at 55. In this case, the statements seized were voluntarily committed to paper before the police arrived to search for them, and petitioner was not treated discourteously during the search. Also, the “good cause” to “disturb,” ibid., petitioner was independently determined by the judge who issued the warrants; and the State bore the burden of executing them. Finally, there is no chance, in this case, of petitioner’s statements being self-deprecatory and untrustworthy because they were extracted from him — they were already in existence and had been made voluntarily.
We recognize, of course, that the Fifth Amendment protects privacy to some extent. However, “the Court has never suggested that every invasion of privacy violates the privilege.” Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S., at 399. Indeed, we recently held that unless incriminating testimony is “compelled,” any invasion of privacy is outside the scope of the Fifth Amendment’s protection, saying that “the Fifth Amendment protects against ‘compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure of] private information.’ ” Id., at 401. Here, as we have already noted, petitioner was not compelled to testify in any manner.
Accordingly, we hold that the search of an individual’s office for business records, their seizure, and subsequent introduction into evidence do not offend the Fifth Amendment’s proscription that “[n]o person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Ill
We turn next to petitioner’s contention that rights guaranteed him by the Fourth Amendment were violated because the descriptive terms of the search warrants were so broad as to make them impermissible “general” warrants, and because certain items were seized in violation of the principles of Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967).
The specificity of the search warrants. Although petitioner concedes that the warrants for the most part were models of particularity, Brief for Petitioner 28, he contends that they were rendered fatally “general” by the addition, in each warrant, to the exhaustive list of particularly described documents, of the phrase “together with other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this [time] unknown.” App. A. 95-A. 96, A. 115. The quoted language, it is argued, must be read in isolation and without reference to the rest of the long sentence at the end of which it appears. When read “properly/’ petitioner contends, it permits the search for and seizure of any evidence of any crime.
General warrants, of course, are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. “[T]he problem [posed by the general warrant] is not that of intrusion per se, but of a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.... [The Fourth Amendment addresses the problem] by requiring a 'particular description’ of the things to be seized.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 467 (1971). This requirement '"makes general searches... impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.’ ” Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476, 485 (1965), quoting Marron v. United States, 275 U. S., at 196.
In this case we agree with the determination of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland that the challenged phrase must be read as authorizing only the search for and seizure of evidence relating to “the crime of false pretenses with respect to Lot 13T.” 24 Md. App., at 167, 331 A. 2d, at 103. The challenged phrase is not a separate sentence. Instead, it appears in each warrant at the end of a sentence containing a lengthy list of specified and particular items to be seized, all pertaining to Lot 13T. We think it clear from the context that the term “crime” in the warrants refers only to the crime of false pretenses with respect to the sale of Lot 13T. The “other fruits” clause is one of a series that follows the colon after the word “Maryland.” All clauses in the series are limited by what precedes that colon, namely, “items pertaining to... lot 13, block T.” The warrants, accordingly, did not authorize the executing officers to conduct a search for evidence of other crimes but only to search for and seize evidence relevant to the crime of false pretenses and Lot 13T.
The admissibility of certain items of evidence in light of Warden v. Hayden. Petitioner charges that the seizure of documents pertaining to' a lot other than Lot 13T violated the principles of Warden v. Hayden and therefore should have been suppressed. His objection appears to be that these papers were not relevant to the Lot 13T charge and were admissible only to prove another crime with which he was charged after the search. The fact that these documents were used to help form the evidentiary basis for another charge, it is argued, shows that the documents were seized solely for that purpose.
The State replies that Warden v. Hayden was not violated and that this is so because the challenged evidence is relevant to the question whether petitioner committed the crime of false pretenses with respect to Lot 13T. In Maryland, the crime is committed when a person makes a false representation of a past or existing fact, with intent to defraud and knowledge of its falsity, and obtains any chattel, money, or valuable security from another, who relies on the false representation to his detriment. Polisher v. State, 11 Md. App. 555, 560, 276 A. 2d 102, 104 (1971). Thus, the State is required to prove intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt. The State consequently argues that the documents pertaining to another lot in the Potomac Woods subdivision demonstrate that the misrepresentation with respect to Lot 13T was not the result of mistake on the part of petitioner.
In Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S., at 307, the Court stated that when the police seize “ ‘mere evidence,’ probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction. In so doing, consideration of police purposes will be required.” In this case, we conclude that the trained special investigators reasonably could have believed that the evidence specifically dealing with another lot in the Potomac Woods subdivision could be used to show petitioner’s intent with respect to the Lot 13T transaction.
The Court has often recognized that proof of similar acts is admissible to show intent or the absence of mistake. In Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U. S. 613 (1949), for example, a case involving a scheme of fraudulent conduct, it was said:
“The evidence showed the presentation of eleven other false invoices.... The trial court also admitted it at the conclusion of the case ‘for the sole purpose of proving guilty intent, motive, or guilty knowledge’ of the defendants. Evidence that similar and related offenses were committed in this period tended to show a consistent pattern of conduct highly relevant to the issue of intent.” Id., at 618.
In the present case, when the special investigators secured the search warrants, they had been informed of a number of similar charges against petitioner arising out of Potomac Woods transactions. And, by reading numerous documents and records supplied by the Lot 13T and other complainants, and by interviewing witnesses, they had become familiar with petitioner's method of operation. Accordingly, the relevance of documents pertaining specifically to a lot other than Lot 13T, and their admissibility to show the Lot 13T offense, would have been apparent. Lot 13T and the other lot had numerous features in common. Both were in the same section of the Potomac Woods subdivision; both had been owned by the same person; and transactions concerning both had been handled extensively by petitioner. Most important was the fact that there were two deeds of trust in which both lots were listed as collateral. Unreleased liens respecting both lots were evidenced by these deeds of trusts. Petitioner’s transactions relating to the other lot, subject to the same liens as Lot 13T, therefore, were highly relevant to the question whether his failure to deliver title to Lot 13T free of all encumbrances was mere inadvertence. Although these records subsequently were used to secure additional charges against petitioner, suppression of this evidence in this case was not required. The fact that the records could be used to show intent to defraud with respect to Lot 13T permitted the seizure and satisfied the requirements of Warden v. Hayden.
The judgment of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Before these search warrants were executed, the Bi-County Fraud Unit had also received complaints concerning other Potomac Woods real estate transactions conducted by petitioner. The gist of the complaints was that petitioner, as settlement attorney, took money from three sets of home purchasers upon assurances that he would use it to procure titles to their properties free and clear of all encumbrances. It was'charged that he had misappropriated the money so that they had not received clear title to the properties as promised.
It is established that the privilege against self-incrimination may not be invoked with respect to corporate records. Bellis v. United States, 417 U. S. 85, 88-89 (1974); Grant v. United States, 227 U. S. 74 (1913); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 70 (1906). It appears, however, that the records seized at the corporation’s office were really not corporate records, but were records generated by petitioner’s practice as a real estate lawyer. United States Appendix of Exhibits 1-3.
This item was introduced as proof that petitioner failed to pay recording taxes, a charge that was abandoned before the ease was submitted to the jury.
The Solicitor General, in an amicus brief filed with this Court, has suggested that the evidence forming the basis of two of the counts of misappropriation by a fiduciary, which were upheld on appeal, was obtained entirely from sources other than petitioner’s offices. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12-14, 24-25, n. 17. This fact, if true, does not, of course, affect our jurisdiction but it would permit us to apply the discretionary concurrent-sentence doctrine, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 791 (1969), and thereby decline to consider petitioner’s constitutional claims. Barnes v. United States, 412 U. S. 837, 848 n. 16 (1973).
Both the trial and appellate courts in this case recognized the conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals over whether documentary evidence not obtainable by means of a subpoena or a summons may be obtained by means of a search warrant. Thus, in Hill v. Philpott, 445 F. 2d 144 (CA7), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 991 (1971), the Court of Appeals held that evidence not obtainable by means of a subpoena could not be seized by means of a search warrant. The substantial majority position is of the opposite view. Shaffer v. Wilson, 523 F. 2d 175 (CA10 1975), cert. pending, No. 75-601; United States v. Murray, 492 F. 2d 178, 191 (CA9 1973); Taylor v. Minnesota, 466 F. 2d 1119 (CA8 1972), cert. denied, 410 U. S. 956 (1973); United States v. Blank, 459 F. 2d 383 (CA6), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 887 (1972); United States v. Scharfman, 448 F. 2d 1352 (CA2 1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 919 (1972); United States v. Bennett, 409 F. 2d 888, 896 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Jessup v. United States, 396 U. S. 852 (1969). The majority position accords with the views of Wigmore. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence §2264, p. 380 (McNaughton Rev. 1961).
The Court of Special Appeals adopted the majority position and, therefore, upheld the admission of the records into evidence.
In Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), for example, it was held that the Government could not, consistently with the Fourth Amendment, obtain “mere evidence” from the accused; accordingly, a subpoena seeking “mere evidence” constituted compulsion of the accused against which he could invoke the Fifth Amendment, The “mere evidence” rule was overturned in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 301-302 (1967).
The “convergence theory” of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is also illustrated by Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20 (1925), where the seizure of contraband pursuant to a search hot incident to arrest and otherwise unlawful in violation of the Fourth Amendment was held to permit the accused to invoke the Fifth Amendment when the Government sought to introduce this evidence in a criminal proceeding against him.
Petitioner relies on the statement in Couch that “possession bears the closest relationship to the personal compulsion forbidden by the Fifth Amendment,” 409 U. S., at 331, in support of his argument that possession of incriminating evidence itself supplies the predicate for invocation of the privilege. Couch, of course, was concerned with the production of documents pursuant to a summons directed to the accountant where there might have been a possibility of compulsory self-incrimination by the principal’s implicit or explicit “testimony” that the documents were those identified in the summons. The risk of authentication is not present where the documents are seized pursuant to a search warrant.
“The privilege against self-incrimination... reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations: our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; our preference for an accusa-torial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; our sense of fair play which dictates 'a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government to leave the individual alone until good cause is shown for disturbing him and by requiring the government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load’... ; our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual ‘to a private enclave where he may lead a private life’... ; our distrust of self-deprecatory statements; and our realization that the privilege, while sometimes 'a shelter to the guilty,’ is often ‘a protection to the innocent.’ ”
Petitioner also contends that the affidavits do not establish probable cause and that the failure of the State formally to introduce the warrants into evidence violated his constitutional rights. These contentions may be disposed of summarily.
The bases of petitioner’s argument that the affidavits failed to establish probable cause are two: The affidavits, in violation of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), did not establish the reliability of the information or the credibility of the informants; and the information on which they were based was so stale that there was no reason to believe that the documents sought were still in petitioner’s possession.
The affidavits clearly establish the reliability of the information related and the credibility of its sources. The complainants are named, their positions are described, and their transactions with petitioner are related in a comprehensive fashion. In addition, the special-agent affiants aver that they have verified, at least in part, the complainants’ charges by examining their correspondence with petitioner, numerous documents reflecting the transactions, and public land records. Copies of many of these records and documents are attached to the affidavits; others are described in detail. Finally, the agents aver that they have interviewed, with positive results, other persons involved in the real estate transactions that were the object of the investigation. Rarely have we seen warrant-supporting affidavits so complete and so thorough. Petitioner’s probable-cause argument is without merit. See United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 (1965).
It is also argued that there was a three-month delay between the completion of the transactions on which the warrants were based, and the ensuing searches, and that this time lapse precluded a determination that there was probable cause to believe that petitioner’s offices contained evidence of the crime. This contention is belied by the particular facts of the case. The business records sought were prepared in the ordinary course of petitioner’s business in his law office or that of his real estate corporation. It is eminently reasonable to expect that such records would be maintained in those offices for a period of time and surely as long as the three months required for the investigation of a complex real estate scheme. In addition, special investigators knew that petitioner had secured a release on Lot 13T with respect to one lien-holder only three weeks before the searches and that another lien remained to be released. All this, when considered with other information demonstrating that Potomac Woods was still a current concern of petitioner, amply supports the belief that petitioner retained the sought-for records.
The final contention is that under Bumper v. North Garolina, 391 U. S. 543, 550 n. 15 (1968), the failure of the prosecution formally to introduce the warrants into evidence precludes the State from relying upon them to justify the searches. We reject the argument for two reasons. First, it appears that petitioner based this claim of error solely on state grounds in the Court of Special Appeals. Second, even if the claim is properly before us, it fails. Both the State and the petitioner referred to and extensively discussed the language and terms of the warrants during the suppression hearing, and the trial judge, in deciding the motion to suppress, made numerous references to the warrants. The
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether conspiracies by outside hoodlums to assault Negroes for exercising their right to equality in public accommodations under § 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a, are subject only to a civil suit for an injunction as provided in § 204 of that Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-3, or whether they are also subject to criminal prosecution under 18 U. S. C. § 241, which provides fine and imprisonment for a conspiracy “to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . .
The indictment charged a conspiracy to injure and intimidate three Negroes in the exercise of their right to patronize a restaurant. The defendants, who were outsiders, not connected with the restaurant, are charged with having used violence against these Negroes for having received service at the restaurant, the purpose of the conspiracy being in part “to discourage them and other Negro citizens from seeking service” there “on the same basis as white citizens.”
The facts are’ not developed because the District Court granted a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 207 (b) of the Act makes the provision for relief by injunction the exclusive remedy under the Act. The case is here on appeal. 18 U. S. C. § 3731. We noted probable jurisdiction. 389 U. S. 910.
The legislative history contains language which to the District Court seemed to preclude remedy by indictment. Senator Humphrey, floor manager of the bill, explained § 207 (b):
“This would mean, for example, that a proprietor who, in the first instance, legitimately — but erroneously — believes his establishment is not covered by section 201 or 202 need not fear a jail sentence or a damage action if his judgment as to coverage of title II is wrong.” 110 Cong. Rec. 9767.
Senator Young agreed:
“The enforcement provisions of title II are based on the specific prohibition in section 203 against denying or interfering with the right to the nondiscriminatory use of facilities covered by the title. In case of a violation, the aggrieved person would be able to sue for an injunction to end the denial or interference. . . . The prohibitions of title II would be enforced only by civil suits for an injunction. Neither criminal penalties nor the recovery of money damages would be involved.” 110 Cong. Rec. 7384.
Senator Magnuson added:
“Moreover, in every case, a judicial determination of coverage must be made prior to the entry of any order requiring the owner to stop discrimination. Thus, no one would become subject to any contempt sanctions — the only sanctions provided for in the act, until after it has been judicially determined that his establishment is subject to the act and he has been ordered by the Court to end this discrimination, and he has violated that Court order.” 110 Cong. Rec. 7405.
That legislative history makes clear that the “proprietor” or “owner” is not to be subjected to criminal liability, where he has not had a chance to litigate whether his facilities are subject to the Act. But no proprietor or owner is here involved. Outside hoodlums are charged with the conspiracy; and the history of federal law, as applicable to them, is clear. 18 U. S. C. § 241 is derived from the Enforcement Act of 1870, § 6, 16 Stat. 141, and, as noted, protects the citizen “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” The right to service in a restaurant is such a “right,” at least by virtue of the 1964 Act. We said in United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 801, in reference to 18 U. S. C. § 241, “We think that history leaves no doubt that, if we are to give § 241 the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.”
We have over the years given protection to many federal rights under § 241. We refuse to believe that hoodlums operating in the fashion of the Ku Klux Klan, were given protection by the 1964 Act for violating those “rights” of the citizen that § 241 was designed to protect.
Immediately after the provision in § 207 (b) stating that the remedies provided “shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title,” is a further provision stating that “nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title ... or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.” There is, therefore, within the four corners of § 207 (b) evidence that it was not designed as pre-empting every other mode of protecting a federal “right” or as granting immunity to those who had long been subject to the regime of § 241.
It is, of course, true that § 203 (b) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a-2 (b), bars the use of violence against those who assert their rights under the Act, and that therefore a remedy by way of an injunction could be obtained by the party aggrieved under § 204 (a). A like remedy is available to the Attorney General by reason of § 206 (a). But as we read the Act, the exclusive-remedy provision of § 207 (b) was inserted only to make clear that the substantive rights to public accommodation defined in § 201 and § 202 are to be enforced exclusively by injunction. Proprietors and owners are not to be prosecuted criminally for mere refusal to serve Negroes. But the Act does not purport to deal with outsiders; nor can we imagine that Congress desired to give them a brand new immunity from prosecution under 18 U. S. C. § 241 — a statute that encompasses “all of the rights and privileges secured to citizens by all of the Constitution and all of the laws of the United States.” United States v. Price, supra, at 800.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 207 (b) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §2000a-6 (b), provides:
“The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.”
See, e. g., United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299 (the right to vote); United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745 (right to travel); United States v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76 (the right to perfect a homestead); Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263 (the right to be free of violence while in the custody of a federal marshal); United States v. Mason, 213 U. S. 115 (the right of federal officers to perform their duties); United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787 (Fourteenth Amendment rights).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner James Olden and his friend Charlie Ray Harris, both of whom are black, were indicted for kidnaping, rape, and forcible sodomy. The victim of the alleged crimes, Starla Matthews, a young white woman, gave the following account at trial: She and a friend, Regina Patton, had driven to Princeton, Kentucky, to exchange Christmas gifts with Bill Russell, petitioner’s half brother. After meeting Russell at a local car wash and exchanging presents with him, Matthews and Patton stopped in J.R.’s, a “boot-legging joint” serving a predominantly black clientele, to use the restroom. Matthews consumed several glasses of beer. As the bar became more crowded, she became increasingly nervous because she and Patton were the only white people there. When Patton refused to leave, Matthews sat at a separate table, hoping to demonstrate to her friend that she was upset. As time passed, however, Matthews lost track of Patton and became somewhat intoxicated. When petitioner told her that Patton had departed and had been in a car accident, she left the bar with petitioner and Harris to find out what had happened. She was driven in Harris’ car to another location, where, threatening her with a knife, petitioner raped and sodomized her. Harris assisted by holding her arms. Later, she was driven to a dump, where two other men joined the group. There, petitioner raped her once again. At her request, the men then dropped her off in the vicinity of Bill Russell’s house.
On cross-examination, petitioner’s counsel focused on a number of inconsistencies in Matthews’ various accounts of the alleged crime. Matthews originally told the police that she had been raped by four men. Later, she claimed that she had been raped by only petitioner and Harris. At trial, she contended that petitioner was the sole rapist. Further, while Matthews testified at trial that petitioner had threatened her with a knife, she had not previously alleged that petitioner had been armed.
Russell, who also appeared as a State’s witness, testified that on the evening in question he heard a noise outside his home and, when he went out to investigate, saw Matthews get out of Harris’ car. Matthews immediately told Russell that she had just been raped by petitioner and Harris.
Petitioner and Harris asserted a defense of consent. According to their testimony, Matthews propositioned petitioner as he was about to leave the bar, and the two engaged in sexual acts behind the tavern. Afterwards, on Matthews’ suggestion, Matthews, petitioner, and Harris left in Harris’ car in search of cocaine. When they discovered that the seller was not at home, Matthews asked Harris to drive to a local dump so that she and petitioner could have sex once again. Harris complied. Later that evening, they picked up two other men, Richard Hickey and Chris Taylor, and drove to an establishment called The Alley. Harris, Taylor, and Hickey went in, leaving petitioner and Matthews in the ear. When Hickey and Harris returned, the men gave Hickey a ride to a store and then dropped Matthews off, at her request, in the vicinity of Bill Russell’s home.
Taylor and Hickey testified for the defense and corroborated the defendants’ account of the evening. While both acknowledged that they joined the group later than the time when the alleged rape occurred, both testified that Matthews did not appear upset. Hickey further testified that Matthews had approached him earlier in the evening at J.R.’s and told him that she was looking for a black man with whom to have sex. An independent witness also appeared for the defense and testified that he had seen Matthews, Harris, and petitioner at a store called Big O’s on the evening in question, that a policeman was in the store at the time, and that Matthews, who appeared alert, made no attempt to signal for assistance.
Although Matthews and Russell were both married to and living with other people at the time of the incident, they were apparently involved in an extramarital relationship. By the time of trial the two were living together, having separated from their respective spouses. Petitioner’s theory of the case was that Matthews concocted the rape story to protect her relationship with Russell, who would have grown suspicious upon seeing her disembark from Harris’ car. In order to demonstrate Matthews’ motive to lie, it was crucial, petitioner contended, that he be allowed to introduce evidence of Matthews’ and Russell’s current cohabitation. Over petitioner’s vehement objections, the trial court nonetheless granted the prosecutor’s motion in limine to keep all evidence of Matthews’ and Russell’s living arrangement from the jury. Moreover, when the defense attempted to cross-examine Matthews about her living arrangements, after she had claimed during direct examination that she was living with her mother, the trial court sustained the prosecutor’s objection.
Based on the evidence admitted at trial, the jury acquitted Harris of being either a principal or an accomplice to any of the charged offenses. Petitioner was likewise acquitted of kidnaping and rape. However, in a somewhat puzzling turn of events, the jury convicted petitioner alone of forcible sodomy. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Petitioner appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the trial court’s refusal to allow him to impeach Matthews’ testimony by introducing evidence supporting a motive to lie deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. The Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. No. 86-CR-006 (May 11, 1988). The court specifically held that evidence that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of trial was not barred by the State’s rape shield law. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §510.145 (Michie 1985). Moreover, it acknowledged that the evidence in question was relevant to petitioner’s theory of the case. But it held, nonetheless, that the evidence was properly excluded as “its probative value [was] outweighed by its possibility for prejudice.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A6. By way of explanation, the court stated: “[T]here were the undisputed facts of race; Matthews was white and Russell was black. For the trial court to have admitted into evidence testimony that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of the trial may have created extreme prejudice against Matthews.” Judge Clayton, who dissented but did not address the evidentiary issue, would have reversed petitioner’s conviction both because he believed the jury’s verdicts were “manifestly inconsistent,” and because he found Matthews’ testimony too incredible to provide evidence sufficient to uphold the verdict. Id., at A7.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals failed to accord proper weight to petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him. ” That right, incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore available in state proceedings, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 (1965), includes the right to conduct reasonable cross-examination. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308, 315-316 (1974).
In Davis v. Alaska, we observed that, subject to “the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation . . . , the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i. e., discredit, the witness.” Id., at 316. We emphasized that “the exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.” Id., at 316-317, citing Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 496 (1959). Recently, in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673 (1986), we reaffirmed Davis, and held that “a criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby ‘to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors . . . could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.’” 475 U. S., at 680, quoting Davis, supra, at 318.
In the instant case, petitioner has consistently asserted that he and Matthews engaged in consensual sexual acts and that Matthews — out of fear of jeopardizing her relationship with Russell — lied when she told Russell she had been raped and has continued to lie since. It is plain to us that “[a] reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of [the witness’] credibility had [defense counsel] been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra, at 680.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals did not dispute, and indeed acknowledged, the relevance of the impeachment evidence. Nonetheless, without acknowledging the significance of, or even adverting to, petitioner’s constitutional right to confrontation, the court held that petitioner’s right to effective cross-examination was outweighed by the danger that revealing Matthews’ interracial relationship would prejudice the jury against her. While a trial court may, of course, impose reasonable limits on defense counsel’s inquiry into the potential bias of a prosecution witness, to take account of such factors as “harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that [would be] repetitive or only marginally relevant,” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra, at 679, the limitation here was beyond reason. Speculation as to the effect of jurors’ racial biases cannot justify exclusion of cross-examination with such strong potential to demonstrate the falsity of Matthews’ testimony.
In Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra, we held that “the constitutionally improper denial of a defendant’s opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to Chapman [v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967)] harmless-error analysis.” Id., at 684. Thus we stated:
“The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Ibid.
Here, Matthews’ testimony was central, indeed crucial, to the prosecution’s case. Her story, which was directly contradicted by that of petitioner and Harris, was corroborated only by the largely derivative testimony of Russell, whose impartiality would also have been somewhat impugned by revelation of his relationship with Matthews. Finally, as demonstrated graphically by the jury’s verdicts, which cannot be squared with the State’s theory of the alleged crime, and by Judge Clayton’s dissenting opinion below, the State’s case against petitioner was far from overwhelming. In sum, considering the relevant Van Arsdall factors within the context of this case, we find it impossible to conclude “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the restriction on petitioner’s right to confrontation was harmless.
The motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, the judgment of the Kentucky Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Under the New Jersey homicide statutes, some murders are of the first degree; the rest are of the second degree. Juries rendering guilty murder verdicts are to designate whether the murder was a first- or second-degree crime. The mandatory punishment, to be imposed by the judge, for those convicted by a jury of first-degree murder is life imprisonment; second-degree murder is punished by a term of not more than 30 years. Trials to the court in murder cases are not permitted, and guilty pleas to murder indictments are forbidden. Pleas of non vult or nolo contendere, however, are allowed. “If such plea be accepted,” the punishment “shall be either imprisonment for life or the same as that imposed upon a conviction of murder in the second degree.” The judge entertaining the plea determines that there is a factual basis for conviction but need not decide whether the murder is first or second degree.
Appellant Corbitt, after pleading not guilty to a murder indictment, was convicted of committing murder in the course of an arson — a felony murder and one of the first-degree homicides. He was sentenced to the mandatory punishment of life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the New Jersey appellate courts. The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected his contention that because defendants pleading non vult could be sentenced to a lesser term, the mandatory life sentence following a first-degree murder verdict was an unconstitutional burden upon his right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and upon his right against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a violation of his right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. 74 N. J. 379, 378 A. 2d 235 (1977). We noted probable jurisdiction. 434 U. S. 1060 (1978).
Appellant's principal reliance is upon United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968). There, this Court held that the death sentence provided by the Federal Kidnaping Act was invalid because it could be imposed only upon the recommendation of a jury accompanying a guilty verdict, whereas the maximum penalty for those tried to the court after waiving a jury and for those pleading guilty was life imprisonment. Only those insisting on a jury trial faced the possibility of a death penalty. These provisions were held to be a needless encouragement to plead guilty or to waive a jury trial, and the death penalty was consequently declared unconstitutional.
We agree with the New Jersey Supreme Court that there are substantial differences between this case and Jackson, and that Jackson does not require a reversal of Corbitt’s conviction. The principal difference is that the pressures to forgo trial and to plead to the charge in this case are not what they were in Jackson. First, the death penalty, which is “unique in its severity and irrevocability,” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 187 (1976), is not involved here. Although we need not agree with the New Jersey court that the Jackson rationale is limited to those cases where a plea avoids any possibility of the death penalty’s being imposed, it is a material fact that under the New Jersey law the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment, not death. Furthermore, in Jackson, any risk of suffering the maximum penalty could be avoided by pleading guilty. Here, although the punishment when a jury finds a defendant guilty of first-degree murder is life imprisonment, the risk of that punishment is not completely avoided by pleading non vult because the judge accepting the plea has the authority to impose a life term. New Jersey does not reserve the maximum punishment for murder for those who insist on a jury trial.
It is nevertheless true that while life imprisonment is the mandatory punishment for a defendant against whom a jury has returned a first-degree murder verdict, a judge accepting a non vult plea does not classify the murder and may impose either life imprisonment or a term of up to 30 years. The defendant who wishes to avoid the certainty of life imprisonment if he is tried and found guilty by the jury of first-degree murder, may seek to do so by tendering a non vult plea. Although there is no assurance that he will be so favored, the judge does have the power to accept the plea and to sentence him to a lesser term. It is Corbitt’s submission that the possibility of a sentence of less than life upon the plea of non vult, combined with the absence of a similar possibility when found guilty by a jury, is an unconstitutional burden on his federal rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
As did the New Jersey Supreme Court, we disagree. The cases in this Court since Jackson have clearly established that not every burden on the exercise of a constitutional right, and not every pressure or encouragement to waive such a right, is invalid. Specifically, there is no per se rule against encouraging guilty pleas. We have squarely held that a State may encourage a guilty plea by offering substantial benefits in return for the plea. The plea may obtain for the defendant “the possibility or certainty . . . [not only of] a lesser penalty than the sentence that could be imposed after a trial and a verdict of guilty . . . Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 751 (1970), but also of a lesser penalty than that required to be imposed after a guilty verdict by a jury. In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357 (1978), the defendant went to trial on an indictment charging him as a habitual criminal, for which the mandatory punishment was life imprisonment. The prosecutor, however, had been willing to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser charge carrying a shorter sentence. The defendant chose to go to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to life. We affirmed the conviction, holding that the State, through the prosecutor, had not violated the Constitution since it “no more than openly presented the defendant with the unpleasant alternatives of forgoing trial or facing charges on which he was plainly subject to prosecution.” Id., at 365. Relying upon and quoting from Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17 (1973), we also said:
“While confronting a defendant with the risk of more severe punishment clearly may have a ‘discouraging effect on the defendant’s assertion of his trial rights, the imposition of these difficult choices [is] an inevitable’ — and permissible — ‘attribute of any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas.’ Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 31. It follows that, by tolerating and encouraging the negotiation of pleas, this Court has necessarily accepted as constitutionally legitimate the simple reality that the prosecutor’s interest at the bargaining table is to persuade the defendant to forgo his right to plead not guilty.” 434 U. S., at 364.
There is no difference of constitutional significance between Bordenkircher and this case. There, as here, the defendant went to trial on an indictment that included a count carrying a mandatory life term under the applicable state statutes. There, as here, the defendant could have sought to counter the mandatory penalty by tendering a plea. In Bordenkircher, as permitted by state law, the prosecutor was willing to forgo the habitual criminal count if there was a plea, in which event the mandatory sentence would have been avoided. Here, the state law empowered the judge to impose a lesser term either in connection with a plea bargain or otherwise. In both cases, the defendant gave up the possibility of leniency if he went to trial and was convicted on the count carrying the mandatory penalty. In Bordenkircher, the probability or certainty of leniency in return for a plea did not invalidate the mandatory penalty imposed after a jury trial. It should not do so here, where there was no assurance that a plea would be accepted if tendered and, if it had been, no assurance that a sentence less than life would be imposed. Those matters rested ultimately in the discretion of the judge, perhaps substantially influenced by the prosecutor and the plea-bargaining process permitted by New Jersey law.
Bordenkircher, like other cases here, unequivocally recognized the State’s legitimate interest in encouraging the entry of guilty pleas and in facilitating plea bargaining, a process mutually beneficial to both the defendant and the State. In pursuit of this interest, New Jersey has provided that the judge may, but need not, accept pleas of non vult and that he may impose life or the specified term of years. This not only provides for discretion in the trial judge but also sets the limits within which plea bargaining on punishment may take place. The New Jersey Supreme Court observed that the “encouragement of guilty defendants not to contest their guilt is at the very heart of an effective plea negotiation program.” 74 N. J., at 396, 378 A. 2d, at 243-244. Its conclusion was that in this light there were substantial benefits to the State in providing the opportunity for lesser punishment and that the statutory pattern could not be deemed a needless or arbitrary burden on the defendant’s constitutional rights within the meaning of United States v. Jackson.
We are in essential agreement with the New Jersey Supreme Court. Had Corbitt tendered a plea and had it been accepted and a term of years less than life imposed, this would simply have recognized the fact that there had been a plea and that in sentencing it is constitutionally permissible to take that fact into account. The States and the Federal Government are free to abolish guilty pleas and plea bargaining; but absent such action, as the Constitution has been construed in our cases, it is not forbidden to extend a proper degree of leniency in return for guilty pleas. New Jersey has done no more than that.
We discern no element of retaliation or vindictiveness against Corbitt for going to trial. There is no suggestion that he was subjected to unwarranted charges. Nor does this record indicate that he was being punished for exercising a constitutional right. Indeed, insofar as this record reveals, Corbitt may have tendered a plea and it was refused. There is no doubt that those homicide defendants who are willing to plead non vult may be treated more leniently than those who go to trial, but withholding the possibility of leniency from the latter cannot be equated with impermissible punishment as long as our cases sustaining plea bargaining remain undisturbed. Those cases, as we have said, unequivocally recognize the constitutional propriety of extending leniency in exchange for a plea of guilty and of not extending leniency to those who have not demonstrated those attributes on which leniency is based.
Finally, we are unconvinced that the New Jersey statutory pattern exerts such a powerful influence to coerce inaccurate pleas non vult that it should be deemed constitutionally suspect. There is no suggestion here that Corbitt was not well counseled or that he misunderstood the choices that were placed before him. Here, as in Bordenkircher, the State did not trespass on the defendant’s rights “so long as the accused [was] free to accept or reject” the choice presented to him by the State, 434 U. S., at 363, that is, to go to trial and face the risk of life imprisonment or to seek acceptance of a non vult plea and the imposition of the lesser penalty authorized by law.
Appellant also argues that the sentencing scheme infringes his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because it penalizes the exercise of a “fundamental right.” We rejected a similar argument in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), noting that “[t]o fit the problem . . . into an equal protection framework is a task too Procrustean to be rationally accomplished.” Id., at 723. All New Jersey defendants are given the same choice. Those electing to contest their guilt face a certainty of life imprisonment if convicted of first-degree murder; but they may be acquitted instead or, in a proper case, may be convicted of a lesser degree of homicide and receive a sentence of less than life. Furthermore, a plea of non vult may itself result in a life sentence. The result, therefore,
“may depend upon a particular combination of infinite variables peculiar to each individual trial. It simply cannot be said that a state has invidiously 'classified' . . .
Id., at 722.
It cannot be said that defendants found guilty by a jury are "penalized” for exercising the right to a jury trial any more than defendants who plead guilty are penalized because they give up the chance of acquittal at trial. In each instance, the defendant faces a multitude of possible outcomes and freely makes his choice. Equal protection does not free those who made a bad assessment of risks or a bad choice from the consequences of their decision. The judgment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The relevant statutes are N. J. Stat. Ann. §§2A:113-1 to 2A:113-4 (West 1969 and Supp. 1978-1979):
“2A: 113-1. Murder
“If any person, in committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, robbery, sodomy or any unlawful act against the peace of this state, of which the probable consequences may be bloodshed, kills another, or if the death of anyone ensues from the committing or attempting to commit any such crime or act; or if any person kills a judge, magistrate, sheriff, constable or other officer of justice, either civil or criminal, of this State, or a marshal or other officer of justice, either civil or criminal, of the United States, in the execution of his office or duty, or kills any of his assistants, whether specially called to his aid or not, endeavoring to preserve the peace or apprehend a criminal, knowing the authority of such assistant, or kills a private person endeavoring to suppress an affray, or to apprehend a criminal, knowing the intention with which such private person interposes, then such person so killing is guilty of murder.
“2A: 113-2. Degrees of murder; designation in verdict
“Murder which is perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or which is committed in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, robbery or sodomy, or which is perpetrated in the course or for the purpose of resisting, avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or of effecting or assisting an escape or rescue from legal custody, or murder of a police or other law enforcement officer acting in the execution of his duty or of a person assisting any such officer so acting, is murder in the first degree. Any other kind of murder is murder in the secon,d degree. A jury finding a person guilty of murder shall designate by their verdict whether it be murder in the first degree or in the second degree.”
“2A: 113-3. Murder; plea of guilty not to be received; plea of non vult or nolo contendere and sentence thereon
“In no case shall the plea of guilty be received upon any indictment for murder, and if, upon arraignment, such plea is offered, it shall be disregarded, and the plea of not guilty entered, and a jury, duly impaneled, shall try the case.
“Nothing herein contained shall prevent the accused from pleading non vult or nolo contendere to the indictment; the sentence to be imposed, if such plea be accepted, shall be either imprisonment for life or the same as that imposed upon a conviction of murder in the second degree.
“2A: 113-4. Murder; punishment
“Every person convicted of murder in the first degree, [his] aiders, abettors, counselors and procurers, shall suffer death unless the jury shall by its verdict, and as a part thereof, upon and after the consideration of all the evidence, recommend life imprisonment, in which case this and no greater punishment shall be imposed.
“Every person convicted of murder in the second degree shall suffer imprisonment for not more than 30 years.”
Manslaughter is separately defined in §2A: 113-5 (West 1969).
The provision for the death penalty in §2A: 113-4 was invalidated in Funicello v. New Jersey, 403 U. S. 948 (1971). On remand, the New Jersey Supreme Court held the death penalty provision severable from the statute and ruled that life imprisonment was to be imposed upon all defendants convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, State v. Funicello, 60 N. J. 60, 286 A. 2d 55, cert. denied sub nom. New Jersey v. Presha, 408 U. S. 942 (1972).
N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2A: 113-3 (West 1969). As the statute suggests, the trial judge has complete discretion to refuse to accept the plea. See State v. Sullivan, 43 N. J. 209, 246, 203 A. 2d 117, 196 (1964). He may not, however, accept a plea if the defendant maintains his innocence, stands mute, or refuses to admit facts that establish guilt. State v. Reali, 26 N. J. 222, 139 A. 2d 300 (1958); State v. Sands, 138 N. J. Super. 103, 109-112, 350 A. 2d 274, 277-279 (App. Div. 1975); State v. Rhein, 117 N. J. Super. 112, 283 A. 2d 759 (App. Div. 1971).
Corbitt was indicted on two counts of arson and one count of murder. The State presented its case on a felony-murder basis. He was found guilty on one count of arson and on the murder count. Sentences of life imprisonment for felony murder and a concurrent term for arson were imposed. Because the arson conviction was deemed merged into the murder conviction, the separate sentence for arson was set aside on appeal.
New Jersey Stat. Ann. § 2A: 113-2 (West 1969) directs a jury finding a defendant guilty of murder to “designate by their verdict whether it be murder in the first degree or in the second degree.” It thus appears that in appropriate cases the jury would be instructed on both first- and second-degree murder. In this ease, however, the State proceeded on a felony-murder basis; the judge considered it to be a first-degree felony-murder case; and there were no instructions on second-degree murder or manslaughter. As far as the record before us reveals, Corbitt did not request or object to the absence of instructions on lesser crimes.
Under New Jersey law, the plea is to be directed to the indictment, which may charge murder generally. The trial court accepting a plea does not hold a hearing for the purpose of determining the degree of guilt or make any such determination. State v. Williams, 39 N. J. 471, 479, 189 A. 2d 193, 197 (1963); State v. Walker, 33 N. J. 580, 588-589, 166 A. 2d 567, 571-572 (1960).
If the plea is accepted, the sentencing judge would appear to have discretion not only to impose up to 30 years on facts that might have warranted a first-degree murder verdict by a jury but also to impose a life term where the facts indicate a second-degree murder verdict.
For example, in Crampton v. Ohio, decided with McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183 (1971), we upheld Ohio’s procedure whereby the jury determines both guilt and punishment in a single trial and in a single verdict. Crampton argued that the unitary procedure impaired his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination because he could remain silent on the issue of guilt only at the cost of surrendering any chance to plead his case on the issue of punishment. As we stated there, in rejecting his argument:
“The criminal process, like the rest of the legal system, is replete with situations requiring 'the making of difficult judgments’ as to which course to follow. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S., at 769. Although a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the Constitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose.” Id., at 213.
See also Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 750 (1970).
In United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225 (1975), we held that a District Court could condition the admissibility of impeachment testimony by a defense witness upon production of an investigative report prepared by the witness, rejecting Nobles’ contention that to do so would violate his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process and cross-examination.
The Court intimated as much in Jackson itself: “[T]he evil in the federal statute is not that it necessarily coerces guilty pleas and jury waivers but simply that it needlessly encourages them.” 390 U. S., at 583. Decisions after Jackson sustained practices that, although encouraging guilty pleas, were not “needless.” In the first of these cases, Brady v. United States, supra, the petitioner had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment after being indicted under the same statute, the Federal Kidnaping Act, at issue in Jackson. Brady claimed that his guilty plea had been involuntary, relying on our holding in Jackson that the death penalty provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act served to encourage guilty pleas needlessly. In effect, Brady argued that Jackson required the invalidation of every guilty plea entered under the Federal Kidnaping Act prior to Jackson. We concluded that he had “read 'far too much into the Jackson opinion.” 397 U. S., at 746. Jackson had in no way altered the test of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242 (1969), that guilty pleas are valid if knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
Subsequent decisions reaffirmed the permissibility of plea bargaining even though “every such circumstance has a discouraging effect on the defendant’s assertion of his trial rights,” because the “imposition of these difficult choices [is the] inevitable attribute of any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas.” Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, 31 (1973). See McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759 (1970); Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790 (1970); North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 (1970); Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257 (1971); Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357 (1978).
In Ludwig v. Massachusetts, 427 U. S. 618 (1976), the appellant challenged the Massachusetts system for disposition of certain state crimes in which the defendant is first tried without a jury. If convicted, he may appeal and obtain a jury trial de novo. Although the range of penalties was the same at each tier, Ludwig suffered a harsher sentence when he appealed and was found guilty by a jury. Recognizing the interest of the State in efficient criminal procedure, we rejected a claim based on Jackson that the system discouraged the assertion of the right to a jury trial by imposing harsher sentences upon those that exercised that right. 427 ü. S., at 627-628, n. 4.
In Bordenkircher, the original indictment did not include the habitual criminal count, which was added when the defendant was reindicted following his refusal to plead. This escalation of the charges after the failure of plea bargaining, which to the dissenters in this Court demonstrated impermissible vindictiveness, is not present here; and we need not rely on this aspect of the Bordenkircher decision. The rationale of that case would a fortiori govern a case where the original indictment contains a habitual criminal count and conviction on that count follows the defendant’s decision not to plead to a lesser charge.
New Jersey expressly authorizes plea bargaining. N. J. Court Rule 3:9-3 (a). Any agreement reached is “placed on the record in open court at the time the plea is entered.” Rule 3:9-3 (b). The New Jersey Rules also permit disclosure of the tentative agreement to the judge to secure advance approval. Rule 3:9-3 (c). In any event, if the judge “determines that the interest of justice would not be served by effectuating the agreement,” he must permit the defendant to withdraw the plea. Rule 3:9-3 (e).
The Court has several times recognized the benefits of plea bargaining to the defendant as well as to the State. In Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U. S. 63, 71 (1977), we said:
“Whatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country’s criminal justice system. Properly administered, they can benefit all concerned. The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration and the anxieties and uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in realizing whatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce resources. The public is protected from the risks posed by those charged with criminal offenses who are at large on bail while awaiting completion of criminal proceedings.” (Footnote omitted.)
See also Santobello v. New York, supra, at 260-261; Brady v. United States, 397 U. S., at 751-752. There is thus much more to be derived from plea bargaining than simply conserving scarce prosecutorial resources, and those benefits accrue equally where the plea bargaining occurs within a statutory framework.
The dissent’s suggestion, post, at 229-230, that New Jersey concedes that its statutes have both the purpose and effect of penalizing the assertion of the right not to plead guilty is untenable, see Brief for Appellee 28-31, and seems inconsistent with the later description of the State’s position, post, at 230.
The dissent appears to question any system that subjects the defendant who stands trial to a substantial risk of greater punishment than the defendant who pleads guilty. But in the next breath, the dissent appears to embrace plea bargaining, although the plea-bargaining systems operating in a majority of the jurisdictions throughout the country inherently extend to defendants who plead guilty the probability or the certainty of leniency that will not be available if they go to trial.
The dissent asserts that the attack here is on the statutory scheme rather than upon the system of plea bargaining, which is said to individualize defendants and does not mandate a different standard of punishment depending solely on whether or not a plea is entered. The distinction is without substance for the purposes of this case. In the first place, plea bargaining by state prosecutors operates by virtue of state law, here by virtue, of the formal rules of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. That system permits a proper amount of leniency in return for pleas, leniency that is denied if one goes to trial. In this sense, the standard of punishment is necessarily different for those who plead and for those who go to trial. For those who plead, that fact itself is a consideration in sentencing, a consideration that is not present when one is found guilty by a jury. Second, under the New Jersey statutes, pleas may be rejected even if tendered; there must, for example, be a factual basis for the plea. Even if a plea is accepted, there is discretion to impose life imprisonment. The statute leaves much to the judge and to the prosecutor and does not mandate lesser punishment for those pleading non vult than is imposed on those who go to trial. It is also true that under normal circumstances, juries in New Jersey may find a defendant guilty of second-degree murder rather than first.
Third, we cannot hold that a prosecutor may charge a person with a crime carrying a mandatory punishment and secure a valid conviction, despite his power to offer leniency to those who plead — including dismissal of the mandatory count in return for a plea — and yet hold that the legislature may not openly provide for the possibility of leniency in return for a plea. This is particularly true where it is contemplated that plea bargaining will in any event go forward within the limits set by the legislature.
We do not suggest that every conceivable statutory sentencing structure, plea-bargaining system, or particular plea bargain would be constitutional. We hold only that a State may make due allowance for pleas in its sentencing decisions and that New Jersey has not exceeded its powers in this respect by its statutory provision extending the possibility of leniency to those who plead non vult in homicide cases.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari, 447 U. S. 904, to consider whether objective facts and circumstantial' evidence suggesting that a particular vehicle is involved in criminal activity may provide a sufficient basis to justify an investigative stop of that vehicle.
I
Late in 1976, Border Patrol officers patrolling a sparsely populated section of southern central Arizona found human footprints in the desert. In time, other sets of similar footprints were discovered in the same area. Prom these sets of footprints, it was deduced that, on a number of occasions, groups of from 8 to 20 persons had walked north from the Mexican border, across 30 miles of desert and mountains, over a fairly well-defined path, to an isolated point on Highway 86, an east-west road running roughly parallel to the Mexican border.
Officers observed that one recurring shoeprint bore a distinctive and repetitive Y-shaped or chevron design. Because the officers knew from recorded experience that the area through which the groups passed was heavily trafficked by aliens illegally entering the country from Mexico, they surmised that a person, to whom they gave the case-name "Chevron,” was guiding aliens illegally into the United States over the path marked by the tracks to a point where they could be picked up by a vehicle.
The tracks led into or over obstacles that would have been avoided in daylight. From this, the • officers deduced that “Chevron” probably led his groups across the border and to the pickup point at night. Moreover, based upon the times when they had discovered the distinctive sets of tracks, they concluded that “Chevron” generally traveled during or near weekends and on nights when the weather was clear.
Their tracking disclosed that when “Chevron’s” groups came within 50 to 75 yards of Highway 86, they turned right and walked eastward, parallel to the road. Then, approximately at highway milepost 122, the tracks would turn north and disappear at the road. From this pattern, the officers concluded that the aliens very likely were picked up by a ve-hide — probably one approaching from the east, for after a long overland march the group was most likely to walk parallel to the highway toward the approaching vehicle. The officers also concluded that, after the pickup, the vehicle probably returned to the east, because it was unlikely that the group would be walking away from its ultimate destination.
On the Sunday night of January 30-31, 1977, Officers Gray and Evans, two Border Patrolmen who had been pursuing the investigation of “Chevron,” were on duty in the Casa Grande area. The latest set of observed “Chevron” tracks had been made on Saturday night, January 15-16. January 30-31 was the first clear night after three days of rain. For these reasons, Gray and Evans decided there was a strong possibility that “Chevron” would lead aliens from the border to the highway that night.
The officers assumed that, if “Chevron” did conduct a group that night, he would not leave Mexico until after dark, that is, about 6 p. m. They knew from their experience that groups of this sort, traveling on foot, cover about two and a half to three miles an hour. Thus, the 30-mile journey would take from 8 to 12 hours. From this, the officers calculated that “Chevron” and his group would arrive at Highway 86 somewhere between 2 a. m. and 6 a. m. on January 31.
About 1 a. m., Gray and Evans parked their patrol car on an elevated location about 100 feet off Highway 86 at milepost 149, a point some 27 miles east of milepost 122. From their vantage point, the officers could observe the Altar Valley, an adjoining territory they had been assigned to watch that night, and they also could see vehicles passing on Highway 86. They estimated that it would take approximately one hour and a half for a vehicle to make a round trip from their vantage point to milepost 122. Working on the hypothesis that the pickup vehicle approached milepost 122 from the east and thereafter returned to its starting point, they focused upon vehicles that passed them from the east and, after about one hour and a half, passed them returning to the east.
Because “Chevron” appeared to lead groups of between 8 and 20 aliens at a time, the officers deduced that the pickup vehicle would be one that was capable of carrying that large a group without arousing suspicion. For this reason, and because they knew that certain types of vehicles were commonly used for smuggling sizable groups of aliens, they decided to limit their attention to vans, pickup trucks, other small trucks, campers, motor homes, and similar vehicles.
Traffic on Highway 86 at milepost 149 was normal on the night of the officers’ surveillance. In the 5-hour period between 1 a. m. and 6 a. m., 15 to 20 vehicles passed the officers heading west, toward milepost 122. Only two of them — both pickup trucks with camper shells — were of the kind that the officers had concluded “Chevron” would likely use if he was to carry aliens that night. One, a distinctively colored pickup truck with a camper shell, passed for the first time at 4:30 a. m. Officer Gray was able to see and record only a partial license number, “GN 88 — .” At 6:12 a. m., almost exactly the estimated one hour and a half later, a vehicle looking like this same pickup passed them again, this time heading east.
The officers followed the pickup and were satisfied from its license plate, “GN 8804,” that it was the same vehicle that had passed at 4:30 a. m. At that point, they flashed their police lights and intercepted the vehicle. Respondent Jesus Cortez was the driver and owner of the pickup; respondent Pedro Hernandez-Loera was sitting in the passenger’s seat. Hernandez-Loera was wearing shoes with soles matching the distinctive “chevron” shoeprint.
The officers identified themselves and told Cortez they were conducting an immigration check. They asked if he was carrying any passengers in the camper. Cortez told them he had picked up some hitchhikers, and he proceeded to open the back of the camper. In the camper, there were six illegal aliens. The officers then arrested the respondents.
Cortez and Hernandez-Loera were charged with six counts of transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U. S. C. § 1324 (a). By pretrial motion, they sought to suppress the evidence obtained by Officers Gray and Evans as a result of stopping their vehicle. They argued that the officers did not have adequate cause to make the investigative stop. The District Court denied the motion. A jury found the respondents guilty as charged. They were sentenced to concurrent prison terms of five years on each of six counts. In addition, Hernandez-Loera was fined $12,000.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the officers lacked a sufficient basis to justify the stop of the pickup. 595 F. 2d 505 (1979). That court recognized that United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975), provides a standard governing investigative stops of the kind involved in this case, stating:
“The quantum of cause necessary in . . . cases [like this one] was established ... in United States v. Brig-noni-Ponce .... ‘[Ojfficers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country.’ ” 595 F. 2d, at 507 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 884) (citations omitted).
The court also recognized that “the ultimate question on appeal is whether the trial judge’s finding that founded suspicion was present here was clearly erroneous.” 595 F. 2d, at 507. Here, because, in the view of the facts of the two judges constituting the majority, “[t]he officers did not have a valid basis for singling out the Cortez vehicle,” id., at 508, and because the circumstances admitted “far too many innocent inferences to make the officers’ suspicions reasonably warranted,” ibid., the panel concluded that the stop of Cortez’ vehicle was a violation of the respondents’ rights under the Fourth Amendment. In dissent, Judge Chambers was persuaded that Brignoni-Ponce recognized the validity of permitting an officer to assess the facts in light of his past experience.
II
A
The Fourth Amendment applies to seizures of the person, including brief investigatory stops such as the stop of the vehicle here. Reid v. Georgia, 448 U. S. 438, 440 (1980); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 878; Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 16-19 (1968). An investigatory stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 51 (1979); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 661 (1979); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 884; Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 146-149 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 16-19.
Courts have used a variety of terms to capture the elusive concept of what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person. Terms like “articulable reasons” and “founded suspicion” are not self-defining; they fall short of providing clear guidance dispositive of the myriad factual situations that arise. But the essence of all that has been written is that the totality of the circumstances — the whole picture— must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. See, e. g., Brown v. Texas, supra, at 51; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 884.
The idea that an assessment of the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion contains two elements, each of which must be present before a stop is permissible. First, the assessment must be based upon all of the circumstances. The analysis proceeds with various objective observations, information from police reports, if such are available, and consideration of the modes or patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers. From these data, a trained officer draws inferences and makes deductions — inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.
The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain commonsense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are .permitted to do the same — and so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.
The second element contained in the idea that an assessment of the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion is the concept that the process just described must raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing. Chief Justice Warren, speaking for the Court in Terry v. Ohio, supra, said that “[tjhis demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” Id., at 21, n. 18 (emphasis added). See also Brown v. Texas, supra, at 51; Delaware v. Prouse, supra, at 661-663; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 884.
B
This case portrays at once both the enormous difficulties of patrolling a 2,000-mile open border and the patient skills needed by those charged with halting illegal entry into this country. It implicates all of the principles just discussed— especially the imperative of recognizing that, when used by trained law enforcement officers, objective facts, meaningless to the untrained, can be combined with permissible deductions from such facts to form a legitimate basis for suspicion of a particular person and for action on that suspicion. We see here the kind of police work often suggested by judges and scholars as examples of appropriate and reasonable means of law enforcement. Here, fact on fact and clue on clue afforded a basis for the deductions and inferences that brought the officers to focus on “Chevron.”
Of critical importance, the officers knew that the area was a crossing point for illegal aliens. They knew that it was common practice for persons to lead aliens through the desert from the border to Highway 86, where they could — by prearrangement — be picked up by a vehicle. Moreover, based upon clues they had discovered in the 2-month period prior to the events at issue here, they believed that one such guide, whom they designated “Chevron,” had a particular pattern of operations.
By piecing together the information at their disposal, the officers tentatively concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that “Chevron” would attempt to lead a group of aliens on the night of Sunday, January 30-31. Someone with chevron-soled shoes had led several groups of aliens in the previous two months, yet it had been two weeks since the latest crossing. “Chevron,” they deduced, was therefore due reasonably soon. “Chevron” tended to travel on clear weekend nights. Because it had rained on the Friday and Saturday nights of the weekend involved here, Sunday was the only clear' night of that weekend; the officers surmised it was therefore a likely night for a trip.
Once they had focused on that night, the officers drew upon other objective facts known to them to deduce a time frame within which “Chevron” and the aliens were likely to arrive. From what they knew of the practice of those who smuggle aliens, including what they knew of “Chevron’s” previous activities, they deduced that the border crossing and journey through the desert would probably be at night. They knew the time when sunset would occur at the point of the border crossing; they knew about how long the trip would take. They were thus able to deduce that “Chevron” would likely arrive at the pickup point on Highway 86 in the time frame between 2 a. m. and 6 a. m.
From objective facts, the officers also deduced the probable point on the highway- — milepost 122 — at which “Chevron” would likely rendezvous with a pickup vehicle. They deduced from the direction taken by the sets of “Chevron” footprints they had earlier discovered that the pickup vehicle would approach the aliens from, and return with them to, a point east of milepost 122. They therefore staked out a position east of milepost 122 (at milepost 149) and watched for vehicles that passed them going west and then, approximately one and a half hours later, passed them again, this time going east.
From what they had observed about the previous groups guided by the person with “chevron” shoes, they deduced that “Chevron” would lead a group of 8 to 20 aliens. They therefore focused their attention on enclosed vehicles of that passenger capacity.
The analysis produced by Officers Gray and Evans can be summarized as follows: if, on the night upon which they believed “Chevron” was likely to travel, sometime between 2 a. m. and 6 a. m., a large enclosed vehicle was seen to make an east-west-east round trip to and from a deserted point (milepost 122) on a deserted road (Highway 86), the officers would stop the vehicle on the return trip. In a 4-hour period the officers observed only one vehicle meeting that description. And it is not surprising that when they stopped the vehicle on its return trip it contained “Chevron” and several illegal aliens.
C
The limited purpose of the stop in this case was to question the occupants of the vehicle about their citizenship and immigration status and the reasons for the round trip in a short timespan in a virtually deserted area. No search of the camper or any of its occupants occurred until after respondent Cortez voluntarily opened the back door of the camper; thus, only the stop, not the search is at issue here. The intrusion upon privacy associated with this stop was limited and was “reasonably related in scope to the justification for [its] initiation,” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 29.
We have recently held that stops by the Border Patrol may be justified under circumstances less than those constituting probable cause for arrest or search. United States v. Brig-noni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 880. Thus, the test is not whether Officers Gray and Evans had probable cause to conclude that the vehicle they stopped would contain “Chevron” and a group of illegal aliens. Rather the question is whether, based upon the whole picture, they, as experienced Border Patrol officers, could reasonably surmise that the particular vehicle they stopped was engaged in criminal activity. On this record, they could so conclude.
Reversed.
Justice Marshall concurs in the judgment.
The second camper passed them 15 or 20 minutes later. As far as the record shows, it did not return.
Of course, an officer may stop and question a person if there are reasonable grounds to believe that person is wanted for past criminal conduct.
In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 884-885 (1975), the Court listed several factors to be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining the existence vel non of a particularized suspicion in cases treating official attempts to stem the influx of illegal aliens into our country. Though the list did not purport to be exhaustive, it is noteworthy that several of the factors present here were recognized by Brignoni-Ponce as significant in this context; for example, information about recent border crossings and the type of vehicle involved.
The wide public interest in effective measures to prevent the entry of illegal aliens at the Mexican border has been cataloged by this Court. See, e. g., United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891, 899-914 (1975) (Burger, C. J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 878-879.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This civil Sherman Act case was here four years ago on direct appeal from a dismissal by the District Court, which had held that the Act did not apply to the business of professional boxing. We reversed, finding that “the complaint states a cause of action [under the Act] and that the Government is entitled to an opportunity to prove its allegations,” and remanded the case for trial on the merits. United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U. S. 236 (1955). The complaint charged the appellants with a combination and conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce among the States in the promotion, broadcasting, and televising of professional world championship boxing contests, as well as a conspiracy to monopolize and monopolization of the same. After a trial, the District Court, in an opinion incorporating detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the principles laid down in our earlier opinion, found that the allegations of the complaint had been sustained. 150 F. Supp. 397. After further hearings on the nature and extent of the relief necessary to protect the public interest, the court entered its final judgment dissolving two of the corporate appellants, directing divestiture of certain stock owned by the individual appellants and granting injunctive relief designed to open up the market in the business of promoting professional world championship boxing matches.
The appellants, while not attacking any specific finding as clearly erroneous, claim that the proof did not show that they violated either Section 1 or 2 of the Act. In this regard appellants level their strongest blows at the District Court's definition of the relevant market. Out of the entire field of professional boxing, the District Court carved a market in championship contests alone, holding it to be the relevant market at which the conspiracy was aimed. In the alternative, appellants insist that the relief granted the Government was “unnecessarily punitive,” even if liability is assumed. On a direct appeal to this Court we noted probable jurisdiction, 356 U. S. 910 (1958). We have concluded that the findings of the District Court are not clearly erroneous and that in view of our former holding on the sufficiency of the complaint the judgment on the merits was properly entered. As to the relief granted we find that the court did not exceed the limits of allowable discretion in framing a decree “that will, so far as practicable, cure the ill effects of the illegal conduct, and assure the public freedom from its continuance.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 88 (1950).
Our previous decision herein having decided that the promotion of professional championship boxing contests on an interstate basis constituted trade and commerce among the States, within the meaning of the Sherman Act, there is no contest here either on the findings or the law on that point. Since on that appeal we discussed in some detail the allegations of the complaint, which the trial court has now found amply proven by the evidence, we shall only summarize the findings here.
The Findings.
The conspiracy began in January 1949, when appellants Norris and Wirtz, who owned and controlled the Chicago Stadium, the Detroit Olympia Arena and the St. Louis Arena, made an agreement with Joe Louis, the then heavyweight boxing champion of the world. Wishing to retire, Louis agreed to give up his title after obtaining from each of the four leading contenders exclusive promotion rights including rights to radio, television and movie revenues. Upon securing these exclusive contracts Louis assigned them to the appellant International Boxing Club, Illinois, which was organized by Norris and Wirtz for the purpose of promoting boxing for the combination in Illinois. They paid Louis $150,000 cash plus an employment contract and a 20% stock interest in I. B. C., Illinois.
In March 1949 Norris and Wirtz approached appellant Madison Square Garden, in which they had for many years owned 50,000 shares of stock. It was the “foremost sports arena in New York City and is the best known arena of its kind in the United States, if not the world.” However, its facilities were tied up by an exclusive lease it had granted to Mike Jacobs' interests — the leading professional boxing promoter in the field at that time. Norris and Wirtz- proposed that they should all “work together now and keep the events for our buildings and not create a competitive situation that would be harmful to all.” In order to effectuate this program, appellant Madison Square Garden bought out Mike Jacobs’ interests, including, in addition to his lease on Madison Square Garden, his exclusive leases to Yankee Stadium and the St. Nicholas Arena and his contract with the then welterweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson. These contracts were assigned to International Boxing Club, New York, organized for the purpose of promoting boxing for the combination in New York.
Once Jacobs’ interests had been acquired, there remained only one substantial competitor in the field of promoting championship boxing matches. That was Tournament of Champions, Inc., owned in part by the Columbia Broadcasting System. It owned an exclusive lease on the Polo Grounds as well as an exclusive promotion contract covering the next two fights of the then middleweight champion of the world. In May 1949 Madison Square Garden bought all of the stock of Tournament of Champions at a cost of $100,000 plus 25% of the net profits on the next two middleweight championship matches. The assets thus acquired were likewise assigned to I. B. C., New York. By a simultaneous separate agreement, Columbia Broadcasting System agreed for a five-year period not to invest in or promote any professional boxing matches in return for a first refusal right to the broadcasting of certain boxing matches staged for a like period in Madison Square Garden.
This series of agreements, consummated within four months’ time, gave appellants exclusive control of the promotion of boxing matches in three championship divisions, i. e., heavyweight, middleweight, and welterweight. Not satisfied with this temporary control, however, appellants perpetuated their hold on championship bouts by requiring each contender for the title to grant to them an exclusive promotion contract to his championship fights, including film and broadcasting, for a period of from three to five years. Over the facilities for the staging of contests appellants exercised like control, owning or managing the “key” arenas and stadia in the Nation.
Tightening the ropes around the ring thus built, Norris and Wirtz increased their stockholdings in Madison Square Garden to where they controlled it and were able to “dictate its policies and boxing activities.” This has continued their control over I. B. C., New York, the stock of which is now wholly owned by Madison Square Garden. They are the sole stockholders of Chicago Stadium Corporation which in turn is the sole stockholder of I. B. C., Illinois. Their control over this boxing empire is revealed by the fact that Norris is president of each of the four top corporations, i. e., Madison Square Garden, I. B. C., New York, Chicago Stadium Corporation, and I. B. C., Illinois. He and Wirtz are directors in all four, while I. B. C., Illinois and I. B. C., New York, which have owned all of the promotion contracts with the contenders, have a joint board of directors.
The effect of the conspiracy is obvious. Using the facilities of I. B. C., Illinois, and I. B. C., New York, appellants entered into exclusive promotion contracts with title aspirants, requiring exclusive handling agreements in the event the contender became champion. In amassing their empire, appellants obtained control of champions in three divisions. The choice given a contender thereafter was clear, i. e., to sign with appellants or not to fight. With appellants in control of the key arenas and stadia of the country through Madison Square Garden, Chicago Stadium Corporation, and others, an event could not be successfully staged in any of these areas, the most fruitful in the Nation, without their consent. The exercise of this power brought immediate results. From June 1949, when appellants staged their first championship fight, until May 15, 1953, the date of the amended complaint, they staged or controlled the promotion of 36 of the 44 championship battles held in this country, giving them approximately 81% of that field. In two of the classifications, heavyweight and middleweight, the combine staged all of the contests. The power of the combine to exclude competitors in the championship field is graphically shown by their promotion of 25 out of 27 fights in all divisions, a total of 93%, during the two-and-a-half-year period ending with the filing of the amended complaint. This power extended to the sale of film and broadcasting rights — most valuable adjuncts to successful promotion in the business.
Appellants launch a vigorous attack on the finding that the relevant market was the promotion of championship boxing contests in contrast to all professional boxing events. They rely primarily on United States v. du Pont & Co., 351 U. S. 377 (1956). That case, involving an alleged monopoly of the market in cellophane, held that the relevant market was not cellophane alone but the entire field of flexible packaging materials. In testing for the relevant market in Sherman Act cases, the Court said:
“. . . 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.” Du Pont, supra, at 395.
The appellants argue that the “physical identity of the products here would seem necessarily to put them in one and the same market.” They say that any boxing contest, whether championship or not, always includes one ring, two boxers and one referee, fighting under the same rules before a greater or lesser number of spectators either present at ringside or through the facilities of television, radio, or moving pictures.
We do not feel that this conclusion follows. As was also said in du Pont, supra, at 404:
“The ‘market’. . . 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.”
With this in mind, the lower court in the instant case found that there exists a “separate, identifiable market” for championship boxing contests. This general finding is supported by detailed findings to the effect that the average revenue from all sources for appellants’ championship bouts was $154,000, compared to $40,000 for their nonchampionship programs; that television rights to one championship fight brought $100,000, in contrast to $45,000 for a nontitle fight seven months later between the same two fighters; that the average “Nielsen” ratings over a two-and-one-half-year period were 74.9% for appellants’ championship contests, and 57.7% for their nonchampionship programs (reflecting a difference of several million viewers between the two types of fights) ; that although the revenues from movie rights for six of appellants’ championship bouts totaled over $600,000, no full-length motion picture rights were sold for a non-championship contest; and that spectators pay “substantially more” for tickets to championship fights than for nontitle fights. In addition, numerous representatives of the broadcasting, motion picture and advertising industries testified to the general effect that a “particular and special demand exists among radio broadcasting and telecasting [and motion picture] companies for the rights to broadcast and telecast [and make and distribute films of] championship contests in contradistinction to similar rights to non-championship contests.”
In view of these findings, we cannot say that the lower court was “clearly erroneous” in concluding that noncham-pionship fights are not “reasonably interchangeable for the same purpose” as championship contests. A determination of the “part of the trade or commerce” encompassed by the Sherman Act involves distinctions in degree as well as distinctions in kind. One prime example of this is the application of the Act to trade or commerce in a localized geographical area. See, e. g., Schine The-atres v. United States, 334 U. S. 110 (1948); United States v. Griffith, 334 U. S. 100 (1948); cf. Times-Picayune v. United States, 345 U. S. 594 (1953); United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495 (1948). The case which most squarely governs this case is United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U. S. 131 (1948). There, the charge involved, inter alia, extensive motion picture the-atre holdings. The District Court had refused, to order a divestiture of such holdings on the grounds that no “national monopoly” had been intended or obtained. This Court felt that such a finding was not dispositive of the issue, saying:
“First, there is no finding as to the presence or absence of monopoly on the part of the five majors [defendants] in the first-run field for the entire country, in the first-run field in the 92 largest cities of the country, or in the first-run field in separate localities. Yet the first-run field, which constitutes the cream of the exhibition business, is the core of the present cases. Section 1 of the Sherman Act outlaws unreasonable restraints irrespective of the amount of trade or commerce involved (United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 224, 225, n. 59), and § 2 condemns monopoly of 'any part’ of trade or commerce.” Paramount, supra, at 172-173. (Emphasis in the original.)
Similarly, championship boxing is the “cream” of the boxing business, and, as has been shown above, is a sufficiently separate' part of the trade or commerce to constitute the relevant market for Sherman Act purposes.
We have also examined the remainder of this characteristically lengthy record. When the ease was here previously appellants did not deny that the allegations of the complaint stated a cause of action against them, provided their activity came within the meaning of the Sherman Act. We held that the complaint stated a cause of action. The District Court has now found these allegations to have been proven. With the case in this posture, appellants have an almost insurmountable burden. They must show that the findings, or at least the basic ones, are “clearly erroneous.” Rule 52 (a), Rules of Civil Procedure. This they have not been able to do. It follows that the decree entered on the merits adjudging the appellants to have violated both §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act must be affirmed.
The Relief.
In approaching the question of relief we must remember that our function is not to sit as a trial court. Besser Mfg. Co. v. United States, 343 U. S. 444, 449-450 (1952); United States v. National Lead Co., 332 U. S. 319 (1947); cf. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 185 (1944). As was said in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 400-401 (1947):
“The framing of [antitrust] decrees should take place in the District rather than in Appellate Courts. They are invested with large discretion to model their judgments to fit the exigencies of the particular case.”
The yardstick which the trial court should apply in monopolization cases is well stated by the Court in Schine Theatres v. United States, 334 U. S. 110, 128-129 (1948). The-decree should (1) put “an end to the combination or conspiracy when that is itself the violation”; (2) deprive “the antitrust defendants of the benefits of their conspiracy”; and (3) “break up or render impotent the monopoly power which violates the Act.”
The relief granted by a trial court in an antitrust case and brought here on direct appeal, thus by-passing the usual appellate review, has always had the most careful scrutiny of this Court. Though the records are usually most voluminous and their review exceedingly burdensome, we have painstakingly undertaken it to make certain that justice has been done. See, e. g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, supra; Schine Theatres v. United States, supra; United States v. National Lead Co., supra. That we have done here. We have finally concluded that the relief granted was not beyond the allowable discretion of the District Court.
The Bounds of the Relief Ordered.
At the time of the final decree the Joe Louis agreements had elapsed; the exclusive-contract practice had been at least temporarily abandoned; the leases on Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds and St. Nicholas Arena in New York had been given up and the appellants had no control over the new heavyweight champion, Floyd Patterson. Nevertheless, the additional evidence taken by the District Court showed that they still possessed all of the power of monopoly and restraint. In this we agree. The appellants had exercised a strangle hold on the industry for a long period. It was evident at the time of the decree that, statistically, they still dominated the staging of championship bouts and completely controlled the filming and broadcasting of those contests. They had gained this leadership through the elimination by purchase of all of their major competitors in the field; by the control of contending boxers through exclusive agreements; and by the staging of events through the ownership or lease of key stadia and arenas. This illegal activity gave appellants an odorous monopoly background which was known and still feared in the boxing world. In addition, Norris and Wirtz still possessed the major tools, so well used previously, necessary to continue their control. They owned or controlled the key arena and stadium in New York and Chicago, the most lucrative communities in boxing; they continued to control all of the championship bouts staged there; they commanded the filming and broadcasting of all championship fights — • the cream of the business — wherever staged; and though on the surface they owned no stock directly in the two I. B. C. corporations, each was the wholly owned subsidiary of corporations which Norris and Wirtz did control and manage.
In this setting the District Court ordered Norris and Wirtz to divest themselves, within a five-year period, of all stock which they owned “directly or indirectly” in Madison Square Garden. In addition, both of the International Boxing Clubs, Illinois and New York, were ordered dissolved. The Chicago Stadium and Madison Square Garden were each enjoined from staging more than two championship bouts annually. All exclusive agreements for the promotion of boxing events, including nonchampionship, were banned. Madison Square Garden was ordered for a period of five years to lease its premises when available at a “fair and reasonable” rental to any duly qualified promoter applying in writing therefor. Failure to agree on terms would require submission to the courts for determination. Like requirement was imposed on Chicago Stadium Corporation, provided Norris-and-Wirtz control continued.
The District Judge concluded that it was necessary to include each of these provisions in the decree in order to put an end to the combination, deprive the appellants of the benefit of their conspiracy and break up their monopoly power. At the conclusion of the final hearing on relief he observed that prior to 1949 the Norris-Wirtz group was in Chicago while the Madison Square Garden enterprise was in New York. They were “two separate entities,” one promoting contests in the mid-West and the other in New York. He declared that “in order to destroy this monopoly we have to return the situation as nearly as possible to the economic conditions as they existed in 1949” and, further, “I can see no way in this case . . . that a proper decree can be formulated unless that power that Wirtz and Norris have in Madison Square Garden is curtailed. They have to get out of the control.”
The Order of Divestiture.
Appellants contend that since the stock owned by Norris and Wirtz was not acquired pursuant to the conspiracy, was not the fruit of illegal activity and was not proven to be the lever by which Madison Square Garden was persuaded to join the conspiracy, divestiture was but punishment rather than a necessary corrective remedy. They further say that the sale, even though made in the manner outlined in the decree, would result in great loss to Norris and Wirtz. They contend that it was arbitrary for the District Court not to permit them to exercise an option, as proposed by them, of a choice between Madison Square Garden and the Chicago Stadium, both of which they still control.
It may be that the stock in Madison Square Garden was not the fruit of the conspiracy; but even if lawfully acquired it may be utilized as part of the conspiracy to effect its ends. See United States v. Paramount Pictures, supra, at 152. Moreover, since the inception of the conspiracy Norris and Wirtz have increased their holdings to over 219,000 shares. It was this stock ownership and their control of stock voting power that the trial court found dictated the election of the officers and directors of Madison Square Garden and gave to Norris and Wirtz the unquestioned control and management of its activities. Although reluctant at first to require a divestiture of this stock, the trial judge ultimately became convinced that it was the sine qua non of the relief. During the hearing he said:
“The great evil I found was the combination that Wirtz and Norris caused and created by joining up with Madison Square Garden. I regard Wirtz and Norris as one and Madison Square Garden as another, a separate entity and business interest. The evil primarily sprung from their combination, their concerted efforts and action. That has to be broken up.” (Emphasis supplied.)
What is perhaps equally significant is that through the exercise of this power Norris and Wirtz elected the officers and board of directors of I. B. C., New York — a joint board with I. B. C., Illinois, which they also controlled through the Chicago Stadium Corporation. This joint board was the bridge over which the conspiracy was made effective. Over it the control of the promotion of championship boxing contests was secured. .That this control remained effective up to the very date of the final hearing, June 24, 1957, is shown by the following statement by the court on that date:
“The unlawful combination of the defendants still possesses and exercises its monopolistic control in the field of championship contests. It appears that since May 15,1953 there have been held in the United States 37 championship contests, excluding one bantamweight contest. The defendants admit that they had promotional control over 24 of the 37 championship contests which were held or of 65 per cent of the market, but we find that the defendants were not financial strangers to the other 13 championship contests which were held in cities other than New York and Chicago. Because the defendants are licensed by state authorities to promote only in New York and Illinois, they could not be the persons actually designated as the promoter of the 13 championship contests, but all five of the championship contests which originated in cities other than Chicago or New York on Friday nights were televised on IBC’s-New York Friday night television series.
“We find, too, that all of the 37 championship contests in this period from May 15, 1953, save only the five outdoor contests, were televised on either the defendants’ Wednesday or Friday night television series, and that the profits of the sale of the telecasting rights inured to the benefit of the defendants.”
As this was some two and a half years after our opinion in the former appeal on January 31, 1955, it appears that appellants had continued exercising their unlawful control long after they well knew that this activity was within the coverage of the Sherman Act. In view of the fact that no denial was made on that appeal of the sufficiency of the Government’s complaint it is reasonable to assume that appellants, subsequent to our opinion, knew that their conduct violated the Sherman Act, obedience to which is so important to our free enterprise system. Still they continued their illegal activity. In fact from all appearances it is continuing to this day. Such conduct, in addition to the interlocking nature of the ownership at the time of the final decree, fully justified the District Court’s conclusion that the “dissolution of the combination can only be accomplished by an immediate and complete severance of the interlocking ownership of Norris and Wirtz in Madison Square Garden. . . . [TJhere must be a complete divestiture of the stockholdings of Norris and Wirtz in the Garden. The Government has established Norris and Wirtz control the Garden Corporation.” Moreover, this was the only effective means at hand by which competition in championship events might be restored. It was intended to return the parties as near as possible to the status quo existing prior to the conspiracy.
For these reasons, we do not see why it was incumbent upon the court to give Norris and Wirtz certain options requested at the time of the decree. We shall mention only two. The first was that they have the right to exercise a choice of retaining either Madison Square Garden or the Chicago Stadium. But this would not be conducive to the re-establishment of competition between the two interests, which the District Court considered a necessity. Nor would it eliminate the “great evil” the trial court found in the Norris-Wirtz-Garden combination. Another requested option was that Norris and Wirtz be permitted to retain their control of Madison Square Garden and the latter be enjoined from promoting championship boxing events. But this would have eliminated the world’s principal boxing center — “the premier sports arena in the world,” as appellants characterized it — from promoting such events in competition with Norris and Wirtz.
In short, the Government in its effort to free the professional boxing business of monopoly and unreasonable restraints would have won the battle but lost the war under either of the proffered alternatives. As this Court said in United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 189-190 (1944):
“Common control was one of the instruments in bringing about unity of purpose and unity of action and in making the conspiracy effective. If that affiliation continues, there will be tempting opportunity ... to act in combination .... The proclivity in the past to use that affiliation for an unlawful end warrants effective assurance that no such opportunity will be available in the future.”
The Dissolution of the Two International Boxing Clubs.
Admittedly these corporations were formed pursuant to and were the means used to effectuate the conspiracy. As the trial judge said:
“These corporations are the promotional arms of the defendants, conceived and used to enable defendants to restrain and monopolize promotion of championship boxing contests. Their assets are of but nominal value except for the goodwill attaching to their names by virtue of the conspiracy.”
The conditions existing here even subsequent to our former opinion confirm the need for such dissolution. Both corporations continued to share equally the profits the combination reaped from the staging of championship boxing contests. This also included revenues from championship contests promoted by others but televised by the combination. They continue even now as the bridge between the choice arenas Norris and Wirtz own or control and the boxers with whom they have exclusive promotion contracts. . Through interlocking officers and directorates the two I. B. C.’s thus effectively hold the combination together. It is antitrust policy to decree dissolution “where the creation of the combination is itself the violation.” United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., supra, at 189, and cases there cited. This is one of those situations where the injunctive process affords too little relief too late.
Appellants argue that this is punitive; that the parent companies, under the decree, are left free to organize new corporations to handle, their respective boxing promotions and, hence, dissolutiori is a useless act. The trial court felt, however, and we agree, that continued operation under the old I. B. C. charters might lead to a situation nominis umbra not conducive to the elimination of the old illegal practices. New corporations, if formed, would start off with clean slates free from numerous written and oral agreements and understandings now existent and known throughout the industry. Hence dissolution might well have the salutary effect of completely clearing new horizons that the trial judge was attempting to create in the boxing world, especially when effected in con junetion with the stock divestiture provision. Moreover, there would be little inconvenience and nominal expense even if, as appellants contend, they “as a practical matter must [form new corporations] if they are to promote any boxing at all.” This we think a poor excuse for not completely eliminating, by dissolution, these old trappings of monopoly and restraint.
The Compulsory Leasing Provisions.
The District Court, having found that one of the means used in effectuating the conspiracy was the ownership and control of arenas and stadia, entered a compulsory leasing provision in the decree as to Madison Square Garden and the Chicago Stadium Corporation.
The appellants’ main concern with this provision of the decree is the requirement that in the event the terms of a lease cannot be agreed upon the matter will be submitted to the District Court. Appellants fear that this is not only an undesirable but an impractical activity for a District Court. But they have suggested no alternative to relieve the court of this burden. Obviously, such a provision may result in some disputes which must be settled. Until experience in the enforcement of the provision proves the reference to be too burdensome we see no reason to disturb it. If experience proves it unworkable the parties, under the decree, may apply to the court for appropriate relief. See Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U. S. 143, 156-157 (1951); International Salt Co. v. United States, supra, at 401.
Exclusive Contracts With Contestants.
Appellants object to the prohibition against exclusive contracts applying to all professional boxing contests. They question the Government’s enlarging its base from championship bouts to all professional boxing. But human nature being what it is there is sound reason to say that exclusive contracts with boxers in nontitle contests would surely affect those same boxers when and if they arrive at the title. Such arrangements would give appellants, so experienced in the boxing field, a decided advantage over the independent promoter. Such a prohibition is fully justified at least until the effects of the conspiracy are fully dissipated. For the same reason we see no fault in the five-year prohibition against exclusive rights to a return bout.
The trial court recognized that these restrictions went beyond the “relevant market” which has been considered for purposes of determining the Sherman Act violations, but felt that “[t]he relief here must be broader than the championship field because the evil to be remedied is broader.” This Court has recognized that sometimes “relief, to be effective, must go beyond the narrow limits of the proven violation.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., supra, 340 U. S., at p. 90; Timken Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 593, 600 (1951). When this sort of relief is granted, we must of course be especially wary lest the trial court overstep the correspondingly narrower limits of its discretion, but, for the reasons set out above, we feel that no such misuse of the trial court’s power is present here.
We have considered the other objections of appellants to the decree and find them unsubstantial as presently posed. In the event experience proves that some of the provisions are so severe as to require modification or amendment, the parties may apply to the District Court as provided in paragraph 25 of the decree. The judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
15 U. S. C. § 1 et seq.
Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Lee Savold, and Gus Lesnevich.
The importance of Madison Square Garden in the present context is shown by the fact that of all the championship contests staged during the 12 years immediately preceding 1949, 45% were held in New York City, of which 75% were in Madison Square Garden. The balance of the New York championship bouts, with one exception, were held in Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds, or St. Nicholas Arena.
Between 1937 and 1948, 50% of all championship contests were staged in either Madison Square Garden, Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds, St. Nicholas Arena, Chicago Stadium, Detroit Olympia Arena, or the St. Louis Arena.
At the time the I. B. C.’s were formed, Joe Louis owned 20% of the stock of each and the other 80% was split evenly between Norris and Wirtz on one hand and Madison Square Garden on the other. At some point thereafter, Louis ceased to be a stockholder and his share was split evenly between Norris-Wirtz and Madison Square Garden. At the time of the final decree, apparently as the result of an effort to make a showing of separateness of control, the Norris-Wirtz interests owned all of the stock in I. B. C., Illinois, and Madison Square Garden owned all of the stock in I. B. C., New York. The trial court found that the two interests nevertheless still shared equally in the combined profits of both I. B. C.’s.
According to the District Court, the “Nielsen Average Audience rating is a percentage which purports to show the number of residential television sets that were tuned in to the program expressed as a percentage of the total residential television sets, whether turned off or on, which were in areas into which the program was telecast.”
Approximately 25% of the revenue produced by the appellants’ championship fights during the period covered by the complaint was derived through the sale of radio, television and motion picture rights.
By analogy, it bears those sufficiently “peculiar characteristics” found in automobile fabrics and finishes such as to bring them within the Clayton Act’s “line of commerce.” United States v. du Pont & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 593-595 (1957).
Norris and Wirtz were given five years to sell their stock in Madison Square Garden, which stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. During this time, the stock is to be held by two trustees named by the court. If the stock is not sold within five years, the trustees are ordered to sell it within the next two years.
This provision of the decree, applying only to championship contests, ordered appellants to lease their respective buildings upon seasonable written request by a qualified promoter, if the proposed rent is reasonable, if the applicant furnishes adequate security, and if at the time of the application the building is neither already under lease to another for the specified day nor in conflict at that time with “any well-established event” which has been regularly conducted therein. If the parties cannot agree on what constitutes adequate security or a reasonable rental, either party may apply to the court for a determination 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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court. Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) directs a court to award “fees and other expenses” to private parties who prevail in litigation against the United States if, among other conditions, the position of the United States was not “substantially justified.” In many cases parties are able to resolve by stipulation a claim for fees under the EAJA. In some cases, however, a fee application will prompt the Government to litigate aspects of the fee request or require the court to convene a hearing before deciding if an award of fees and expenses is authorized. The question in this case is whether a prevailing party is ineligible for fees for the services rendered during such a proceeding unless the Government’s position in the fee litigation itself is not “substantially justified.”
Because the question for decision is so narrow—affecting only eligibility for compensation for services rendered for fee litigation rather than the amount that may be appropriately awarded for such services—it is not necessary to restate the protracted history of this vigorously contested litigation. It is sufficient to note that the District Court expressly found that respondents “were the prevailing parties within the meaning of the Act, that the government’s position was not substantially justified and that there are no other special circumstances that would make an award unjust.” The Court of Appeals upheld these findings. Jean v. Nelson, 863 F. 2d 759, 765-769 (CA11 1988). After an extensive review of the record developed at the fee hearing, however, the Court of Appeals decided that certain errors required that the case “be remanded for recalculation of attorney’s fees and expenses.” Id., at 780. In view of this holding, we must assume that at least some of the positions petitioners took regarding the proper fee were substantially justified, even though their position on the merits of the litigation was not. Thus, the record squarely presents the question whether the District Court must make a second finding of no “substantial justification” before awarding respondents any fees for the fee litigation.
Petitioners concede that fees for time and expenses incurred in applying for fees are appropriate, but take the position that, unless the court finds that their position in the fee litigation itself was not substantially justified, fees for any litigation about fees are not recoverable. It is respondents’ position that fee litigation is a component part of an integrated case and that if the statutory prerequisites for an award of fees for prevailing in the case are satisfied, the award presumptively encompasses services for fee litigation. Because the Courts of Appeals have resolved this question differently, we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 1055 (1990).
I
Section 2412(d)(1)(A) of Title 28 provides:
“Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”
Thus, eligibility for a fee award in any civil action requires: (1) that the claimant be a “prevailing party”; (2) that the Government’s position was not “substantially justified”; (3) that no “special circumstances make an award unjust”; and, (4) pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), that any fee application be submitted to the court within 30 days of final judgment in the action and be supported by an itemized statement. Only the application of the “substantially justified” condition is at issue in this case.
The most telling answer to petitioners’ submission that they may assert a “substantial justification” defense at multiple stages of an action is the complete absence of any textual support for this position. Subsection (d)(1)(A) refers to an award of fees “in any civil action” without any reference to separate parts of the litigation, such as discovery requests, fees, or appeals. The reference to “the position of the United States” in the singular also suggests that the court need make only one finding about the justification of that position.
In 1985, Congress amended the EAJA, adding the following definition:
“(D) ‘position of the United States’ means, in addition to the position taken by the United States in the civil action, the action or failure to act by the agency upon which the civil action is based; except that fees and expenses may not be awarded to a party for any portion of the litigation in which the party has unreasonably protracted the proceedings.” Pub. L. 99-80, 99 Stat. 185, § 2(c)(2)(B), 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(2)(D).
The fact that the “position” is again denominated in the singular, although it may encompass both the agency’s pre-litigation conduct and the Department of Justice’s subsequent litigation positions, buttresses the conclusion that only one threshold determination for the entire civil action is to be made.
The language Congress chose in describing the fee application procedure in § 2412(d)(1)(B) corroborates the statute’s other references to a single finding. A fee application must contain an allegation “that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.” Ibid. Again, the reference is to only one position, and it is to a position that the Government took in the past. There is no reference to the position the Government may take in response to the fee application. Moreover, the 1985 amendment to § 2412(d)(1)(B) directs a court to determine whether the Government’s past position was substantially justified “on the basis of the record (including the record with respect to the action or failure to act by the agency upon which the civil action is based) which is made in the civil action for which fees and other expenses are sought.” Pub. L. 99-80, 99 Stat. 184-185, § 2(b), 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). The reference to “the record” in the civil action is again in the singular.
The single finding that the Government’s position lacks substantial justification, like the determination that a claimant is a “prevailing party,” thus operates as a one-time threshold for fee eligibility. In EAJA cases, the court first must determine if the applicant is a “prevailing party” by evaluating the degree of success obtained. If the Government then asserts an exception for substantial justification or for circumstances that render an award unjust, the court must make a second finding regarding these additional threshold conditions. As we held in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424 (1983), the “prevailing party” requirement is “a generous formulation that brings the plaintiff only across the statutory threshold. It remains for the district court to determine what fee is ‘reasonable.’” Id., at 433. Similarly, once a private litigant has met the multiple conditions for eligibility for EAJA fees, the district court’s task of determining what fee is reasonable is essentially the same as that described in Hensley. See id., at 433-437.
In Hensley, we emphasized that it is appropriate to allow the district court discretion to determine the amount of a fee award, given its “superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters.” Id., at 437. The EAJA prescribes a similar flexibility. Section § 2412(d)(1)(C) empowers the district court, “in its discretion,” to “reduce the amount to be awarded pursuant to this subsection, or deny an award, to the extent that the prevailing party during the course of the proceedings engaged in conduct which unduly and unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter in controversy.” This exception to a fee award was repeated in the 1985 amendment that added a definition of “position of the United States,” by there excluding fees and expenses “for any portion of the litigation in which the party has unreasonably protracted the proceedings.” Supra, at 159; § 2412(d)(2)(D). Thus, absent unreasonably dilatory conduct by the prevailing party in “any portion” of the litigation, which would justify denying fees for that portion, a fee award presumptively encompasses all aspects of the civil action.
Any given civil action can have numerous phases. While the parties’ postures on individual matters may be more or less justified, the EAJA—like other fee-shifting statutes —favors treating a case as an inclusive whole, rather than as atomized line-items. See, e. g., Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U. S. 877, 888 (1989) (where administrative proceedings are “necessary to the attainment of the results Congress sought to promote by providing for fees, they should be considered part and parcel of the action for which fees may be awarded”). Cf. Gagne v. Maher, 594 F. 2d 336, 344 (CA2 1979) (“[D]enying attorneys’ fees for time spent in obtaining them would ‘dilute the value of a fees award by forcing attorneys into extensive, uncompensated litigation in order to gain any fees’ ” under 42 U. S. C. § 1988), aff’d on other grounds, 448 U. S. 122 (1980); Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U. S. 546, 559 (1986) (fees for postjudgment proceedings to enforce consent decree properly compensable as a cost litigation under § 304(d) of the Clean Air Act); New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U. S. 54 (1980) (fees for administrative proceedings included under § 706(k) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Petitioners acknowledge that the EAJA may provide compensation for all aspects of fee litigation; they only dispute the finding necessary to support such an award. They would allow, without a specific threshold determination, fees for “‘the time spent preparing the EAJA fee application . . . because it is “necessary for the preparation of the party’s case[,]” 28 U. S. C. § 2414(d)(2) (A),”’ but they would subject a fee request for any further work in pursuing that application to an additional substantial justification defense. Brief for Petitioners 16, n. 17 (quoting Kelly v. Bowen, 862 F. 2d 1333, 1334 (CA8 1988)); see n. 4, supra. We find no textual or logical argument for treating so differently a party’s preparation of a fee application and its ensuing efforts to support that same application.
II
Petitioners further argue, as a matter of policy, that the allowance of an automatic award of “fees for fees” will encourage exorbitant fee requests, generate needless litigation, and unreasonably burden the federal fisc. Brief for Petitioners 26-31. The terms of the statute, as well as its structure and purpose, identify at least two responses to these arguments.
First, no award of fees is “automatic.” Eligibility for fees is established upon meeting the four conditions set out by the statute, but a district court will always retain substantial discretion in fixing the amount of an EAJA award. Exorbitant, unfounded, or procedurally defective fee applications—like any other improper position that may unreasonably protract proceedings—are matters that the district court can recognize and discount. Petitioners’ fear that such requests will receive “automatic” approval is unfounded. In contrast, requiring courts to make a separate finding of “substantial justification” regarding the Government’s opposition to fee requests would multiply litigation. “A request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Hensley, 461 U. S., at 437. As petitioners admit, allowing a “substantial justification” exception to fee litigation theoretically can spawn a “Kafkaesque judicial nightmare” of infinite litigation to recover fees for the last round of litigation over fees. Brief for Petitioners 29; Cinciarelli v. Reagan, 234 U. S. App. D. C. 315, 324, 729 F. 2d 801, 810 (1984).
Second, the specific purpose of the EAJA is to eliminate for the average person the financial disincentive to challenge unreasonable governmental actions. See Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U. S., at 883. The EAJA applies to a wide range of awards in which the cost of litigating fee disputes would equal or exceed the cost of litigating the merits of the claim. If the Government could impose the cost of fee litigation on prevailing parties by asserting a “substantially justified” defense to fee applications, the financial deterrent that the EAJA aims to eliminate would be resurrected. The Government’s general interest in protecting the federal fisc is subordinate to the specific statutory goals of encouraging private parties to vindicate their rights and “curbing excessive regulation and the unreasonable exercise of Government authority.”
The “substantial justification” requirement of the EAJA establishes a clear threshold for determining a prevailing party’s eligibility for fees, one that properly focuses on the governmental misconduct giving rise to the litigation. The EAJA further provides district courts discretion to adjust the amount of fees for various portions of the litigation, guided by reason and statutory criteria. The purpose and legislative history of the statute reinforce our conclusion that Congress intended the EAJA to cover the cost of all phases of successful civil litigation addressed by the statute.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The EAJA, Pub. L. 96-481, 94 Stat. 2325, and its extension and amendment, Pub. L. 99-80, 99 Stat. 183, authorized fee awards to prevailing parties in both federal agency adjudications and certain civil actions. It therefore amended relevant portions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 504 et seq., as well as the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 2412 et seq. This case involves only the latter portion of the EAJA.
The fee litigation is the subject of Louis v. Nelson, 624 F. Supp. 836 (SD Fla. 1985) (initial order), Louis v. Nelson, 646 F. Supp. 1300 (SD Fla. 1986) (corrected memorandum after hearing), and Jean v. Nelson, 863 F. 2d 759 (CA11 1988). The history of the litigation of the merits is traced in a dozen other opinions. Louis v. Meissner, 530 F. Supp. 924 (SD Fla. 1981); Louis v. Meissner, 532 F. Supp. 881 (SD Fla. 1982); Louis v. Nelson, 544 F. Supp. 973 (SD Fla. 1982); Louis v. Nelson, 544 F. Supp. 1004 (SD Fla. 1982); Jean v. Nelson, 683 F. 2d 1311 (CA11 1982); Jean v. Nelson, 711 F. 2d 1455 (CA11 1983); Louis v. Nelson, 560 F. Supp. 896 (SD Fla. 1983); Louis v. Nelson, 560 F. Supp. 899 (SD Fla. 1983); Louis v. Nelson, 570 F. Supp. 1364 (SD Fla. 1983); Jean v. Nelson, 727 F. 2d 957 (CA11 1984) (en banc); Jean v. Nelson, 472 U. S. 846 (1985); Jean v. Nelson, 854 F. 2d 405 (CA11 1988).
624 F. Supp., at 837. With respect to the lack of substantial justification, the court explained: “In light of prior precedent and the advice of counsel, [the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s] refusal to comply with the APA was not reasonable; nor was the position of the United States Attorney’s Office in defending these actions by claiming that the change in policy was not a rule subject to the rulemaking requirements of the APA.” Id., at 839.
Petitioners divide the consideration of EAJA fee awards into two stages:
“In our view, it is appropriate to include reasonable fees and expenses incurred in preparing a fee application as part of any award of fees for the merits phase of the litigation. But . . . the government should not be required to pay for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in separate litigation over the availability and size of the fee award unless the position of the government in this distinct phase of the ease was not substantially justified.” Brief for Petitioners 15-16 (footnote omitted).
Compare Cinciarelli v. Reagan, 234 U. S. App. D. C. 315, 729 F. 2d 801 (1984); McDonald v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 884 F. 2d 1468 (CA1 1989); Trichilo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F. 2d 702 (CA2 1987); Powell v. Commissioner, 891 F. 2d 1167 (CA5 1990) (no additional finding of substantial justification required), with Continental Web Press, Inc. v. NLRB, 767 P. 2d 321 (CA7 1985); Cornella v. Schweiker, 741 F. 2d 170 (CA8 1984); National Wildlife Federation v. FERC, 870 P. 2d 542 (CA9 1989) (additional finding required).
We have held that the term “substantially justified” means “‘justified in substance or in the main’—that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. That is no different from the ‘reasonable basis both in law and fact’ formulation adopted by the Ninth Circuit and the vast majority of other Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue. To be ‘substantially justified’ means, of course, more than merely undeserving of sanctions for frivolousness.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 565-566 (1988) (citations omitted).
Congress’ emphasis on the underlying Government action supports a single evaluation of past conduct. See H. R. Rep. No. 98-992, pp. 9, 13 (1984) (“[T]he amendment will make clear that the Congressional intent is to provide for attorney fees when an unjustifiable agency action forces litigation, and the agency then tries to avoid such liability by reasonable behavior during the litigation”); S. Rep. No. 98-586, p. 10 (1984) (“Congress expressly recognized ‘that the expense of correcting error on the part of the Government should not rest wholly on the party whose willingness to litigate or adjudicate has helped to define the limits of Federal authority.’ [H. R. Rep. No. 96-1418, p. 10 (1980).] The ‘Government error’ referred to is not one of the Department of Justice’s representatives litigating the case, but is rather the government action that led the private party to the decision to litigate”).
The House Report on the amendment echoes this finality:
“When the case is litigated to a final decision by a court or adjudicative officer (or even when the case is settled after only some litigation procedures) the evaluation of the government’s position will be straightforward, since the parties will have already aired the facts that led the agency to bring the action. No additional discovery of the government’s position will be necessary, for EAJA petition purposes.” H. R. Rep. No. 99-120, p. 13 (1985) (emphasis added).
A cursory review of EAJA fee awards in 1989 (prior to appellate review) reveals that district courts substantially reduced the amounts of fees requested by parties. Out of 502 applications in 1989, the 413 that were granted requested a total of $2,419,123 in fees and expenses, of which only $1,850,906 were awarded. Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, Report of Fees and Expenses Awarded Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 99, Table 32 (1989) (hereinafter 1989 Report of Fees).
Because Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 437 (1983), requires the district court to consider the relationship between the amount of the fee awarded and the results obtained, fees for fee litigation should be excluded to the extent that the applicant ultimately fails to prevail in such litigation. For example, if the Government’s challenge to a requested rate for paralegal time resulted in the court’s recalculating and reducing the award for paralegal time from the requested amount, then the applicant should not receive fees for the time spent defending the higher rate.
Congress prefaced the EAJA with this statement of its findings and purposes:
‘“(a) The Congress finds that certain individuals, partnerships, corporations, and labor and other organizations may be deterred from seeking review of, or defending against, unreasonable governmental action because of the expense involved in securing the vindication of their rights in civil actions and in administrative proceedings.
“‘(b) The Congress further finds that because of the greater resources and expertise of the United States the standard for an award of fees against the United States should be different from the standard governing an award against a private litigant, in certain situations.
“‘(c) It is the purpose of this title—
“‘(1) to diminish the deterrent effect of seeking review of, or defending against, governmental action by providing in specified situations an award of attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other costs against the United States; and
“‘(2) to insure the applicability in actions by or against the United States of the common law and statutory exceptions to the ‘American rule’ respecting the award of attorney fees.’ ” Congressional Findings and Purposes, note following 5 U. S. C. § 504.
Ninety percent of EAJA fee awards are made in cases involving the Department of Health and Human Services. In 1989, these awards averaged less than $3,000 each. 1989 Report of Fees, p. 100, Table 32.
EAJA awards have remained comfortably under the Congressional Budget Office’s 1985 Cost Estimate of 1,000 awards annually, averaging $6,000 each, by 1990. H. Supp. Rep. No. 99-120, pt. 2, p. 3 (1985). Although this ease involves an exceptionally large award (the District Court’s initial fee award totaled more than $1 million, 646 F. Supp., at 1323), in 1986 the average fee award under the EAJA, prior to appellate review, was $3,821. Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, Report of Fees and Expenses Awarded Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 93, Table 31 (1986). The average of the 413 awards granted in 1989, prior to appellate review, was $4,482. 1989 Report of Fees, p. 97, Table 31.
H. R. Rep. No. 96-1418, p. 12 (1980). The Committee Reports of both the House and the Senate reflect the dual concerns of access for individuals and improvement of Government policies.
“[T]he Government with its greater resources and expertise can in effect coerce compliance with its position. Where compliance is coerced, precedent may be established on the basis of an uncontested order rather than the thoughtful presentation and consideration of opposing views. In fact, there is evidence that small businesses are the target of agency action precisely because they do not have the resources to fully litigate the issue. This kind of truncated justice undermines the integrity of the decision-making process.
“The exception created by [the EAJA] focuses primarily on those individuals for whom cost may be a deterrent to vindicating their rights. The bill rests on the premise that a party who chooses to litigate an issue against the Government is not only representing his or her own vested interest but is also refining and formulating public policy. An adjudication or civil action provides a concrete, adversarial test of Government regulation and thereby insures the legitimacy and fairness of the law. An adjudication, for example, may show that the policy or factual foundation underlying an agency rule is erroneous or inaccurate, or it may provide a vehicle for developing or announcing more precise rules. . . . Where parties are serving a public purpose, it is unfair to ask them to finance through their tax dollars unreasonable Government action and also bear the costs of vindicating their rights.” Id., at 10.
“Providing an award of fees to a prevailing party represents one way to improve citizen access to courts and administrative proceedings. When there is an opportunity to recover costs, a party does not have to choose between acquiescing to an unreasonable Government order or prevailing to his financial detriment. . . . By allowing a decision to contest Government action to be based on the merits of the case rather than the cost of litigating, [the EAJA] helps assure that administrative decisions reflect informed deliberation.” S. Rep. No. 96-253, p. 7 (1979).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 522(l) of the Bankruptcy Code requires a debtor to file a list of the property that the debtor claims as statutorily exempt from distribution to creditors. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003 affords creditors and the bankruptcy trustee 30 days to object to claimed exemptions. We must decide in this case whether the trustee may contest the validity of an exemption after the 30-day period if the debtor had no colorable basis for claiming the exemption.
I
The debtor in this case, Emily Davis, declared bankruptcy while she was pursuing an employment discrimination claim in the state courts. The relevant proceedings began in 1978 when Davis filed a complaint with the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations. Davis alleged that her employer, Trans World Airlines (TWA), had denied her promotions on the basis of her race and sex. The Commission held for Davis as to liability but did not calculate the damages owed by TWA. The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas reversed the Commission, but the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed that court and reinstated the Commission’s determination of liability. TWA next appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
In October 1984, while that appeal was pending, Davis filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Petitioner, Robert J. Taylor, became the trustee of Davis’ bankruptcy estate. Respondents, Wendell G. Freeland, Richard F. Kronz, and their law firm, represented Davis in the discrimination suit. On a schedule filed with the Bankruptcy Court, Davis claimed as exempt property the money that she expected to win in her discrimination suit against TWA. She described this property as “Proceeds from lawsuit — [Davis] v. TWA” and “Claim for lost wages” and listed its value as “unknown.” App. 18.
Performing his duty as a trustee, Taylor held the required initial meeting of creditors in January 1985. See 11 U. S. C. § 341; Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 2003(a). At this meeting, respondents told Taylor that they estimated that Davis might win $90,000 in her suit against TWA. Several days after the meeting, Taylor wrote a letter to respondents telling them that he considered the potential proceeds of the lawsuit to be property of Davis’ bankruptcy estate. He also asked respondents for more details about the suit. Respondents described the procedural posture of the case and expressed optimism that they might settle with TWA for $110,000.
Taylor decided not to object to the claimed exemption. The record reveals that Taylor doubted that the lawsuit had any value. Taylor at one point explained: “I have had past experience in examining debtors ...[.] [M]any of them . .. indicate they have potential lawsuits.... [M]any of them do not turn out to be advantageous and ... many of them might wind up settling far within the exemption limitation.” App. 52. Taylor also said that he thought Davis’ discrimination claim against TWA might be a “nullity.” Id., at 58. '
Taylor proved mistaken. In October 1986, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s determination that TWA had discriminated against Davis. In a subsequent settlement of the issue of damages, TWA agreed to pay Davis a total of $110,000. TWA paid part of this amount by issuing a check made to both Davis and respondents for $71,000. Davis apparently signed this check over to respondents in payment of their fees. TWA paid the remainder of the $110,000 by other means. Upon learning of the settlement, Taylor filed a complaint against respondents in the Bankruptcy Court. He demanded that respondents turn over the money that they had received from Davis because he considered it property of Davis’ bankruptcy estate. Respondents argued that they could keep the fees because Davis had claimed the proceeds of the lawsuit as exempt.
The Bankruptcy Court sided with Taylor. It concluded that Davis had “no statutory basis” for claiming the proceeds of the lawsuit as exempt and ordered respondents to “return” approximately $23,000 to Taylor, a sum sufficient to pay off all of Davis’ unpaid creditors. In re Davis, 105 B. R. 288 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Pa. 1989). The District Court affirmed, In re Davis, 118 B. R. 272 (WD Pa. 1990), but the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, 938 F. 2d 420 (1991). The Court of Appeals held that the Bankruptcy Court could not require respondents to turn over the money because Davis had claimed it as exempt, and Taylor had failed to object to the claimed exemption in a timely manner. We granted certiorari, 502 U. S. 976 (1991), and now affirm.
II
When a debtor files a bankruptcy petition, all of his property becomes property of a bankruptcy estate. See 11 U. S. C. § 541. The Code, however, allows the debtor to prevent the distribution of certain property by claiming it as exempt. Section 522(b) allowed Davis to choose the exemptions afforded by state law or the federal exemptions listed in § 522(d). Section 522(l) states the procedure for claiming exemptions and objecting to claimed exemptions as follows:
“The debtor shall file a list of property that the debtor claims as exempt under subsection (b) of this section.... Unless a party in interest objects, the property claimed as exempt on such list is exempt.”
Although § 522(l) itself does not specify the time for objecting to a claimed exemption, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003(b) provides in part:
“The trustee or any creditor may file objections to the list of property claimed as exempt within 30 days after the conclusion of the meeting of creditors held pursuant to Rule 2003(a) . . . unless, within such period, further time is granted by the court.”
In this case, as noted, Davis claimed the proceeds from her employment discrimination lawsuit as exempt by listing them in the schedule that she filed under § 522(7). The parties agree that Davis did not have a right to exempt more than a small portion of these proceeds either under state law or under the federal exemptions specified in § 522(d). Davis in fact claimed the full amount as exempt. Taylor, as a result, apparently could have made a valid objection under § 522(l) and Rule 4003 if he had acted promptly. We hold, however, that his failure to do so prevents him from challenging the validity of the exemption now.
A
Taylor acknowledges that Rule 4003(b) establishes a 30-day period for objecting to exemptions and that §522(l) states that “[ujnless a party in interest objects, the property claimed as exempt... is exempt.” He argues, nonetheless, that his failure to object does not preclude him from challenging the exemption at this time. In Taylor’s view, §522(l) and Rule 4003(b) serve only to narrow judicial inquiry into the validity of an exemption after 30 days, not to preclude judicial inquiry altogether. In particular, he maintains that courts may invalidate a claimed exemption after expiration of the 30-day period if the debtor did not have a good-faith or reasonably disputable basis for claiming it. In this case, Taylor asserts, Davis did not have a colorable basis for claiming all of the lawsuit proceeds as exempt and thus lacked good faith.
Taylor justifies his interpretation of § 522(l) by arguing that requiring debtors to file claims in good faith will discourage them from claiming meritless exemptions merely in hopes that no one will object. Taylor does not stand alone in this reading of § 522(b). Several Courts of Appeals have adopted the same position upon similar reasoning. See In re Peterson, 920 F. 2d 1389, 1393-1394 (CA8 1990); In re Dembs, 757 F. 2d 777, 780 (CA6 1985); In re Sherk, 918 F. 2d 1170, 1174 (CA5 1990).
We reject Taylor’s argument. Davis claimed the lawsuit proceeds as exempt on a list filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Section 522(1), to repeat, says that “[ujnless a party in interest objects, the property claimed as exempt on such list is exempt.” Rule 4003(b) gives the trustee and creditors 30 days from the initial creditors’ meeting to object. By negative implication, the Rule indicates that creditors may not object after 30 days “unless, within such period, further time is granted by the court.” The Bankruptcy Court did not extend the 30-day period. Section 522(l) therefore has made the property exempt. Taylor cannot contest the exemption at this time whether or not Davis had a colorable statutory basis for claiming it.
Deadlines may lead to unwelcome results, but they prompt parties to act and they produce finality. In this case, despite what respondents repeatedly told him, Taylor did not object to the claimed exemption. If Taylor did not know the value of the potential proceeds of the lawsuit, he could have sought a hearing on the issue, see Rule 4003(c), or he could have asked the Bankruptcy Court for an extension of time to object, see Rule 4003(b). Having done neither, Taylor cannot now seek to deprive Davis and respondents of the exemption.
Taylor suggests that our holding will create improper incentives. He asserts that it will lead debtors to claim property exempt on the chance that the trustee and creditors, for whatever reason, will fail to object to the claimed exemption on time. He asserts that only a requirement of good faith can prevent what the Eighth Circuit has termed “exemption by declaration.” Peterson, supra, at 1393. This concern, however, does not cause us to alter our interpretation of §6220).
Debtors and their attorneys face penalties under various provisions for engaging in improper conduct in bankruptcy proceedings. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 727(a)(4)(B) (authorizing denial of discharge for presenting fraudulent claims); Rule 1008 (requiring filings to “be verified or contain an unsworn declaration” of truthfulness under penalty of perjury); Rule 9011 (authorizing sanctions for signing certain documents not “well grounded in fact and ... warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law”); 18 U. S. C. § 152 (imposing criminal penalties for fraud in bankruptcy cases). These provisions may limit bad-faith claims of exemptions by debtors. To the extent that they do not, Congress may enact comparable provisions to address the difficulties that Taylor predicts will follow our decision. We have no authority to limit the application of § 522(l) to exemptions claimed in good faith.
B
Taylor also asserts that courts may consider the validity of the exemption under a different provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 105(a), despite his failure to object in a timely manner. That provision states:
“The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process” Ibid, (emphasis added).
Although Taylor stresses that he is not asserting that courts in bankruptcy have broad authorization to do equity in derogation of the Code and Rules, he maintains that § 105 permits courts to disallow exemptions not claimed in good faith. Several courts have accepted this position. See, e. g., Ragsdale v. Genesco, Inc., 674 F. 2d 277, 278 (CA4 1982); In re Staniforth, 116 B. R. 127, 131 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Wis. 1990); In re Budinsky, No. 90-01099, 1991 WL 105640 (WD Pa., June 10, 1991).
We decline to consider § 105(a) in this case because Taylor raised the argument for the first time in his opening brief on the merits. Our Rule 14.1(a) makes clear that “[o]nly the questions set forth in the petition [for certiorari], or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court,” and our Rule 24.1(a) states that a brief on the merits should not “raise additional questions or change the substance of the questions already presented” in the petition. See Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 535 (1992). In addition, we have said that “[o]rdinarily, this Court does not decide questions not raised or resolved in the lower court[s].” Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976) (per curiam). These principles help to maintain the integrity of the process of certio-rari. Cf. Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 816 (1985). The Court decides which questions to consider through well-established procedures; allowing the able counsel who argue before us to alter these questions or to devise additional questions at the last minute would thwart this system. We see no “unusual circumstances” that warrant addressing Taylor’s § 105(a) argument at this time. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 443, n. 38 (1984).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, invoking the Civil Rights Act, Rev. Stat. § 1979,42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1958 ed.), and seeking declaratory relief and an injunction restraining appellees — the Governor, police and law enforcement officers, and the Chairman of the Legislative Joint Committee on Un-American Activities in Louisiana — from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute appellants for alleged violations of the Louisiana Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and the Communist Propaganda Control Law. Appellant Southern Conference Educational Fund, Inc. (SCEF), is active in fostering civil rights for Negroes in Louisiana and other States of the South. Appellant Dombrowski is its Executive Director; intervenor Smith, its Treasurer; and intervenor Waltzer, Smith’s law partner and an attorney for SCEF. The complaint alleges that the statutes on their face violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees securing freedom of expression, because overbreadth makes them susceptible of sweeping and improper application abridging those rights. Supported by affidavits and a written offer of proof, the complaint further alleges that the threats to enforce the statutes against appellants are not made with any expectation of securing valid convictions, but rather are part of a plan to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of prosecution under color of the statutes to harass appellants and discourage them and their supporters from asserting and attempting to vindicate the constitutional rights of Negro citizens of Louisiana.
A three-judge district court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1958 ed.), dismissed the complaint, one judge dissenting, “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” 227 F. Supp. 556, 564. The majority were of the view that the allegations, conceded to raise serious constitutional issues, did not present a case of threatened irreparable injury to federal rights which warranted cutting short the normal adjudication of constitutional defenses in the course of state criminal prosecutions; rather, the majority held, this was an appropriate case for abstention, since a possible narrowing construction by the state courts would avoid unnecessary decision of constitutional questions. In accordance with this view the court withdrew its initial determination that the statutes were not unconstitutional on their face. 227 F. Supp., at 562-563. Postponement of consideration of the federal issues until state prosecution and possible review here of adverse state determination was thought to be especially appropriate since the statutes concerned the State’s “basic right of self-preservation” and the threatened prosecution was “imbued . . . with an aura of sedition or treason or acts designed to substitute a different form of local government by other than lawful means...” ; federal court interference with enforcement of such statutes “truly . . . would be a massive emasculation of the last vestige of the dignity of sovereignty.” 227 F. Supp., at 559, 560. We noted probable jurisdiction in order to resolve a seeming conflict with our later decision in Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, and to settle important questions concerning federal injunctions against state criminal prosecutions threatening constitutionally protected expression. 377 U. S. 976. We reverse.
HH
In Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, the fountainhead of federal injunctions against state prosecutions, the Court characterized the power and its proper exercise in broad terms: it would be justified where state officers . . threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against par-. ties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution . . . 209 U. S., at 156. Since that decision, however, considerations of federalism have tempered the exercise of equitable power, for the Court has recognized that federal interference with a State’s good-faith administration of its criminal laws is peculiarly inconsistent with our federal framework. It is generally to be assumed that state courts and prosecutors will observe constitutional limitations as expounded by this Court, and that the mere possibility of erroneous initial application of constitutional standards will usually not amount to the irreparable injury necessary to justify a disruption of orderly state proceedings. In Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, for example, the Court upheld a district court’s refusal to enjoin application of a city ordinance to religious solicitation, even though the ordinance was that very day held unconstitutional as so applied on review of a criminal conviction under it. Mur-dock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105. Since injunctive relief looks to the future, and it was not alleged that Pennsylvania courts and prosecutors would fail to respect the Murdock ruling, the Court found nothing to justify an injunction. And in a variety of other contexts the Court has found no special circumstances to warrant cutting short the normal adjudication of constitutional defenses in the course of a criminal prosecution. In such cases it does not appear that the plaintiffs “have been threatened with any injury other than that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith, or that a federal court of equity by withdrawing the determination of guilt from the state courts could rightly afford petitioners any protection which they could not secure by prompt trial and appeal pursued to this Court.” Douglas v. City of Jeannette, supra, at 164.
But the allegations in this complaint depict a situation in which defense of the State’s criminal prosecution will not assure adequate vindication of constitutional rights. They suggest that a substantial loss or impairment of freedoms of expression will occur if appellants must await the state court’s disposition and ultimate review in this Court of any adverse determination. These allegations, if true, clearly show irreparable injury.
A criminal prosecution under a statute regulating expression usually involves imponderables and contingencies that themselves may inhibit the full exercise of First Amendment freedoms. See, e. g., Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147. When the statutes also have an over-broad sweep, as is here alleged, the hazard of loss or substantial impairment of those precious rights may be critical. For in such cases, the statutes lend themselves too readily to denial of those rights. The assumption that defense of a criminal prosecution will generally assure ample vindication of constitutional rights is unfounded in such cases. See Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 379. For “[t]he threat of sanctions may deter . . . almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions. . . .” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433. Because of the sensitive nature of constitutionally protected expression, we have not required that all of those subject to overbroad regulations risk prosecution to test their rights. For free expression — of transcendent value to all society, and not merely to those exercising their rights — might be the loser. Cf. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74-75. For example, we have consistently allowed attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97-98; NAACP v. Button, supra, at 432-433; cf. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 515-517; United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 21-22. We have fashioned this exception to the usual rules governing standing, see United States v. Raines, supra, because of the . . danger of tolerating, in the area of First Amendment freedoms, the existence of a penal statute susceptible of sweeping and improper application.” NAACP v. Button, supra, at 433. If the rule were otherwise, the contours of regulation would have to be hammered out case by case — and tested only by those hardy enough to' risk criminal prosecution to determine the proper scope of regulation. Cf. Ex parte Young, supra, at 147-148. By permitting determination of the invalidity of these statutes without regard to the permissibility of some regulation on the facts of particular cases, we have, in effect, avoided making vindication of freedom of expression await the outcome of protracted litigation. Moreover, we have not thought that the improbability of successful prosecution makes the case different. The chilling effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights may derive from the fact of the prosecution, unaffected by the prospects of its success or failure. See NAACP v. Button, supra, at 432-433; cf. Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 378-379; Bush v. Orleans School Board, 194 F. Supp. 182, 185, affirmed sub nom. Tugwell v. Bush, 367 U. S. 907; Gremillion v. United States, 368 U. S. 11.
Appellants’ allegations and offers of proof outline the chilling effect on free expression of prosecutions initiated and threatened in this case. Early in October 1963 appellant Dombrowski and intervenors Smith and Waltzer were arrested by Louisiana state and local police and charged with violations of the two statutes. Their offices were raided and their files and records seized. Later in October a state judge quashed the arrest warrants as not based on probable cause, and discharged the appellants. Subsequently, the court granted a motion to suppress the seized evidence on the ground that the raid was illegal. Louisiana officials continued, however, to threaten prosecution of the appellants, who thereupon filed this action in November. Shortly after the three-judge court was convened, a grand jury was summoned in the Parish of Orleans to hear evidence looking to indictments of the individual appellants. On appellants’ application Judge Wisdom issued a temporary restraining order against prosecutions pending hearing and decision of the case in the District Court. Following a hearing the District Court, over Judge Wisdom’s dissent, dissolved the temporary restraining order and, at the same time, handed down an order dismissing the complaint. Thereafter the grand jury returned indictments under the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law against the individual appellants.
These events, together with repeated announcements by appellees that the appellant organization is a subversive or Communist-front organization, whose members must register or be prosecuted under the Louisiana statutes, have, appellants allege, frightened off potential members and contributors. Cf. Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123. Seizures of documents and records have paralyzed operations and threatened exposure of the identity of adherents to a locally unpopular cause. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449. Although the particular seizure has been quashed in the state courts, the continuing threat of prosecution portends further arrests and seizures, some of which may be upheld and all of which will cause the organization inconvenience or worse. In Freedman v. Maryland, ante, p. 51, we struck down a motion picture censorship statute solely because the regulatory scheme did not sufficiently assure exhibitors a prompt judicial resolution of First Amendment claims. The interest in immediate resolution of such claims is surely no less where criminal prosecutions are threatened under statutes allegedly overbroad and seriously inhibiting the exercise of protected freedoms. Not only does the complaint allege far more than an “injury other than that incidental to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith,” but appellants allege threats to enforce statutory provisions other than those under which indictments have been brought. Since there is no immediate prospect of a final state adjudication as to those other sections — if, indeed, there is any certainty that prosecution of the pending indictments will resolve all constitutional issues presented — a series of state criminal prosecutions will not provide satisfactory resolution of constitutional issues.
It follows that the District Court erred in holding that the complaint fails to allege sufficient irreparable injury to justify equitable relief.
The District Court also erred in holding that it should abstain pending authoritative interpretation of the statutes in the state courts, which might hold that they did not apply to SCEF, or that they were unconstitutional as applied to SCEF. We hold the abstention doctrine is inappropriate for cases such as the present one where, unlike Douglas v. City of Jeannette, statutes are justifiably attacked on their face as abridging free expression, or as applied for the purpose of discouraging protected activities.
First, appellants have attacked the good faith of the appellees in enforcing the statutes, claiming that they have invoked, and threaten to continue to invoke, criminal process without any hope of ultimate success, but only to discourage appellants’ civil rights activities. If these allegations state a claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, as we believe they do, see Beauregard v. Wingard, 230 F. Supp. 167 (D. C. S. D. Calif. 1964); Bargainer v. Michal, 233 F. Supp. 270 (D. C. N. D. Ohio 1964), the interpretation ultimately put on the statutes by the state courts is irrelevant. For an interpretation rendering the statute inapplicable to SCEF would merely mean that appellants might ultimately prevail in the state courts. It would not alter the impropriety of appellees’ invoking the statute in bad faith to impose continuing harassment in order to discourage appellants’ activities, as appellees allegedly are doing and plan to continue to do.
Second, appellants have challenged the statutes as overly broad and vague regulations of expression. We have already seen that where, as here, prosecutions are actually threatened, this challenge, if not clearly frivolous, will establish the threat of irreparable injury required by traditional doctrines of equity. We believe that in this case the same reasons preclude denial of equitable relief pending an acceptable narrowing construction. In considering whether injunctive relief should be granted, a federal district court should consider a statute as of the time its jurisdiction is invoked, rather than some hypothetical future date. The area of proscribed conduct will be adequately defined and the deterrent effect of the statute contained within constitutional limits only by authoritative constructions sufficiently illuminating the contours of an otherwise vague prohibition. As we observed in Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 378, this cannot be satisfactorily done through a series of criminal prosecutions, dealing as they inevitably must with only a narrow portion of the prohibition at any one time, and not contributing materially to articulation of the statutory standard. We believe that those affected by a statute are entitled to be free of the burdens of defending prosecutions, however expeditious, aimed at hammering out the structure of the statute piecemeal, with no likelihood of obviating similar uncertainty for others. Here, no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, and appellants are entitled to an injunction. The State must, if it is to invoke the statutes after injunctive relief has been sought, assume the burden of obtaining a permissible narrow construction in a noncriminal proceeding before it may seek modification of the injunction to permit future prosecutions.
On this view of the “vagueness” doctrine, it is readily apparent that abstention serves no legitimate purpose where a statute regulating speech is properly attacked on its face, and where, as here, the conduct charged in the indictments is not within the reach of an acceptable limiting construction readily to be anticipated as the result of a single criminal prosecution and is not the sort of “hardcore” conduct that would obviously be prohibited under any construction. In these circumstances, to abstain is to subject those affected to the uncertainties and vagaries of criminal prosecution, whereas the reasons for the vagueness doctrine in the area of expression demand no less than freedom from prosecution prior to a construction adequate to save the statute. In such cases, abstention is at war with the purposes of the vagueness doctrine, which demands appropriate federal relief regardless of the prospects for expeditious determination of state criminal prosecutions. Although we hold today that appellants’ allegations of threats to prosecute, if upheld, dictate appropriate equitable relief without awaiting declaratory judgments in the state courts, the settled rule of our cases is that district courts retain power to modify injunctions in light of changed circumstances. System Federation v. Wright, 364 U. S. 642; Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 316 U. S. 556; United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U. S. 106. Our view of the proper operation of the vagueness doctrine does not preclude district courts from modifying injunctions to permit prosecutions in light of subsequent state court interpretation clarifying the application of a statute to particular conduct.
We conclude that on the allegations of the complaint, if true, abstention and the denial of injunctive relief may well result in the denial of any effective safeguards against the loss of protected freedoms of expression, and cannot be justified.
II.
Each of the individual appellants was indicted for violating § 364 (7) of the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law by failing to register as a member of a Communist-front organization. Smith and Waltzer were indicted for failing to register as members “of a Communist front organization known as the National Lawyers Guild, which said organization has been cited by committees and sub-committees of the United States Congress as a Communist front organization . . . Dombrowski and Smith were indicted for failing to register as members of “a Communist front organization known as the Southern Conference Educational Fund, which said organization is essentially the same as the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, which said Southern Conference for Human Welfare [has] . . . been cited by the committees of the United States Congress as a Communist front organization . . . Dombrowski and Smith were also indicted for violating § 364 (4), by acting as Executive Director and Treasurer respectively “of a subversive organization, to wit, the Southern Conference Educational Fund, said organization being essentially the same as the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, which said organization has been cited by committees of the United States Congress as a Communist front organization . . .
The statutory definition of “a subversive organization” in § 359 (5) incorporated in the offense created by § 364 (4), is substantially identical to that of the Washington statute which we considered in Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 362, 363, n. 1. There the definition was used in a state statute requiring state employees to take an oath as a condition of employment. We held that the definition, as well as the oath based thereon, denied due process because it was unduly vague, uncertain and . broad. Where, as here, protected freedoms of expression and association are similarly involved, we see no controlling distinction in the fact that the definition is used to provide a standard of criminality rather than the contents of a test oath. This overly broad statute also creates a “danger zone” within which protected expression may be inhibited. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526. So long as the statute remains available to the State the threat of prosecutions of protected expression is a real and substantial one. Even the prospect of ultimate failure of such prosecutions by no means dispels their chilling effect on protected expression. A Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205; Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58; Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717; Speiser v. Randall, supra. Since § 364 (4) is so intimately bound up with a definition invalid under the reasoning of Baggett v. Bullitt, we hold that it is invalid for the same reasons.
We also find the registration requirement of § 364 (7) invalid. That section creates an offense of failure to register as a member of a Communist-front organization, and, under § 359 (3), “the fact that an organization has been officially cited or identified by the Attorney General of the United States, the Subversive Activities Control Board of the United States or any committee or subcommittee of the United States Congress as a . . . communist front organization . . . shall be considered presumptive evidence of the factual status of any such organization.” There is no requirement that the organization be so cited only after compliance with the procedural safeguards demanded by Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, supra.
A designation resting on such safeguards is a minimum requirement to insure the rationality of the presumptions of the Louisiana statute and, in its absence, the presumptions cast an impermissible burden upon the appellants to show that the organizations are not Communist fronts. “Where the transcendent value of speech is involved, due process certainly requires . . . that the State bear the burden of persuasion to show that the appellants engaged in criminal speech.” Speiser v. Randall, supra, at 526. It follows that § 364 (7), resting on the invalid presumption, is unconstitutional on its face.
III.
The precise terms and scope of the injunctive relief to which appellants are entitled and the identity of the appellees to be enjoined cannot, of course, be determined until after the District Court conducts the hearing on remand. The record suffices, however, to permit this Court to hold that, without the benefit of limiting construction, the statutory provisions on which the indictments are founded are void on their face; until an acceptable limiting construction is obtained, the provisions cannot be applied to the activities of SCEF, whatever they may be. The brief filed in this Court by appellee Garrison, District Attorney of the Parish of Orleans, the official having immediate responsibility for the indictments, concedes the facts concerning the arrests of the individual appellants, their discharge by the local judge, and the indictments of the individual appellants by the grand jury. In view of our decision on the merits, the District Court on remand need decide only the relief to which appellants may be entitled on the basis of their attacks on other sections of that statute and the Communist Propaganda Control Law, and on their allegations that appellees threaten to enforce both statutes solely to discourage appellants from continuing their civil rights activities. On these issues, abstention will be as inappropriate as on the issues we here decide.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. These shall include prompt framing of a decree restraining prosecution of the pending indictments against the individual appellants, ordering immediate return of all papers and documents seized, and prohibiting further acts enforcing the sections of the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law here found void on their face. In addition, appellants are entitled to expeditious determination, without abstention, of the remaining issues raised in the complaint.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the decision of this case.
The Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law is La. Rev. Stat. §§ 14:358 through 14:374 (Cum. Supp. 1962). The Communist Propaganda Control Law is La. Rev. Stat. §§ 14:390 through 14:390.8 (Cum. Supp. 1962).
28 U. S. C. § 2283 (1958 ed.) provides that:
“A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”
The District Court did not suggest that this statute denied power to issue the injunctions sought. This statute and its predecessors do not preclude injunctions against the institution of state court proceedings, but only bar stays of suits already instituted. See Ex parte Young, supra. See generally Warren, Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 366-378 (1930); Note, Federal Power to Enjoin State Court Proceedings, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 726, 728-729 (1961). Since the grand jury was not convened and indictments were not obtained until after the filing of the complaint, which sought interlocutory as well as permanent relief, no state “proceedings” were pending within the intendment of § 2283. To hold otherwise would mean that any threat of prosecution sufficient to justify equitable intervention would also be a “proceeding” for § 2283. Nor are the subsequently obtained indictments “proceedings” against which injunctive relief is precluded by § 2283. The indictments were obtained only because Ihe District Court erroneously dismissed the complaint and dissolved the temporary restraining order issued by Judge Wisdom in aid of the jurisdiction of the District Court properly invoked by the complaint. We therefore find it unnecessary to resolve the question whether suits under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1958 ed.) come under the “expressly authorized” exception to § 2283. Compare Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F. 2d 119, 124 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1950), with Smith v. Village of Lansing, 241 F. 2d 856, 859 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1957). See Note, 74 Harv. L. Rev. 726, 738 (1961).
See, e. g., Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 U. S. 45 (mere threat of single prosecution); Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89 (same); Watson v. Buck, 313 U. S. 387 (no irreparable injury or constitutional infirmity in statute); Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240 (same). It is difficult to think of a case in which an accused could properly bring a state prosecution to a halt while a federal court decides his claim that certain evidence is rendered inadmissible by the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Cleary v. Bolger, 371 U. S. 392; Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117.
The circumstances of the arrests are set forth in Judge Wisdom’s dissenting opinion:
“At gunpoint their homes and offices were raided and ransacked by police officers and trustees from the House of Detention acting under the direct supervision of the staff director and the counsel for the State Un-American Activities Committee. The home and office of the director of Southern Conference Educational Fund were also raided. Among the dangerous articles removed was Thoreau’s Journal. A truckload of files, membership lists, subscription lists to SCEF’s newspaper, correspondence, and records were removed from SCEF’s office, destroying its capacity to function. At the time of the arrests, Mr. Pfister, Chairman of the Committee, announced to the press that the raids and arrest resulted from ‘racial agitation.’ ” 227 F. Supp., at 573.
Prosecution under these indictments is awaiting decision of this case.
Thirty-seven States, including Louisiana, have adopted the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The Louisiana version, La. Civ. Proc. Code Ann., 1960, Arts. 1871-1883, abolishes the former requirement that there be no other adequate remedy.
Our cases indicate that once an acceptable limiting construction is obtained, it may be applied to conduct occurring prior to the construction, see Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395; Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569; Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, provided such application affords fair warning to the defendants, see Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451; cf. Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 179.
Section 364 (7) provides: “It shall be a felony for any person knowingly and wilfully to . . . ff]ail to register as required in R. S. 14:360 or to make any registration which contains any material false statement or omission.”
Section 364 (4) provides: “It shall be a felony for any person knowingly and wilfully to . . . [ajssist in the formation or participate in the management or to contribute to the support of any subversive organization or foreign subversive organization knowing said organization to be a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization . . .
Section 359 (5) provides: “‘Subversive organization’ means any organization which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or advocate, abet, advise, or teach activities intended to overthrow, destroy, or to assist in the overthrow or destruction of the constitutional form of the government of the state of Louisiana, or of any political subdivision thereof by revolution, force, violence or other unlawful means, or any other organization which seeks by unconstitutional or illegal means to overthrow or destroy the government of the state of Louisiana or any political subdivision thereof and to establish in place thereof any form of government not responsible to the people of the state of Louisiana under the Constitution of the state of Louisiana.”
Section 359 (3) provides: “'Communist Front Organization’ shall, for the purpose of this act include any communist action organization, communist front organization, communist infiltrated organization or communist controlled organization and the fact that an organization has been officially cited or identified by the Attorney General of the United States, the Subversive Activities Control Board of the United States or any committee or subcommittee of the United States Congress as a communist organization, a communist action organization, a communist front organization, a communist infiltrated organization or has been in any other way officially cited or identified by any of these aforementioned authorities as a communist controlled organization, shall be considered presumptive evidence of the factual status of any such organization.”
Although we hold the statute void on its face, its application to the National Lawyers Guild is instructive. In 1953, the Attorney General of the United States proposed to designate the organization as subversive. His proposal was made under revised regulations, promulgated under Executive Order 10450 to comply with AntiFascist Committee, establishing a notice and hearing procedure prior to such designation of an organization. 18 Fed. Reg. 2619; see 1954 Annual Report of the Attorney General, p. 14. The Guild brought an action in the District Court for the District of Columbia attacking the Executive Order and the procedures. A summary judgment in favor of the Attorney General because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies was sustained on appeal and this Court denied cer-tiorari, National Lawyers Guild v. Brownell, 96 U. S. App. D. C. 252, 225 F. 2d 552, cert. denied, 351 U. S. 927. After a Hearing Officer determined that certain interrogatories propounded to the Guild should be answered, the Guild brought another action in the District Court, National Lawyers Guild v. Rogers, Civil Action No. 1738-58, filed July 2, 1958. On September 11, 1958, the Attorney General rescinded the proposal to designate the Guild. 1958 Annual Report of the Attorney General, p. 251. On September 12, 1958, the complaint was dismissed as moot at the instance of the Attorney General, who filed a motion reciting the rescission and stating that the Attorney General had “concluded that the evidence that would now be available at a hearing on the merits of the proposed designation fails to meet the strict standards of proof which guide the determination of proceedings of this character.” The present federal statutes provide that the Subversive Activities Control Board may not designate an organization as a Communist front without first according the organization the procedural safeguards of notice and hearing. Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, § 13, 64 Stat. 998, 50 U. S. C. § 792 (1958 ed.). See Communist Party v. SACB, 367 U. S. 1.
Although we read appellee Garrison’s brief as conceding that appellants’ files and records were seized in aid of the prosecutions under the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law, we find no concession that the seizure, as alleged in appellants’ offer of proof, was also under color of the Communist Propaganda Control Law. Section 390.6 of that statute authorizes the seizure and destruction on summary process of “[a] 11 communist propaganda discovered in the state of Louisiana” in violation of the other provisions of the Act, and § 390.2 makes it a felony to disseminate such material. “Communist propaganda” is defined in § 390.1, which contains a presumption identical to that which we have found to be invalid in § 359 (3) of the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law. In light of the uncertain state of the record, however, we believe that the appellants’ attacks upon the constitutionality, on its face and as applied, of the Communist Propaganda Control Law should await determination by the District Court after considering the sufficiency of threats to enforce the law.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits a municipality from including a créche, or Nativity scene, in its annual Christmas display.
I
Each year, in cooperation with the downtown retail merchants’ association, the city of Pawtucket, R. L, erects a Christmas display as part of its observance of the Christmas holiday season. The display is situated in a park owned by a nonprofit organization and located in the heart of the shopping district. The display is essentially like those to be found in hundreds of towns or cities across the Nation — often on public grounds — during the Christmas season. The Paw-tucket display comprises many of the figures and decorations traditionally associated with Christmas, including, among other things, a Santa Claus house, reindeer pulling Santa’s sleigh, candy-striped poles, a Christmas tree, carolers, cutout figures representing such characters as a clown, an elephant, and a teddy bear, hundreds of colored lights, a large banner that reads “SEASONS GREETINGS,” and the créche at issue here. All components of this display are owned by the city.
The créche, which has been included in the display for 40 or more years, consists of the traditional figures, including the Infant Jesus, Mary and Joseph, angels, shepherds, kings, and animals, all ranging in height from 5" to 5'. In 1973, when the present créche was acquired, it cost the city $1,365; it now is valued at $200. The erection and dismantling of the créche costs the city about $20 per year; nominal expenses are incurred in lighting the créche. No money has been expended on its maintenance for the past 10 years.
Respondents, Pawtucket residents and individual members of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the affiliate itself, brought this action in the United States District Court for Rhode Island, challenging the city’s inclusion of the créche in the annual display. The District Court held that the city’s inclusion of the créche in the display violates the Establishment Clause, 525 F. Supp. 1150, 1178 (1981), which is binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court found that, by including the créche in the Christmas display, the city has “tried to endorse and promulgate religious beliefs,” id., at 1173, and that “erection of the creche has the real and substantial effect of affiliating the City with the Christian beliefs that the creche represents.” Id., at 1177. This “appearance of official sponsorship,” it believed, “confers more than a remote and incidental benefit on Christianity.” Id., at 1178. Last, although the court acknowledged the absence of administrative entanglement, it found that excessive entanglement has been fostered as a result of the political divisiveness of including the créche in the celebration. Id., at 1179-1180. The city was permanently enjoined from including the créche in the display.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. 691 F. 2d 1029 (1982). We granted certiorari, 460 U. S. 1080 (1983), and we reverse.
I — l i-
A
This Court has explained that the purpose of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment is
“to prevent, as far as possible, the intrusion of either [the church or the state] into the precincts of the other.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 614 (1971).
At the same time, however, the Court has recognized that
“total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.” Ibid.
In every Establishment Clause case, we must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective of preventing unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible.
The Court has sometimes described the Religion Clauses as erecting a “wall” betwéen church and state, see, e. g., Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 18 (1947). The concept of a “wall” of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.
No significant segment of our society and no institution within it can exist in a vacuum or in total or absolute isolation from all the other parts, much less from government. “It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation . . . .” Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 760 (1973). Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. See, e. g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314, 315 (1952); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, 211 (1948). Anything less would require the “callous indifference” we have said was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Zorach, swpra, at 314. Indeed, we have observed, such hostility would bring us into “war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment’s guaranty of the free exercise of religion.” McCollum, supra, at 211-212.
B
The Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause has comported with what history reveals was the contemporaneous understanding of its guarantees. A significant example of the contemporaneous understanding of that Clause is found in the events of the first week of the First Session of the First Congress in 1789. In the very week that Congress approved the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for submission to the states, it enacted legislation providing for paid Chaplains for the House and Senate. In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983), we noted that 17 Members of that First Congress had been Delegates to the Constitutional Convention where freedom of speech, press, and religion and antagonism toward an established church were subjects of frequent discussion. We saw no conflict with the Establishment Clause when Nebraska employed members of the clergy as official legislative Chaplains to give opening prayers at sessions of the state legislature. Id., at 791.
The interpretation of the Establishment Clause by Congress in 1789 takes on special significance in light of the Court’s emphasis that the First Congress
“was a Congress whose constitutional decisions have always been regarded, as they should be regarded, as of the greatest weight in the interpretation of that fundamental instument,” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 174-175 (1926).
It is clear that neither the 17 draftsmen of the Constitution who were Members of the First Congress, nor the Congress of 1789, saw any establishment problem in the employment of congressional Chaplains to offer daily prayers in the Congress, a practice that has continued for nearly two centuries. It would be difficult to identify a more striking example of the accommodation of religious belief intended by the Framers.
C
There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789. Seldom in our opinions was this more affirmatively expressed than in Justice Douglas’ opinion for the Court validating a program allowing release of public school students from classes to attend off-campus religious exercises. Rejecting a claim that the program violated the Establishment Clause, the Court asserted pointedly:
“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 313.
See also Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 213 (1963).
Our history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders. Beginning in the early colonial period long before Independence, a day of Thanksgiving was celebrated as a religious holiday to give thanks for the bounties of Nature as gifts from God. President Washington and his successors proclaimed Thanksgiving, with all its religious overtones, a day of national celebration and Congress made it a National Holiday more than a century ago. Ch. 167, 16 Stat. 168. That holiday has not lost its theme of expressing thanks for Divine aid any more than has Christmas lost its religious significance.
Executive Orders and other official announcements of Presidents and of the Congress have proclaimed both Christmas and Thanksgiving National Holidays in religious terms. And, by Acts of Congress, it has long been the practice that federal employees are released from duties on these National Holidays, while being paid from the same public revenues that provide the compensation of the Chaplains of the Senate and the House and the military services. See J. Res. 5, 23 Stat. 516. Thus, it is clear that Government has long recognized — indeed it has subsidized — holidays with religious significance.
Other examples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto “In God We Trust,” 36 U. S. C. § 186, which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see 31 U. S. C. § 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.), and in the language “One nation under God,” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children — and adults — every year.
Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent — not seasonal — symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.
There are countless other illustrations of the Government’s acknowledgment of our religious heritage and governmental sponsorship of graphic manifestations of that heritage. Congress has directed the President to proclaim a National Day of Prayer each year “on which [day] the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.” 36 U. S. C. §169h. Our Presidents have repeatedly issued such Proclamations. Presidential Proclamations and messages have also issued to commemorate Jewish Heritage Week, Presidential Proclamation No. 4844, 3 CFR 30 (1982), and the Jewish High Holy Days, 17 Weekly Comp, of Pres. Doc. 1058 (1981). One cannot look at even this brief résumé without finding that our history is pervaded by expressions of religious beliefs such as are found in Zorach. Equally pervasive is the evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression, and hostility toward none. Through this accommodation, as Justice Douglas observed, governmental action has “follow[ed] the best of our traditions” and “respect[ed] the religious nature of our people.” 343 U. S., at 314.
Ill
This history may help explain why the Court consistently has declined to take a rigid, absolutist view of the Establishment Clause. We have refused “to construe the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history.” Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U. S. 664, 671 (1970) (emphasis added). In our modern, complex society, whose traditions and constitutional underpinnings rest on and encourage diversity and pluralism in all areas, an absolutist approach in applying the Establishment Clause is simplistic and has been uniformly rejected by the Court.
Rather than mechanically invalidating all governmental conduct or statutes that confer benefits or give special recognition to religion in general or to one faith—as an absolutist approach would dictate—the Court has scrutinized challenged legislation or official conduct to determine whether, in reality, it establishes a religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. See Walz, supra, at 669. Joseph Story wrote a century and a half ago:
“The real object of the [First] Amendment was ... to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.” 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 728 (1833).
In each case, the inquiry calls for line-drawing; no fixed, per se rule can be framed. The Establishment Clause like the Due Process Clauses is not a precise, detailed provision in a legal code capable of ready application. The purpose of the Establishment Clause “was to state an objective, not to write a statute.” Walz, supra, at 668. The line between permissible relationships and those barred by the Clause can no more be straight and unwavering than due process can be defined in a single stroke or phrase or test. The Clause erects a “blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.” Lemon, 403 U. S., at 614.
In the line-drawing process we have often found it useful to inquire whether the challenged law or conduct has a secular purpose, whether its principal or primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion, and whether it creates an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon, supra. But, we have repeatedly emphasized our unwillingness to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area. See, e. g., Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 677-678 (1971); Nyquist, 413 U. S., at 773. In two cases, the Court did not even apply the Lemon “test.” We did not, for example, consider that analysis relevant in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983). Nor did we find Lemon useful in Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228 (1982), where there was substantial evidence of overt discrimination against a particular church.
In this case, the focus of our inquiry must be on the créche in the context of the Christmas season. See, e. g., Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39 (1980) (per curiam); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963). In Stone, for example, we invalidated a state statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on public classroom walls. But the Court carefully pointed out that the Commandments were posted purely as a religious admonition, not “integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like.” 449 U. S., at 42. Similarly, in Abington, although the Court struck down the practices in two States requiring daily Bible readings in public schools, it specifically noted that nothing in the Court’s holding was intended to “indicate] that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.” 374 U. S., at 225. Focus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause.
The Court has invalidated legislation or governmental action on the ground that a secular purpose was lacking, but only when it has concluded there was no question that the statute or activity was motivated wholly by religious considerations. See, e. g., Stone v. Graham, supra, at 41; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 107-109 (1968); Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 223-224; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421, 424-425 (1962). Even where the benefits to religion were substantial, as in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947); Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236 (1968); Walz, supra; and Tilton, supra, we saw a secular purpose and no conflict with the Establishment Clause. Cf. Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116 (1982).
The District Court inferred from the religious nature of the creche that the city has no secular purpose for the display. In so doing, it rejected the city’s claim that its reasons for including the créche are essentially the same as its reasons for sponsoring the display as a whole. The District Court plainly erred by focusing almost exclusively on the créche. When viewed in the proper context of the Christmas Holiday season, it is apparent that, on this record, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the inclusion of the créche is a purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious message. In a pluralistic society a variety of motives and purposes are implicated. The city, like the Congresses and Presidents, however, has principally taken note of a significant historical religious event long celebrated in the Western World. The créche in the display depicts the historical origins of this traditional event long recognized as a National Holiday. See Allen v. Hickel, 138 U. S. App. D. C. 31, 424 F. 2d 944 (1970); Citizens Concerned, for Separation of Church and State v. City and County of Denver, 526 F. Supp. 1310 (Colo. 1981).
The narrow question is whether there is a secular purpose for Pawtucket’s display of the créche. The display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of that Holiday. These are legitimate secular purposes. The District Court’s inference, drawn from the religious nature of the creche, that the city has no secular purpose was, on this record, clearly erroneous.
The District Court found that the primary effect of including the créche is to confer a substantial and impermissible benefit on religion in general and on the Christian faith in particular. Comparisons of the relative benefits to religion of different forms of governmental support are elusive and difficult to make. But to conclude that the primary effect of including the créche is to advance religion in violation of the Establishment Clause would require that we view it as more beneficial to and more an endorsement of religion, for example, than expenditure of large sums of public money for textbooks supplied throughout the country to students attending church-sponsored schools, Board of Education v. Allen, supra; expenditure of public funds for transportation of students to church-sponsored schools, Everson v. Board of Education, supra; federal grants for college buildings of church-sponsored institutions of higher education combining secular and religious education, Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672 (1971); noncategorical grants to church-sponsored colleges and universities, Roemer v. Board of Public Works, 426 U. S. 736 (1976); and the tax exemptions for church properties sanctioned in Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U. S. 664 (1970). It would also require that we view it as more of an endorsement of religion than the Sunday Closing Laws upheld in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961); the release time program for religious training in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952); and the legislative prayers upheld in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983).
We are unable to discern a greater aid to religion deriving from inclusion of the creche than from these benefits and endorsements previously held not violative of the Establishment Clause. What was said about the legislative prayers in Marsh, supra, at 792, and implied about the Sunday Closing Laws in McGowan is true of the city’s inclusion of the créche: its “reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some . . . religions.” See McGowan, supra, at 442.
This case differs significantly from Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., supra, and McCollum, where religion was substantially aided. In Grendel’s Den, important governmental power — a licensing veto authority — had been vested in churches. In McCollum, government had made religious instruction available in public school classrooms; the State had not only used the public school buildings for the teaching of religion, it had “afford[ed] sectarian groups an invaluable aid • • • [by] providing] pupils for their religious classes through use of the State’s compulsory public school machinery.” 333 U. S., at 212. No comparable benefit to religion is discernible here.
The dissent asserts some observers may perceive that the city has aligned itself with the Christian faith by including a Christian symbol in its display and that this serves to advance religion. We can assume, arguendo, that the display advances religion in a sense; but our precedents plainly contemplate that on occasion some advancement of religion will result from governmental action. The Court has made it abundantly clear, however, that “not every law that confers an ‘indirect,’ ‘remote,’ or ‘incidental’ benefit upon [religion] is, for that reason alone, constitutionally invalid.” Nyquist, 413 U. S., at 771; see also Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 273 (1981). Here, whatever benefit there is to one faith or religion or to all religions, is indirect, remote, and incidental; display of the créche is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion than the Congressional and Executive recognition of the origins of the Holiday itself as “Christ’s Mass,” or the exhibition of literally hundreds of religious paintings in governmentally supported museums.
The District Court found that there had been no administrative entanglement between religion and state resulting from the city’s ownership and use of the créche. 525 F. Supp., at 1179. But it went on to hold that some political divisiveness was engendered by this litigation. Coupled with its finding of an impermissible sectarian purpose and effect, this persuaded the court that there was “excessive entanglement.” The Court of Appeals expressly declined to accept the District Court’s finding that inclusion of the creche has caused political divisiveness along religious lines, and noted that this Court has never held that political divisiveness alone was sufficient to invalidate government conduct.
Entanglement is a question of kind and degree. In this case, however, there is no reason to disturb the District Court’s finding on the absence of administrative entanglement. There is no evidence of contact with church authorities concerning the content or design of the exhibit prior to or since Pawtucket’s purchase of the créche. No expenditures for maintenance of the creche have been necessary; and since the city owns the creche, now valued at $200, the tangible material it contributes is de minimis. In many respects the display requires far less ongoing, day-to-day interaction between church and state than religious paintings in public galleries. There is nothing here, of course, like the “comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance” or the “enduring entanglement” present in Lemon, 403 U. S., at 619-622.
The Court of Appeals correctly observed that this Court has not held that political divisiveness alone can serve to invalidate otherwise permissible conduct. And we decline to so hold today. This case does not involve a direct subsidy to church-sponsored schools or colleges, or other religious institutions, and hence no inquiry into potential political divisiveness is even called for, Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388, 403-404, n. 11 (1983). In any event, apart from this litigation there is no evidence of political friction or divisiveness over the créche in the 40-year history of Pawtucket’s Christmas celebration. The District Court stated that the inclusion of the créche for the 40 years has been “marked by no apparent dissension” and that the display has had a “calm history.” 525 F. Supp., at 1179. Curiously, it went on to hold that the political divisiveness engendered by this lawsuit was evidence of excessive entanglement. A litigant cannot, by the very act of commencing a lawsuit, however, create the appearance of divisiveness and then exploit it as evidence of entanglement.
We are satisfied that the city has a secular purpose for including the créche, that the city has not impermissibly advanced religion, and that including the créche does not create excessive entanglement between religion and government.
> HH
Justice Brennan describes the creche as a “re-creation of an event that lies at the heart of Christian faith,” post, at 711. The créche, like a painting, is passive; admittedly it is a reminder of the origins of Christmas. Even the traditional, purely secular displays extant at Christmas, with or without a creche, would inevitably recall the religious nature of the Holiday. The display engenders a friendly community spirit of goodwill in keeping with the season. The créche may well have special meaning to those whose faith includes the celebration of religious Masses, but none who sense the origins of the Christmas celebration would fail to be aware of its religious implications. That the display brings people into the central city, and serves commercial interests and benefits merchants and their employees, does not, as the dissent points out, determine the character of the display. That a prayer invoking Divine guidance in Congress is preceded and followed by debate and partisan conflict over taxes, budgets, national defense, and myriad mundane subjects, for example, has never been thought to demean or taint the sacredness of the invocation.
Of course the créche is identified with one religious faith but no more so than the examples we have set out from prior cases in which we found no conflict with the Establishment Clause. See, e. g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983). It would be ironic, however, if the inclusion of a single symbol of a particular historic religious event, as part of a celebration acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, by the Executive Branch, by the Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries, would so “taint” the city’s exhibit as to render it violative of the Establishment Clause. To forbid the use of this one passive symbol — the créche — at the very time people are taking note of the season with Christmas hymns and carols in public schools and other public places, and while the Congress and legislatures open sessions with prayers by paid chaplains, would be a stilted overreaction contrary to our history and to our holdings. If the presence of the créche in this display violates the Establishment Clause, a host of other forms of taking official note of Christmas, and of our religious heritage, are equally offensive to the Constitution.
The Court has acknowledged that the “fears and political problems” that gave rise to the Religion Clauses in the 18th century are of far less concern today. Everson, 330 U. S., at 8. We are unable to perceive the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rome, or other powerful religious leaders behind every public acknowledgment of the religious heritage long officially recognized by the three constitutional branches of government. Any notion that these symbols pose a real danger of establishment of a state church is farfetched indeed.
Y
That this Court has been alert to the constitutionally expressed opposition to the establishment of religion is shown in numerous holdings striking down statutes or programs as violative of the Establishment Clause. See, e. g., Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203 (1948); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (1968); Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra; Levitt v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty, 413 U. S. 472 (1973); Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756 (1973); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U. S. 349 (1975); and Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39 (1980). The most recent example of this careful scrutiny is found in the case invalidating a municipal ordinance granting to a church a virtual veto power over the licensing of liquor establishments near the church. Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116 (1982). Taken together these cases abundantly demonstrate the Court’s concern to protect the genuine objectives of the Establishment Clause. It is far too late in the day to impose a crabbed reading of the Clause on the country.
VI
We hold that, notwithstanding the religious significance of the creche, the city of Pawtucket has not violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1879) (quoting reply from Thomas Jefferson to an address by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)).
The day after the First Amendment was proposed, Congress urged President Washington to proclaim “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God.” See A. Stokes & L. Pfeffer, Church and State in the United States 87 (rev. 1st ed. 1964). President Washington proclaimed November 26, 1789, a day of thanksgiving to “offe[r] our prayers and supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions . . . .” 1 J. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, p. 64 (1899).
Presidents Adams and Madison also issued Thanksgiving Proclamations, as have almost all our Presidents, see 3 A. Stokes, Church and State in the United States 180-198 (1950), through the incumbent, see Presidential Proclamation No. 4883, 3 CFR 68 (1982).
An example is found in President Roosevelt’s 1944 Proclamation of Thanksgiving:
“[I]t is fitting that we give thanks with special fervor to our Heavenly Father for the mercies we have received individually and as a nation and for the blessings He has restored, through the victories of our arms and those of our Allies, to His children in other lands.
“To the end that we may bear more earnest witness to our gratitude to Almighty God, I suggest a nationwide reading of the Holy Scriptures during the period from Thanksgiving Day to Christmas.” Presidential Proclamation No. 2629, 58 Stat. 1160.
President Reagan and his immediate predecessors have issued similar Proclamations. See, e. g., Presidential Proclamation No. 5098, 3 CFR 94 (1984); Presidential Proclamation No. 4803, 3 CFR 117 (1981); Presidential Proclamation No. 4333, 3 CFR 419 (1971-1975 Comp.); Presidential Proclamation No. 4093, 3 CFR 89 (1971-1975 Comp.); Presidential Proclamation No. 3752, 3 CFR 75 (1966-1970 Comp.); Presidential Proclamation No. 3560, 3 CFR 312 (1959-1963 Comp.).
The National Gallery regularly exhibits more than 200 similar religious paintings.
See, e. g., Presidential Proclamation No. 5017, 3 CFR 8 (1984); Presidential Proclamation No. 4795, 3 CFR 109 (1981); Presidential Proclamation No. 4379, 3 CFR 486 (1971-1975 Comp.); Presidential Proclamation No. 4087, 3 CFR 81 (1971-1975 Comp.); Presidential Proclamation No. 3812, 3 CFR 155 (1966-1970 Comp.); Presidential Proclamation No. 3501, 3 CFR 228 (1959-1963 Comp.).
The city contends that the purposes of the display are “exclusively secular.” We hold only that Pawtucket has a secular purpose for its display, which is all that Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), requires. Were the test that the government must have “exclusively secular” objectives, much of the conduct and legislation this Court has approved in the past would have been invalidated.
Justice Brennan argues that the city’s objectives could have been achieved without including the créche in the display, post, at 699. True or not, that is irrelevant. The question is whether the display of the creche violates the Establishment Clause.
The Allen Court noted that “[pjerhaps free books make it more likely that some children choose to attend a sectarian school. . . .” 392 U. S., at 244.
In Everson, the Court acknowledged that “[i]t is undoubtedly true that children are helped to get to church schools,” and that “some of the children might not be sent to the church schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children’s bus fares out of their own pockets .. ..” 330 U. S., at 17.
We recognized in Tilton that the construction grants “surely aid[ed]” the institutions that received them. 403 U. S., at 679.
“In McGowan v. Maryland . . . Sunday Closing Laws were sustained even though one of their undeniable effects was to render it somewhat more likely that citizens would respect religious institutions and even attend religious services.” Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 775-776 (1973).
Justice Brennan states that “by focusing on the holiday ‘context’ in which the nativity scene appear[s],” the Court “seeks to explain away the clear religious import of the créche,” post, at 705, and that it has equated the créche with a Santa’s house or reindeer, post, at 711-712. Of course this is not true.
The Court of Appeals viewed Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228 (1982), as commanding a “strict scrutiny” due to the city’s ownership of the $200 creche which it considers as a discrimination between Christian and other religions. It is correct that we require strict scrutiny of a statute or practice patently discriminatory on its face. But we are unable to see this display, or any part of it, as explicitly discriminatory in the sense contemplated in Larson.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner Snider has filed a motion to dispense with the printing of the petition for certiorari as required by our Rule 39. He has filed no motion and affidavit in conformity with our Rule 53, dealing with proceedings in forma pauperis. While we undoubtedly have authority to waive the application of particular rules in appropriate circumstances, we have during this Term denied a considerable number of similar motions. Typically in each of these cases the moving petitioner made generalized allegations of inability to afford payment of printing costs, but made no showing sufficient to comply with Rule 53 governing proceedings in forma pauperis. Motions such as these are disfavored, and petitioner’s motion is denied.
Rule 39, entitled “Form of appendices, petitions, briefs, etc.,” contains the following definition:
“Printing, as the term is used in these rules, shall include any process capable of producing a clear black image on white paper but shall not include ordinary carbon copies. If papers are filed in a form which is not clearly legible, the clerk will require that new copies be substituted, but the filing shall not thereby be deemed untimely.”
We think it is clear from this definition, and from the other parts of Rule 39, that documents governed by Rule 39 need not have been imprinted on a press in order to comply with its terms. They are required to be the product of a process “capable of producing a clear black image on white paper,” and to conform to the paper-size, binding, and type-size requirements also set forth in the Rule. The Rule is thus functional in nature, and is designed to assure the Court that appendices, petitions, briefs, and the like which are subject to its provisions will be of uniform size and good legibility. We are not disposed to waive these standards.
In future cases, the Clerk will be instructed not to accept for record a petition for certiorari or other document which is subject to Rule 39 and fails to conform to the requirements of that Rule, and to submit only the motion to dispense with printing to the Court for decision. In the event such motion is denied, the petition or other document will be returned to the party seeking to file it at the time the order of denial is entered.
Petitioner’s motion to dispense with printing the petition for certiorari in this case is denied. Because our view as to the probable fate of motions such as his may not heretofore have been apparent to the Bar, he is granted 21 days from the entry of this order in which to file a petition which conforms to Rule 39.
See, e. g., Wallace v. Smith, No. 73-40, motion denied October 15, 1973, post, p. 907; Broccolino v. Maryland Comm’n on Judicial Disabilities, No. 73-431, motion denied November 19, 1973, post, p. 1038; Chippas v. United States, No. 73-761, motion denied December 17, 1973, post, p. 1109. See also Morton v. Mancari, No. 73-362, motion to dispense with printing the motion to dismiss or affirm denied January 14, 1974, post, p. 1142.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Can a worker be a company’s “employee,” within the terms of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., if, at the same time, a union pays that worker to help the union organize the company? We agree with the National Labor Relations Board that the answer is “yes.”
I
The relevant background is the following: Town & Country Electric, Inc., a nonunion electrical contractor, wanted to hire several licensed Minnesota electricians for construction work in Minnesota. Town & Country (through an employment agency) advertised for job applicants, but it refused to interview 10 of 11 union applicants (including two professional union staff) who responded to the advertisement. Its employment agency hired the one union applicant whom Town & Country interviewed, but he was dismissed after only a few days on the job.
The members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 292 and 343 (Union), filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Town & Country and the employment agency had refused to interview (or retain) them because of their union membership. See National Labor Relations Act (Act) §§ 8(a)(1) and (3), 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3) (1988 ed.). An Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the Union members, and the Board affirmed that ruling. Town & Country Elec., Inc., 309 N. L. R. B. 1250,1258 (1992).
In the course of its decision, the Board determined that all 11 job applicants (including the two Union officials and the one member briefly hired) were “employees” as the Act defines that word. Ibid. The Board recognized that under well-established law, it made no difference that the 10 members who were simply applicants were never hired. See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S. 177, 185-186 (1941) (statutory word “employee” includes job applicants, for otherwise the Act’s prohibition of “ ‘discrimination in regard to hire’” would “serve no function”). Neither, in the Board’s view, did it matter (with respect to the meaning of the word “employee”) that the Union members intended to try to organize the company if they secured the advertised jobs, nor that the Union would pay them while they set about their organizing. The Board then rejected the company’s fact-based explanations for its refusals to interview or to retain these 11 “employees” and held that the company had committed “unfair labor practices” by discriminating on the basis of union membership. Town & Country Elec., supra, at 1250, n. 3, 1256, 1258.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the Board. It held that the Board had incorrectly interpreted the statutory word “employee.” In the court’s view, that key word does not cover (and therefore the Act does not protect from antiunion discrimination) those who work for a company while a union simultaneously pays them to organize that company. 34 F. 3d 625, 629 (1994). See also H. B. Zachry Co. v. NLRB, 886 F. 2d 70, 75 (CA4 1989). For this threshold reason the court refused to enforce the Board’s order.
Because other Circuits have interpreted the word “employee” differently, see, e. g., Willmar Elec. Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 968 F. 2d 1327, 1330-1331 (CADC 1992) (paid union organizers can be “employees” protected by the Act), cert. denied, 507 U. S. 909 (1993); NLRB v. Henlopen Mfg. Co., 599 F. 2d 26, 30 (CA2 1979) (same), we granted certiorari. We now resolve the conflict in the Board’s favor.
II
The Act seeks to improve labor relations (“eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce,” 29 U. S. C. § 151 (1988 ed.)) in large part by granting specific sets of rights to employers and to employees. This case grows out of a controversy about rights that the Act grants to “employees,” namely, rights “to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively . . . and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” § 157. We granted certiorari to decide only that part of the controversy that focuses upon the meaning of the word “employee,” a key term in the statute, since these rights belong only to those workers who qualify as “employees” as that term is defined in the Act. See, e. g., § 158(a)(1) (“unfair labor practice” to “interfere with . . . employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title”) (emphasis added).
The relevant statutory language is the following:
“The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless this subchapter explicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse, or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor, or any individual employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time, or by any other person who is not an employer as herein defined.” § 152(3) (emphasis added).
We must specifically decide whether the Board may lawfully interpret this language to include company workers who are also paid union organizers.
We put the question in terms of the Board’s lawful authority because this Court’s decisions recognize that the Board often possesses a degree of legal leeway when it interprets its governing statute, particularly where Congress likely intended an understanding of labor relations to guide the Act’s application. See, e. g., Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, 891 (1984) (interpretations of the Board, the agency that Congress “ ‘created ... to administer the Act,’ ” will be upheld if “reasonably defensible”) (internal citation omitted); NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U. S. 775, 786 (1990) (Congress delegated to the Board “primary responsibility for developing and applying national labor policy”); ABF Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U. S. 317, 324 (1994) (the Board’s views are entitled to “the greatest deference”). See also Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984). We add, however, that the Board needs very little legal leeway here to convince us of the correctness of its decision.
Several strong general arguments favor the Board’s position. For one thing, the Board’s decision is consistent with the broad language of the Act itself — language that is broad enough to include those company workers whom a union also pays for organizing. The ordinary dictionary definition of “employee” includes any “person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation.” American Heritage Dictionary 604 (3d ed. 1992). See also Black’s Law Dictionary 525 (6th ed. 1990) (an employee is a “person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed”). The phrasing of the Act seems to reiterate the breadth of the ordinary dictionary definition, for it says “[t]he term ‘employee’ shall include any employee.” 29 U. S. C. § 152(3) (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). Of course, the Act’s definition also contains a list of exceptions, for example, for independent contractors, agricultural laborers, domestic workers, and employees subject to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.; but no exception applies here.
For another thing, the Board’s broad, literal interpretation of the word “employee” is consistent with several of the Act’s purposes, such as protecting “the right of employees to organize for mutual aid without employer interference,” Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793, 798 (1945); see also 29 U. S. C. § 157 (1988 ed.); and “encouraging and protecting the collective-bargaining process.” Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, at 892. And, insofar as one can infer purpose from congressional reports and floor statements, those sources too are consistent with the Board’s broad interpretation of the word. It is fairly easy to find statements to the effect that an “employee” simply “means someone who works for another for hire,” H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 (1947), and includes “every man on a payroll,” 79 Cong. Rec. 9686 (1935) (colloquy between Reps. Taylor and Connery). See also S. Rep. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1935) (referring to an employee as a “worker”); H. R. Rep. No. 969, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1935) (same); H. R. Rep. No. 972, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1935) (same); H. R. Rep. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1935) (same). At the same time, contrary statements, suggesting a narrow or qualified view of the word, are scarce, or nonexistent — except, of course, those made in respect to the specific (here inapplicable) exclusions written into the statute.
Further, a broad, literal reading of the statute is consistent with cases in this Court such as, say, Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, supra (the Act covers undocumented aliens), where the Court wrote that the “breadth of §2(3)’s definition is striking: the Act squarely applies to 'any employee.’” 467 U. S., at 891. See NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 454 U. S. 170, 189-190 (1981) (certain “confidential employees” fall within the definition of “employees”); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S., at 185-186 (job applicants are “employees”). Cf. Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U. S. 157, 166 (1971) (retired persons are not “employees” because they do not “work for another for hire”). See also NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111, 131-132 (1944) (independent contractor-like newsboys are “employees”); Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U. S. 485, 488-490 (1947) (company foremen are “employees”). But see 61 Stat. 137-138, 29 U. S. C. § 152(3) (1988 ed.) (amending Act to overrule Hearst and Packard by explicitly excluding independent contractors and supervisory employees).
Finally, at least one other provision of the 1947 Labor Management Relations Act seems specifically to contemplate the possibility that a company’s employee might also work for a union. This provision forbids an employer (say, the company) to make payments to a person employed by a union, but simultaneously exempts from that ban wages paid by the company to “any ... employee of a labor organization, who is also an employee” of the company. 29 U. S. C. § 186(c)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added). If Town & Country is right, there would not seem to be many (or any) human beings to which this last phrase could apply.
Ill
Town & Country believes that it can overcome these general considerations, favoring a broad, literal interpretation of the Act, through an argument that rests primarily upon the common law of agency. It first argues that our prior decisions resort to common-law principles in defining the term “employee.” See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U. S. 318, 323 (1992) (using common-law test to distinguish between “employee” and “independent contractor” under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq.); Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U. S. 730, 739-740 (1989) (using common-law test to distinguish between “employee” and “independent contractor” under Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. §101 et seq.); NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America, 390 U. S. 254, 256 (1968) (using common-law test to distinguish between “employee” and “independent contractor” under NLRA). And it also points out that the Board itself, in its decision, found “no bar to applying common law agency principles to the determination whether a paid union organizer is an ‘employee,’” Town & Country Elec., Inc., 309 N. L. R. B., at 1254.
Town & Country goes on to argue that application of common-law agency principles requires an interpretation of “employee” that excludes paid union organizers. It points to a section of the Restatement (Second) of Agency (dealing with respondeat superior liability for torts), which says:
“Since ... the relation of master and servant is dependent upon the right of the master to control the conduct of the servant in the performance of the service, giving service to two masters at the same time normally involves a breach of duty by the servant to one or both of them .... [A person] cannot be a servant of two masters in doing an act as to which an intent to serve one necessarily excludes an intent to serve the other.” Restatement (Second) of Agency §226, Comment a, p. 499 (1957).
It argues that, when the paid union organizer serves the union — at least at certain times in certain ways — the organizer is acting adversely to the company. Indeed, it says, the organizer may stand ready to desert the company upon request by the union, in which case, the union, not the company, would have “the right... to control the conduct of the servant.” Ibid. Thus, it concludes, the worker must be the servant (i. e., the “employee”) of the union alone. See id., § 1, and Comment a, p. 8 (“agent” is one who agrees to act “subject to [a principal’s] control”).
As Town & Country correctly notes, in the context of reviewing lower courts’ interpretations of statutory terms, we have said on several occasions that when Congress uses the term “employee” in a statute that does not define the term, courts interpreting the statute “ ‘must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of th[at] ter[m] .... In the past, when Congress has used the term “employee” without defining it, we have concluded that Congress intended to describe the conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine.’” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, supra, at 322-323 (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, supra, at 739-740). At the same time, when reviewing the Board’s interpretation of the term “employee” as it is used in the Act, we have repeatedly said that “[s]inee the task of defining the term ‘employee’ is one that ‘has been assigned primarily to the agency created by Congress to administer the Act,’ . . . the Board’s construction of that term is entitled to considerable deference . . . .” Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S., at 891 (quoting NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc., supra, at 130); NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 454 U. S., at 177-190. In some cases, there may be a question about whether the Board’s departure from the common law of agency with respect to particular questions and in a particular statutory context, renders its interpretation unreasonable. See NLRB v. United Ins. Co., supra, at 256 (“independent contractor” exclusion). But no such question is presented here since the Board’s interpretation of the term “employee” is consistent with the common law.
Town & Country’s common-law argument fails, quite simply, because, in our view, the Board correctly found that it lacks sufficient support in common law. The Restatement’s hornbook rule (to which the quoted commentary is appended) says that a
“person may be the servant of two masters ... at one time as to one act, if the service to one does not involve abandonment of the service to the other.” Restatement (Second) of Agency §226, at 498 (emphasis added).
The Board, in quoting this rule, concluded that service to the union for pay does not “involve abandonment of... service” to the company. 309 N. L. R. B., at 1254.
And, that conclusion seems correct. Common sense suggests that as a worker goes about his or her ordinary tasks during a working day, say, wiring sockets or laying cable, he or she is subject to the control of the company employer, whether or not the union also pays the worker. The company, the worker, the union, all would expect that to be so. And, that being so, that union and company interests or control might sometimes differ should make no difference. As Prof. Seavey pointed out many years ago, “[o]ne can be a servant of one person for some acts and the servant of another person for other acts, even when done at the same time,” for example, where “a city detective, in search of clues, finds employment as a waiter and, while serving the meals, searches the customer’s pockets.” W. Seavey, Handbook of the Law of Agency § 85, p. 146 (1964). The detective is the servant both “of the restaurateur” (as to the table waiting) and “of the city” (as to the pocket searching). Ibid. How does it differ from Prof. Seavey’s example for the company to pay the worker for electrical work, and the union to pay him for organizing? Moreover, union organizers may limit their organizing to nonwork hours. See, e. g., Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793 (1945); Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U. S. 483, 492-493 (1978). If so, union organizing, when done for pay but during nonwork hours, would seem equivalent to simple moonlighting, a practice wholly consistent with a company’s control over its workers as to their assigned duties.
Town & Country’s “abandonment” argument is yet weaker insofar as the activity that constitutes an “abandonment,” i. e., ordinary union organizing activity, is itself specifically protected by the Act. See, e. g., ibid, (employer restrictions on union solicitation during nonworking time in nonworking areas are presumptively invalid under the Act). This is true even if a company perceives those protected activities as disloyal. After all, the employer has no legal right to require that, as part of his or her service to the company, a worker refrain from engaging in protected activity.
Neither are we convinced by the practical considerations that Town & Country adds to its agency law argument. The company refers to a Union resolution permitting members to work for nonunion firms, which, the company says, reflects a union effort to “salt” nonunion companies with union members seeking to organize them. Supported by amici curiae, it argues that “salts” might try to harm the company, perhaps quitting when the company needs them, perhaps disparaging the company to others, perhaps even sabotaging the firm or its products. Therefore, the company concludes, Congress could not have meant paid union organizers to have been included as “employees” under the Act.
This practical argument suffers from several serious problems. For one thing, nothing in this record suggests that such acts of disloyalty were present, in kind or degree, to the point where the company might lose control over the worker’s normal workplace tasks. Certainly the Union’s resolution contains nothing that suggests, requires, encourages, or condones impermissible or unlawful activity. App. 256-258. For another thing, the argument proves too much. If a paid union organizer might quit, leaving a company employer in the lurch, so too might an unpaid organizer, or a worker who has found a better job, or one whose family wants to move elsewhere. And if an overly zealous union organizer might hurt the company through unlawful acts, so might another unpaid zealot (who may know less about the law), or a dissatisfied worker (who may lack an outlet for his or her grievances). This does not mean they are not “employees.”
Further, the law offers alternative remedies for Town & Country’s concerns, short of excluding paid or unpaid union organizers from all protection under the Act. For example, a company disturbed by legal but undesirable activity, such as quitting without notice, can offer its employees fixed-term contracts, rather than hiring them “at will” as in the case before us; or it can negotiate with its workers for a notice period. A company faced with unlawful (or possibly unlawful) activity can discipline or dismiss the worker, file a complaint with the Board, or notify law enforcement authorities. See, e. g., NLRB v. Electrical Workers, 346 U. S. 464, 472-478 (1953); Willmar Elec. Service v. NLRB, 968 F. 2d, at 1330 (arsonist who is also union member is still an “employee,” but may be discharged). See also Budd Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 138 F. 2d 86, 89-90 (CA3 1943) (worker who was intoxicated while on duty, “came to work when he chose and ... left the plant and his shift as he pleased,” and utterly failed to perform his assigned duties is still an “employee” protected under the Act), cert. denied, 321 U. S. 778 (1944). And, of course, an employer may as a rule limit the access of nonemployee union organizers to company property. Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U. S. 527, 538 (1992); NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U. S. 105, 112 (1956).
This is not to say that the law treats paid union organizers like other company employees in every labor law context. For instance, the Board states that, at least sometimes, a paid organizer may not share a sufficient “community of interest” with other employees (as to wages, hours, and working conditions) to warrant inclusion in the same bargaining unit. Brief for National Labor Relations Board 33, n. 14. See, e. g., NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 454 U. S., at 190 (some confidential workers, although “employees,” may be excluded from bargaining unit). We need not decide this matter. Nor do we express any view about any of the other matters Town & Country raised before the Court of Appeals, such as whether or not Town & Country’s conduct (in refusing to interview, or to retain, “employees” who were on the union’s payroll) amounted to an unfair labor practice. See 34 F. 3d, at 629. We hold only that the Board’s construction of the word “employee” is lawful; that term does not exclude paid union organizers.
IV
For these reasons 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.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we clarify the standards for liability and liquidated damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq.
I
Petitioner Hazen Paper Company manufactures coated, laminated, and printed paper and paperboard. The company is owned and operated by two cousins, petitioners Robert Hazen and Thomas N. Hazen. The Hazens hired respondent Walter F. Biggins as their technical director in 1977. They fired him in 1986, when he was 62 years old.
Respondent brought suit against petitioners in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging a violation of the ADEA. He claimed that age had been a determinative factor in petitioners’ decision to fire him. Petitioners contested this claim, asserting instead that respondent had been fired for doing business with competitors of Hazen Paper. The case was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict for respondent on his ADEA claim and also found violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 895, §510, 29 U. S. C. § 1140, and state law. On the ADEA count, the jury specifically found that petitioners “willfully” violated the statute. Under § 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U. S. C. § 626(b), a “willful” violation gives rise to liquidated damages.
Petitioners moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The District Court granted the motion with respect to a state-law claim and the finding of “willfulness” but otherwise denied it. An appeal ensued. 953 F. 2d 1405 (CA1 1992). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed judgment for respondent on both the ADEA and ERISA counts, and reversed judgment notwithstanding the verdict for petitioners as to “willfulness.”
In affirming the judgments of liability, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the evidence that petitioners had fired respondent in order to prevent his pension benefits from vesting. That evidence, as construed most favorably to respondent by the court, showed that the Hazen Paper pension plan had a 10-year vesting period and that respondent would have reached the 10-year mark had he worked “a few more weeks” after being fired. Id., at 1411. There was also testimony that petitioners had offered to retain respondent as a consultant to Hazen Paper, in which capacity he would not have been entitled to receive pension benefits. Id., at 1412. The Court of Appeals found this evidence of pension interference to be sufficient for ERISA liability, id., at 1416, and also gave it considerable emphasis in upholding ADEA liability. After summarizing all the testimony tending to show age discrimination, the court stated:
“Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury could reasonably have found that Thomas Hazen decided to fire [respondent] before his pension rights vested and used the confidentiality agreement [that petitioners had asked respondent to sign] as a means to that end. The jury could also have reasonably found that age was inextricably intertwined with the decision to fire [respondent]. If it were not for [respondent’s] age, sixty-two, his pension rights would not have been within a hairbreadth of vesting. [Respondent] was fifty-two years old when he was hired; his pension rights vested in ten years.” Id., at 1412.
As to the issue of “willfulness” under § 7(b) of the ADEA, the Court of Appeals adopted and applied the definition set out in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111 (1985). In Thurston, we held that the airline’s facially discriminatory job-transfer policy was not a “willful” ADEA violation because the airline neither “knew [nor] showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether” the policy contravened the statute. Id., at 128 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence to satisfy the Thurston standard, and ordered that respondent be awarded liquidated damages equal to and in addition to the underlying damages of $419,454.88. 953 F. 2d, at 1415-1416.
We granted certiorari to decide two questions. 505 U. S. 1203 (1992). First, does an employer’s interference with the vesting of pension benefits violate the ADEA? Second, does the Thurston standard for liquidated damages apply to the case where the predicate ADEA violation is not a formal, facially discriminatory policy, as in Thurston, but rather an informal decision by the employer that was motivated by the employee’s age?
II
A
The Courts of Appeals repeatedly have faced the question whether an employer violates the ADEA by acting on the basis of a factor, such as an employee’s pension status or seniority, that is empirically correlated with age. Compare White v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 862 F. 2d 56, 62 (CA3 1988) (firing of older employee to prevent vesting of pension benefits violates ADEA); Metz v. Transit Mix, Inc., 828 F. 2d 1202 (CA7 1987) (firing of older employee to save salary costs resulting from seniority violates ADEA), with Williams v. General Motors Corp., 656 F. 2d 120, 130, n. 17 (CA5 1981) (“[Seniority and age discrimination are unrelated.. . . We state without equivocation that the seniority a given plaintiff has accumulated entitles him to no better or worse treatment in an age discrimination suit”), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 943 (1982); EEOC v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F. 2d 936, 942 (CA4 1992) (emphasizing distinction between employee’s age and years of service). We now clarify that there is no disparate treatment under the ADEA when the factor motivating the employer is some feature other than the employee’s age.
We long have distinguished between “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” theories of employment discrimination.
" 'Disparate treatment’ ... is the most easily understood type of discrimination. The employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion ¡or other protected characteristics.] Proof of discriminatory motive is critical, although it can in some situations be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment....
“[C]laims that stress ‘disparate impact’ tby contrast] involve employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity. Proof of discriminatory motive ... is not required under a disparate-impact theory.” Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 335-336, n. 16 (1977) (citation omitted) (construing Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964).
The disparate treatment theory is of course available under the ADEA, as the language of that statute makes clear. “It shall be unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U. S. C. § 623(a)(1) (emphasis added). See Thurston, supra, at 120-126 (affirming ADEA liability under disparate treatment theory). By contrast, we have never decided whether a disparate impact theory of liability is available under the ADEA, see Markham v. Geller, 451 U. S. 946 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), and we need not do so here. Respondent claims only that he received disparate treatment.
In a disparate treatment case, liability depends on whether the protected trait (under the ADEA, age) actually motivated the employer’s decision. See, e. g., United States Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U. S. 711 (1983); Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 252-256 (1981); Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 676-678 (1978). The employer may have relied upon a formal, facially discriminatory policy requiring adverse treatment of employees with that trait. See, e. g., Thurston, supra; Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 704-718 (1978). Or the employer may have been motivated by the protected trait on an ad hoc, informal basis. See, e. g., Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564 (1985); Teamsters, supra, at 334-343. Whatever the employer’s decisionmaking process, a disparate treatment claim cannot succeed unless the employee’s protected trait actually played a role in that process and had a determinative influence on the outcome.
Disparate treatment, thus defined, captures the essence of what Congress sought to prohibit in the ADEA. It is the very essence of age discrimination for an older employee to be fired because the employer believes that productivity and competence decline with old age. As we explained in EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U. S. 226 (1983), Congress' promulgation of the ADEA was prompted by its concern that older workers were being deprived of employment on the basis of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes.
“Although age discrimination rarely was based on the sort of animus motivating some other forms of discrimination, it was based In large part on stereotypes unsupported by objective fact .... Moreover, the available empirical evidence demonstrated that arbitrary age lines were in fact generally unfounded and that, as an overall matter, the performance of older workers was at least as good as that of younger workers.” Id., at 231.
Thus the ADEA commands that “employers are to evaluate [older] employees ... on their merits and not their age.” Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U. S. 400, 422 (1985). The employer cannot rely on age as a proxy for an employee’s remaining characteristics, such as productivity, but must instead focus on those factors directly.
When the employer’s decision is wholly motivated by factors other than age, the problem of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes disappears. This is true even if the motivating factor is correlated with age, as pension status typically is. Pension plans typically provide that an employee’s accrued benefits will become nonforfeitable, or “vested,” once the employee completes a certain number of years of service with the employer. See 1 J. Mamorsky, Employee Benefits Law § 5.03 (1992). On average, an older employee has had more years in the work force than a younger employee, and thus may well have accumulated more years of service with a particular employer. Yet an employee’s age is analytically distinct from his years of service. An employee who is younger than 40, and therefore outside the class of older workers as defined by the ADEA, see 29 U. S. C. § 631(a), may have worked for a particular employer his entire career, while an older worker may have been newly hired. Because age and years of service are analytically distinct, an employer can take account of one while ignoring the other, and thus it is incorrect to say that a decision based on years of service is necessarily “age based.”
The instant case is illustrative. Under the Hazen Paper pension plan, as construed by the Court of Appeals, an employee’s pension benefits vest after the employee completes 10 years of service with the company. Perhaps it is true that older employees of Hazen Paper are more likely to be “close to vesting” than younger employees. Yet a decision by the company to fire an older employee solely because he has nine-plus years of service and therefore is “close to vesting” would not constitute discriminatory treatment on the basis of age. The prohibited stereotype (“Older employees are likely to be —”) would not have figured in this decision, and the attendant stigma would not ensue. The decision would not be the result of an inaccurate and denigrating generalization about age, but would rather represent an accurate judgment about the employee — that he indeed is “close to vesting.”
We do not mean to suggest that an employer lawfully could fire an employee in order to prevent his pension benefits from vesting. Such conduct is actionable under § 510 of ERISA, as the Court of Appeals rightly found in affirming judgment for respondent under that statute. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S. 133, 142-143 (1990). But it would not, without more, violate the ADEA. That law requires the employer to ignore an employee’s age (absent a statutory exemption or defense); it does not specify further characteristics that an employer must also ignore. Although some language in our prior decisions might be read to mean that an employer violates the ADEA whenever its reason for firing an employee is improper in any respect, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802 (1973) (creating proof framework applicable to ADEA) (employer must have “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for action against employee), this reading is obviously incorrect. For example, it cannot be true that an employer who fires an older black worker because the worker is black thereby violates the ADEA. The employee’s race is an improper reason, but it is improper under Title VII, not the ADEA.
We do not preclude the possibility that an employer who targets employees with a particular pension status on the assumption that these employees are likely to be older thereby engages in age discrimination. Pension status may be a proxy for age, not in the sense that the ADEA makes the two factors equivalent, cf. Metz, 828 F. 2d, at 1208 (using “proxy” to mean statutory equivalence), but in the sense that the employer may suppose a correlation between the two factors and act accordingly. Nor do we rule out the possibility of dual liability under ERISA and the ADEA where the decision to fire the employee was motivated both by the employee’s age and by his pension status. Finally, we do not consider the special case where an employee is about to vest in pension benefits as a result of his age, rather than years of service, see 1 Mamorsky, supra, at § 5.02[2], and the employer fires the employee in order to prevent vesting. That ease is not presented here. Our holding is simply that an employer does not violate the ADEA just by interfering with an older employee’s pension benefits that would have vested by virtue of the employee’s years of service.
Besides the evidence of pension interference, the Court of Appeals cited some additional evidentiary support for ADEA liability. Although there was no direct evidence of petitioners’ motivation, except for two isolated comments by the Hazens, the Court of Appeals did note the following indirect evidence: Respondent was asked to sign a confidentiality agreement, even though no other employee had been required to do so, and his replacement was a younger man who was given a less onerous agreement. 953 F. 2d, at 1411. In the ordinary ADEA case, indirect evidence of this kind may well suffice to support liability if the plaintiff also shows that the employer’s explanation for its decision — here, that respondent had been disloyal to Hazen Paper by doing business with its competitors — is “ ‘unworthy of credence.’ ” Athens, 460 U. S., at 716 (quoting Burdine, 450 U. S., at 256). But inferring age motivation from the implausibility of the employer’s explanation may be problematic in cases where other unsavory motives, such as pension interference, were present. This issue is now before us in the Title VII context, see Hicks v. St. Mary’s Honor Center, 970 F. 2d 487 (CA8 1992), cert. granted, 506 U. S. 1042 (1993), and we will not address it prematurely. We therefore remand the case for the Court of Appeals to reconsider whether the jury had sufficient evidence to find an ADEA violation.
B
Because we remand for further proceedings, we also address the second question upon which certiorari was granted: the meaning of “willful” in § 7(b) of the ADEA, which provides for liquidated damages in the case of a “willful” violation.
In Thurston, we thoroughly analyzed §7(b) and concluded that “a violation of the Act [would be] ‘willful’ if the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.” 469 U. S., at 126 (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). We sifted through the legislative history of § 7(b), which had derived from § 16(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1069, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 216(a), and determined that the accepted judicial interpretation of § 16(a) at the time of the passage of the ADEA supported the “knowledge or reckless disregard” standard. See 469 U. S., at 126. We found that this standard was consistent with the meaning of “willful” in other criminal and civil statutes. See id., at 126-127. Finally, we observed that Congress aimed to create a “two-tiered liability scheme,” under which some, but not all, ADEA violations would give rise to liquidated damages. We therefore rejected a broader definition of “willful” providing for liquidated damages whenever the employer knew that the ADEA was “in the picture.” See id., at 127-128.
In McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U. S. 128 (1988), an FLSA case, we reaffirmed the Thurston standard. The question in Richland Shoe was whether the limitations provision of the FLSA, creating a 3-year period for “willful” violations, should be interpreted consistently with Thurston. We answered that question in the affirmative.
“The word ‘willful’ is widely used in the law, and, although it has not by any means been given a perfectly consistent interpretation, it is generally understood to refer to conduct that is not merely negligent. The standard of willfulness that was adopted in Thurston— that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute — is surely a fair reading of the plain language of the Act.” 486 U. S., at 133.
Once again we rejected the “in the picture standard” because it would “virtually obliterate] any distinction between willful and nonwillful violations.” Id., at 132-133.
Surprisingly, the Courts of Appeals continue to be confused about the meaning of the term “willful” in § 7(b) of the ADEA. A number of Circuits have declined to apply Thur-ston to what might be called an informal disparate treatment case — where age has entered into the employment decision on an ad hoc, informal basis rather than through a formal policy. At least one Circuit refuses to impose liquidated damages in such a case unless the employer’s conduct was “outrageous.” See, e. g., Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 879 F. 2d 43, 57-58 (CA3 1989). Another requires that the underlying evidence of liability be direct rather than circumstantial. See, e. g., Neufeld v. Searle Laboratories, 884 F. 2d 335, 340 (CA8 1989). Still others have insisted that age be the “predominant,” rather than simply a determinative, factor. See, e. g., Spulak v. K Mart Corp., 894 F. 2d 1150, 1159 (CA10 1990); Schrand v. Federal Pacific Elec. Co., 851 F. 2d 152, 158 (CA6 1988). The chief concern of these Circuits has been that the application of Thurston would defeat the two-tiered system of liability intended by Congress, because every employer that engages in informal age discrimination knows or recklessly disregards the illegality of its conduct.
We believe that this concern is misplaced. The ADEA does not provide for liquidated damages “where consistent with the principle of a two-tiered liability scheme.” It provides for liquidated damages where the violation was “willful.” That definition must be applied here unless we overrule Thurston, or unless there is some inherent difference between this case and Thurston to cause a shift in the meaning of the word “willful.”
As for the first possibility, petitioners have not persuaded us that Thurston was wrongly decided, let alone that we should depart from the rule of stare decisis. The two-tiered liability principle was simply one interpretive tool among several that we used in Thurston to decide what Congress meant by the word “willful,” and in any event we continue to believe that the “knowledge or reckless disregard” standard will create two tiers of liability across the range of ADEA cases. It is not true that an employer who knowingly relies on age in reaching its decision invariably commits a knowing or reckless violation of the ADEA. The ADEA is not an unqualified prohibition on the use of age in employment decisions, but affords the employer a “bona fide occupational qualification” defense, see 29 U. S. C. § 623(f)(1), and exempts certain subject matters and persons, see, e. g., § 623(f)(2) (exemption for bona fide seniority systems and employee benefit plans); § 631(c) (exemption for bona fide executives and high policymakers). If an employer incorrectly but in good faith and nonrecklessly believes that the statute permits a particular age-based decision, then liquidated damages should not be imposed. See Richland Shoe, supra, at 135, n. 13. Indeed, in Thurston itself we upheld liability but reversed an award of liquidated damages because the employer “acted [nonrecklessly] and in good faith in attempting to determine whether [its] plan would violate the ADEA.” 469 U. S., at 129.
Nor do we see how the instant case can be distinguished from Thurston, assuming that petitioners did indeed fire respondent because of his age. The only distinction between Thurston and the case before us is the existence of formal discrimination. Age entered into the employment decision there through a formal and publicized policy, and not as an undisclosed factor motivating the employer on an ad hoc basis, which is what respondent alleges occurred here. But surely an employer’s reluctance to acknowledge its reliance on the forbidden factor should not cut against imposing a penalty. It would be a wholly circular and self-defeating interpretation of the ADEA to hold that, in cases where an employer more likely knows its conduct to be illegal, knowledge alone does not suffice for liquidated damages. We therefore reaffirm that the Thurston definition of “willful”— that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute — applies to all disparate treatment cases under the ADEA. Once a “willful” violation has been shown, the employee need not additionally demonstrate that the employer’s conduct was outrageous, or provide direct evidence of the employer’s motivation, or prove that age was the predominant, rather than a determinative, factor in the employment decision.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This writ tests the validity of New York’s permissive eavesdrop statute, N. Y. Code Crim. Proc. § 813-a, under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The claim is that the statute sets up a system of surveillance which involves trespassory intrusions into private, constitutionally protected premises, authorizes “general searches” for “mere evidence,” and is an invasion of the privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court upheld the statute, the Appellate Division affirmed without opinion, 25 App. Div. 2d 718, 269 N. Y. S. 2d 368, and the Court of Appeals did likewise by a divided vote. 18 N. Y. 2d 638, 219 N. E. 2d 295. We granted certiorari, 385 U. S. 967 (1966). We have concluded that the language of New York’s statute is too broad in its sweep resulting in a trespassory intrusion into a constitutionally protected area and is, therefore, violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. This disposition obviates the necessity for any discussion of the other points raised.
I.
Berger, the petitioner, was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to bribe the Chairman of the New York State Liquor Authority. The case arose out of the complaint of one Ralph Pansini to the District Attorney’s office that agents of the State Liquor Authority had entered his bar and grill and without cause seized his books and records. Pansini asserted that the raid was in reprisal for his failure to pay a bribe for a liquor license. Numerous complaints had been filed with the District Attorney’s office charging the payment of bribes by applicants for liquor licenses. On the direction of that office, Pansini, while equipped with a “minifon” recording device, interviewed an employee of the Authority. The employee advised Pansini that the price for a license was $10,000 and suggested that he contact attorney Harry Neyer. Neyer subsequently told Pansini that he worked with the Authority employee before and that the latter was aware of the going rate on liquor licenses downtown.
On the basis of this evidence an eavesdrop order was obtained from a Justice of the State Supreme Court, as provided by § 813-a. The order permitted the installation, for a period of 60 days, of a recording device in Neyer’s office. On the basis of leads obtained from this eavesdrop a second order permitting the installation, for a like period, of a recording device in the office of one Harry Steinman was obtained. After some two weeks of eavesdropping a conspiracy was uncovered involving the issuance of liquor licenses for the Playboy and Tenement Clubs, both of New York City. Petitioner was indicted as “a go-between” for the principal conspirators, who though not named in the indictment were disclosed in a bill of particulars. Relevant portions of the recordings were received in evidence at the trial and were played to the jury, all over the objection of the petitioner. The parties have stipulated that the District Attorney “had no information upon which to proceed to present a case to the Grand Jury, or on the basis of which to prosecute” the petitioner except by the use of the eavesdrop evidence.
HH
Eavesdropping is an ancient practice which at common law was condemned as a nuisance. 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 168. At one time the eavesdropper listened by naked ear under the eaves of houses or their windows, or beyond their walls seeking out private discourse. The awkwardness and undignified manner of this method as well as its susceptibility to abuse was immediately recognized. Electricity, however, provided a better vehicle and with the advent of the telegraph surreptitious interception of messages began. As early as 1862 California found it necessary to prohibit the practice by statute. Statutes of California 1862, p. 288, CCLXII. During the Civil War General J. E. B. Stuart is reputed to have had his own eavesdropper along with him in the field whose job it was to intercept military communications of the opposing forces. Subsequently newspapers reportedly raided one another’s news gathering lines to save energy, time, and money. Racing news was likewise intercepted and flashed to bettors before the official result arrived.
The telephone brought on a new and more modern eavesdropper known as the “wiretapper.” Interception was made by a connection with a telephone line. This activity has been with us for three-quarters of a century. Like its cousins, wiretapping proved to be a commercial as well as a police technique. Illinois outlawed it in 1895 and in 1905 California extended its telegraph interception prohibition to the telephone. Some 50 years ago a New York legislative committee found that police, in cooperation with the telephone company, had been tapping telephone lines in New York despite an Act passed in 1895 prohibiting it. During prohibition days wiretaps were the principal source of information relied upon by the police as the basis for prosecutions. In 1934 the Congress outlawed the interception without authorization, and the divulging or publishing of the contents of wiretaps by passing § 605 of the Communications Act of 1934. New York, in 1938, declared by constitutional amendment that “[t]he right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated,” but permitted by ex parte order of the Supreme Court of the State the interception of communications on a showing of “reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime” might be obtained. N. Y. Const. Art. I, § 12.
Sophisticated electronic devices have now been developed (commonly known as “bugs”) which are capable of eavesdropping on anyone in almost any given situation. They are to be distinguished from “wiretaps” which are confined to the interception of telegraphic and telephonic communications. Miniature in size (%" x %" x %") — no larger than a postage stamp — these gadgets pick up whispers within a room and broadcast them half a block away to a receiver. It is said that certain types of electronic rays beamed at walls or glass windows are capable of catching voice vibrations as they are bounced off the surfaces. Since 1940 eavesdropping has become a big business. Manufacturing concerns offer complete detection systems which automatically record voices under almost any conditions by remote control. A microphone concealed in a book, a lamp, or other unsuspected place in a room, or made into a fountain pen, tie clasp, lapel button, or cuff link increases the range of these powerful wireless transmitters to a half mile. Receivers pick up the transmission with interference-free reception on a special wave frequency. And, of late, a combination mirror transmitter has been developed which permits not only sight but voice transmission up to 300 feet. Likewise, parabolic microphones, which can overhear conversations without being placed within the premises monitored, have been developed. See Westin, Science, Privacy, and Freedom: Issues and Proposals for the 1970's, 66 Col. L. Rev. 1003, 1005-1010.
As science developed these detection techniques, lawmakers, sensing the resulting invasion of individual privacy, have provided some statutory protection for the public. Seven States, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, and Oregon, prohibit surreptitious eavesdropping by mechanical or electronic device. However, all save Illinois permit official court-ordered eavesdropping. Some 36 States prohibit wiretapping. But of these, 27 permit “authorized” interception of some type. Federal law, as we have seen, prohibits interception and divulging or publishing of the content of wiretaps without exception. In sum, it is fair to say that wiretapping on the whole is outlawed, except for permissive use by law enforcement officials in some States; while electronic eavesdropping is — save for seven States — permitted both officially and privately. And, in six of the seven States electronic eavesdropping (“bugging”) is permissible on court order.
III.
The law, though jealous of individual privacy, has not kept pace with these advances in scientific knowledge. This is not to say that individual privacy has been relegated to a second-class position for it has been held since Lord Camden’s day that intrusions into it are “subversive of all the comforts of society.” Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, 1066 (1765). And the Founders so decided a quarter of a century later when they declared in the Fourth Amendment that the people had a right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....” Indeed, that right, they wrote, “shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Almost a century thereafter this Court took specific and lengthy notice of Entick v. Carrington, supra, finding that its holding was undoubtedly familiar to and “in the minds of those who framed the Fourth Amendment....” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 626-627 (1886). And after quoting from Lord Camden’s opinion at some length, Mr. Justice Bradley characterized it thus:
“The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case... they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” At 630.
Boyd held unconstitutional an Act of the Congress authorizing a court of the United States to require a defendant in a revenue case to produce in court his private books, invoices, and papers or else the allegations of the Government were to be taken as confessed. The Court found that “the essence of the offense.., [was] the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden’s judgment.” Ibid. The Act — the Court found — violated the Fourth Amendment in that it authorized a general search contrary to the Amendment’s guarantee.
The Amendment, however, carried no criminal sanction, and the federal statutes not affording one, the Court in 1914 formulated and pronounced the federal exclusionary rule in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383. Prohibiting the use in federal courts of any evidence seized in- violation of the Amendment, the Court held:
“The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States... under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power... and to forever secure the people... against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all.... The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures... should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.” At 391-392.
IV.
The Court was faced with its first wiretap case in 1928, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438. There the interception of Olmstead’s telephone line was accomplished without entry upon his premises and was, therefore, found not to be proscribed by the Fourth Amendment. The basis of the decision was that the Constitution did not forbid the obtaining of evidence by wiretapping unless it involved actual unlawful entry into the house. Statements in the opinion that a conversation passing over a telephone wire cannot be said to come within the Fourth Amendment’s enumeration of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” have been negated by our subsequent cases as hereinafter noted. They found “conversation” was within the Fourth Amendment’s protections, and that the use of electronic devices to capture it was a “search” within the meaning of the Amendment, and we so hold. In any event, Congress soon thereafter, and some say in answer to Olmstead, specifically prohibited the interception without authorization and the divulging or publishing of the contents of telephonic communications. And the Nardone cases, 302 U. S. 379 (1937) and 308 U. S. 338 (1939), extended the exclusionary rule to wiretap evidence offered in federal prosecutions.
The first “bugging” case reached the Court in 1942 in Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129. There the Court found that the use of a detectaphone placed against an office wall in order to hear private conversations in the office next door did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there was no physical trespass in connection with the relevant interception. And in On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747 (1952), we found that since “no trespass was committed” a conversation between Lee and a federal agent, occurring in the former’s laundry and electronically recorded, was not condemned by the Fourth Amendment. Thereafter in Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961), the Court found “that the eavesdropping was accomplished by means of an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied by the petitioners.” At 509. A spike a foot long with a microphone attached to it was inserted under a baseboard into a party wall until it made contact with the heating duct that ran through the entire house occupied by Silverman, making a perfect sounding board through which the conversations in question were overheard. Significantly, the Court held that its decision did “not turn upon the technicality of a trespass upon a party wall as a matter of local law. It is based upon the reality of an actual intrusion into a constitutionally protected area.” At 512.
In Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), the Court for the first time specifically held that verbal evidence may be the fruit of official illegality under the Fourth Amendment along with the more common tangible fruits of unwarranted intrusion. It used these words:
“The exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial physical, tangible materials obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion. It follows from our holding in Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, that the Fourth Amendment may protect against the overhearing of verbal statements as well as against the more traditional seizure of ‘papers and effects.’ ” At 485.
And in Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963), the Court confirmed that it had “in the past sustained instances of ‘electronic eavesdropping’ against constitutional challenge, when devices have been used to enable government agents to overhear conversations which would have been beyond the reach of the human ear.... It has been insisted only that the electronic device not be planted by an unlawful physical invasion of a constitutionally protected area.” At 438-439. In this case a recording of a conversation between a federal agent and the petitioner in which the latter offered the agent a bribe was admitted in evidence. Rather than constituting “eavesdropping” the Court found that the recording “was used only to obtain the most reliable evidence possible of a conversation in which the Government’s own agent was a participant and which that agent was fully entitled to disclose.” At 439.
V.
It is now well settled that “the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth” Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655 (1961). “The security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police — which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment — is basic to a free society.” Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27 (1949). And its “fundamental protections... are guaranteed... against invasion by the States.” Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476, 481 (1965). This right has most recently received enunciation in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523. “The basic purpose of this Amendment, as recognized in countless decisions of this Court, is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.” At 528. Likewise the Court has decided that while the “standards of reasonableness” required under the Fourth Amendment are the same under the Fourteenth, they “are not susceptible of Procrustean application....” Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 33 (1963). We said there that “the reasonableness of a search is... [to be determined] by the trial court from the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the 'fundamental criteria’ laid down by the Fourth Amendment and in opinions of this Court applying that Amendment.” Ibid.
We, therefore, turn to New York’s statute to determine the basis of the search and seizure authorized by it upon the order of a state supreme court justice, a county judge or general sessions judge of New York County. Section 813-a authorizes the issuance of an “ex parte order for eavesdropping” upon “oath or affirmation of a district attorney, or of the attorney-general or of an officer above the rank of sergeant of any police department of the state or of any political subdivision thereof....” The oath must state “that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications, conversations or discussions are to be overheard or recorded and the purpose thereof, and... identifying the particular telephone number or telegraph line involved.” The judge “may examine on oath the applicant and any other witness he may produce and shall satisfy himself of the existence of reasonable grounds for the granting of such application.” The order' must specify the duration of the eavesdrop — not exceeding two months unless extended— and “[a]ny such order together with the papers upon which the application was based, shall be delivered to and retained by the applicant as authority for the eaves-» dropping authorized therein.”
While New York’s statute satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a neutral and detached authority be interposed between the police and the public, Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948), the broad sweep of the statute is immediately observable. It permits the issuance of the order, or warrant for eavesdropping, upon the oath of the attorney general, the district attorney or any police officer above the rank of sergeant stating that “there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained....” Such a requirement raises a serious probable-cause question under the Fourth Amendment. Under it warrants may only issue “but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Probable cause under the Fourth Amendment exists where the facts and circumstances within the affiant’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient unto themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 (1925); Husty v. United States, 282 U. S. 694, 700-701 (1931) ; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-176 (1949).
It is said, however, by the petitioner, and the State agrees, that the “reasonable ground” requirement of § 813-a “is undisputedly equivalent to the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” This is indicated by People v. Grossman, 45 Misc. 2d 557, 257 N. Y. S. 2d 266, reversed on other grounds, 27 App. Div. 2d 572, 276 N. Y. S. 2d 168. Also see People v. Beshany, 43 Misc. 2d 521, 252 N. Y. S. 2d 110. While we have found no case on the point by New York’s highest court, we need not pursue the question further because we have concluded that the statute is deficient on its face in other respects. Since petitioner clearly has standing to challenge the statute, being indisputably affected by it, we need not consider either the sufficiency of the affidavits upon which the eavesdrop orders were based, or the standing of petitioner to attack the search and seizure made thereunder.
The Fourth Amendment commands that a warrant issue not only upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, but also “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” New York’s statute lacks this particularization. It merely says that a warrant may issue on reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be obtained by the eavesdrop. It lays down no requirement for particularity in the warrant as to what specific crime has been or is being committed, nor “the place to be searched,” or “the persons or things to be seized” as specifically required by the Fourth Amendment. The need for particularity and evidence of reliability in the showing required when judicial authorization of a search is sought is especially great in the case of eavesdropping. By its very nature eavesdropping involves an intrusion on privacy that is broad in scope. As was said in Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323 (1966), the “indiscriminate use of such devices in law enforcement raises grave constitutional questions under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments,” and imposes “a heavier responsibility on this Court in its supervision of the fairness of procedures....” At 329, n. 7. There, two judges acting jointly authorized the installation of a device on the person of a prospective witness to record conversations between him and an attorney for a defendant then on trial in the United States District Court. The judicial authorization was based on an affidavit of the witness setting out in detail previous conversations between the witness and the attorney concerning the bribery of jurors in the case. The recording device was, as the Court said, authorized “under the most precise and discriminate circumstances, circumstances which fully met the'requirement of particularity’ ” of the Fourth Amendment. The Court was asked to exclude the evidence of the recording of the conversations seized pursuant to the order on constitutional grounds, Weeks v. United States, supra, or in the exercise of supervisory power, McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332 (1943). The Court refused to do so finding that the recording, although an invasion of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, was admissible because of the authorization of the judges, based upon “a detailed factual affidavit alleging the commission of a specific criminal offense directly and immediately affecting the administration of justice... for the narrow and particularized purpose of ascertaining the truth of the affidavit’s allegations.” At 330. The invasion was lawful because there was sufficient proof to obtain a search warrant to make the search for the limited purpose outlined in the order of the judges. Through these “precise and discriminate” procedures the order authorizing the use of the electronic device afforded similar protections to those that are present in the use of conventional warrants authorizing the seizure of tangible evidence. Among other safeguards, the order described the type of conversation sought with particularity, thus indicating the specific objective of the Government in entering the constitutionally protected area and the limitations placed upon the officer executing the warrant. Under it the officer could not search unauthorized areas; likewise, once the property sought, and for which the order was issued, was found the officer could not use the order as a passkey to further search. In addition, the order authorized one limited intrusion rather than a series or a continuous surveillance. And, we note that a new order was issued when the officer sought to resume the search and probable cause was shown for the succeeding one. Moreover, the order was executed by the officer with dispatch, not over a prolonged and extended period. In this manner no greater invasion of privacy was permitted than was necessary under the circumstances. Finally the officer was required to and did make a return on the order showing how it was executed and what was seized. Through these strict precautions the danger of an unlawful search and seizure was minimized.
By contrast, New York’s statute lays down no such “precise and discriminate” requirements. Indeed, it authorizes the “indiscriminate use” of electronic devices as specifically condemned in Osborn. “The proceeding by search warrant is a drastic one,” Sgro v. United States, 287 U. S. 206, 210 (1932), and must be carefully circumscribed so as to prevent unauthorized invasions of “the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630. New York’s broadside authorization rather than being “carefully circumscribed” so as to prevent unauthorized invasions of privacy actually permits general searches by electronic devices, the truly offensive character of which was first condemned in Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, and which were then known as “general warrants.” The use of the latter was a motivating factor behind the Declaration of Independence. In view of the many cases commenting on the practice it is sufficient here to point out that under these “general warrants” customs officials were given blanket authority to conduct general searches for goods imported to the Colonies in violation of the tax laws of the Crown. The Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a warrant “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” repudiated these general warrants and “makes general searches... impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192, 196 (1927); Stanford v. Texas, supra.
We believe the statute here is equally offensive. First, as we have mentioned, eavesdropping is authorized without requiring belief that any particular offense has been or is being committed; nor that the “property” sought, the conversations, be particularly described. The purpose of the probable-cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment, to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed, is thereby wholly aborted. Likewise the statute’s failure to describe with particularity the conversations sought gives the officer a roving commission to “seize” any and all conversations. It is true that the statute requires the naming of “the person or persons whose communications, conversations or discussions are to be overheard or recorded....” But this does no more than identify the person whose constitutionally protected area is to be invaded rather than “particularly describing” the communications, conversations, or discussions to be seized. As with general warrants this leaves too much to the discretion of the officer executing the order. Secondly, authorization of eavesdropping for a two-month period is the equivalent of a series of intrusions, searches, and seizures pursuant to a single showing of probable cause. Prompt execution is also avoided. During such a long and continuous (24 hours a day) period the conversations of any and all persons coming into the area covered by the device will be seized indiscriminately and without regard to their connection with the crime under investigation. Moreover, the statute permits, and there were authorized here, extensions of the original two-month period — presumably for two months each — on a mere showing that such extension is “in the public interest.” Apparently the original grounds on which the eavesdrop order was initially issued also form the basis of the renewal. This we believe insufficient without a showing of present probable cause for the continuance of the eavesdrop. Third, the statute places no termination date on the eavesdrop once the conversation sought is seized. This is left entirely in the discretion of the officer. Finally, the statute's procedure, necessarily because its success depends on secrecy, has no requirement for notice as do conventional warrants, nor does it overcome this defect by requiring some showing of special facts. On the contrary, it permits unconsented entry without any showing of exigent circumstances. Such a showing of exigency, in order to avoid notice, would appear more important in eavesdropping, with its inherent dangers, than that required when conventional procedures of search and seizure are utilized. Nor does the statute provide for a return on the warrant thereby leaving full discretion in the officer as to the use of seized conversations of innocent as well as guilty parties. In short, the statute's blanket grant of permission to eavesdrop is without adequate judicial supervision or protective procedures.
VI.
It is said with fervor that electronic eavesdropping is a most important technique of law enforcement and that outlawing it will severely cripple crime detection. The monumental report of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice entitled “The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society” informs us that the majority of law enforcement officials say that this is especially true in the detection of organized crime. As the Commission reports, there can be no question about the serious proportions of professional criminal activity in this country. However, we have found no empirical statistics on the use of electronic devices (bugging) in the fight against organized crime. Indeed, there are even figures available in the wiretap category which indicate to the contrary. See District Attorney Silver’s Poll of New York Prosecutors, in Dash, Schwartz & Knowlton, The Eavesdroppers 105, 117-119 (1959). Also see Semerjian, Proposals on Wiretapping in Light of Recent Senate Hearings, 45 B. U. L. Rev. 217, 229. As the Commission points out, “[w]iretapping was the mainstay of the New York attack against organized crime until Federal court decisions intervened. Recently chief reliance in some offices has been placed on bugging, where the information is to be used in court. Law enforcement officials believe that the successes achieved in some parts of the State are attributable primarily to a combination of dedicated and competent personnel and adequate legal tools; and that the failure to do more in New York has resulted primarily from the failure to commit additional resources of time and men,” rather than electronic devices. At 201-202. Moreover, Brooklyn's District Attorney Silver’s poll of the State of New York indicates that during the 12-year period (1942-1954) duly authorized wiretaps in bribery and corruption cases constituted only a small percentage of the whole. It indicates that this category involved only 10% of the total wiretaps. The overwhelming majority were in the categories of larceny, extortion, coercion, and blackmail, accounting for almost 50%. Organized gambling was about 11%. Statistics are not available on subsequent years. Dash, Schwartz & Knowlton, supra, at 40.
An often repeated statement of District Attorney Hogan of New York County was made at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee at which he advocated the amendment of the Communications Act of 1934, supra, so as to permit “telephonic interception” of conversations. As he testified, “Federal statutory law [the 1934 Act] has been interpreted in such a way as to bar us from divulging wiretap evidence, even in the courtroom in the course of criminal prosecution.” Mr. Hogan then said that “[wjithout it [wiretaps] my own office could not have convicted” “top figures in the underworld.” He then named nine persons his office had convicted and one on whom he had furnished "leads” secured from wiretaps to the authorities of New Jersey. Evidence secured from wiretaps, as Mr. Hogan said, was not admissible in “criminal prosecutions.” He was advocating that the Congress adopt a measure that would make it admissible; Hearings on S. 2813 and S. 1495, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 173, 174 (1962). The President’s Commission also emphasizes in its report the need for wiretapping in the investigation of organized crime because of the telephone’s “relatively free use” by those engaged in the business and the difficulty of infiltrating their organizations. P. 201. The Congress, though long importuned, has not amended the 1934 Act to permit it.
We are also advised by the Solicitor General of the United States that the Federal Government has abandoned the use of electronic eavesdropping for “prose-cutorial purposes.” See Supplemental Memorandum, Schipani v. United States, No. 504, October Term, 1966, 385 U. S. 372. See also Black v. United States, 385 U. S. 26 (1966); O’Brien v. United States, 386 U. S. 345 (1967); Hoffa v. United States, 387 U. S. 231 (1967); Markis v. United States, 387 U. S. 425; Moretti v. United States, 387 U. S. 425. Despite these actions of the Federal Government there has been no failure of law enforcement in that field.
As The Chief Justice said in concurring in the result in Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, “the fantastic advances in the field of electronic communication constitute a great danger to the privacy of the individual;... indiscriminate use of such devices in law enforcement raises grave constitutional questions under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments....” At 441.
In any event we cannot forgive the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in the name of law enforcement. This is no formality that we require today but a fundamental rule that has long been recognized as basic to the privacy of every home in America. While “[t]he requirements of the Fourth Amendment are not inflexible, or obtusely unyielding to the legitimate needs of law enforcement,” Lopez v. United States, supra, at 464 (dissenting opinion of Brennan, J.), it is not asking too much that officers be required to comply with the basic command of the Fourth Amendment before the innermost secrets of one’s home or office are invaded. Few threats to liberty exist which are greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices. Some may claim that without the use of such devices crime detection in certain areas may suffer some delays since eavesdropping is quicker, easier, and more certain. However, techniques and practices may well be developed that will operate just as speedily and certainly and — what is more important — without attending illegality.
It is said that neither a warrant nor a statute authorizing eavesdropping can be drawn so as to meet the Fourth Amendment’s requirements. If that be true then the “fruits” of eavesdropping devices are barred under the Amendment. On the other hand this Court has in the past, under specific conditions and circumstances, sustained the use of eavesdropping devices. See Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129; On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747; Lopez v. United States, supra; and Osborn v. United States, supra. In the latter case the eavesdropping device was permitted where the “commission of a specific offense” was charged, its use was “under the most precise and discriminate circumstances” and the effective administration of justice in a federal court was at stake. The States are under no greater restrictions. The Fourth Amendment does not make the “precincts of the home or the office... sanctuaries where the law can never reach,” Douglas, J., dissenting in Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The single legal question presented by this case is whether a vessel is unseaworthy when its officers assign too few crewmen to perform a particular task in a safe and prudent manner. It is to resolve this question, which the lower courts answered in the negative and which has caused a conflict afnong circuits, that we granted certiorari. 385 U. S. 810.
Petitioner, a member of the crew of respondent’s vessel S. S. Mormacwind, was engaged with four other seamen in a docking operation at the stern of the vessel as it approached a pier. At the last minute, the third mate, who was directing the docking, was instructed to put out an additional mooring line, a heavy eight-inch rope, which was completely coiled on the deck. The mate then ordered petitioner and another crewman to uncoil this heavy rope and carry it 56 feet to the edge of the ship. While petitioner was uncoiling a portion of the rope to carry it to the edge of the ship, he fell and injured his back. At the trial, as the Court of Appeals recognized, “[t]here was expert evidence to the effect that 3 or 4 men rather than 2 were required to carry the line in order to constitute ‘safe and prudent seamanship.’” 356 F. 2d 247, 248. Petitioner did not contend that the vessel as a whole was insufficiently manned or that there were too few men at the stern engaged in the overall docking operation. Neither did he contend that the third mate or the seaman assigned to uncoil the rope with him was incompetent, or that the rope was itself defective. His sole contention was that the mate’s assignment of two men to do the work of three or four constituted negligence and made the vessel unseaworthy. The District Court allowed the negligence issue to go to the jury; which found for' respondent, but granted a directed verdict to respondent on the unseaworthiness issue, holding that the above facts could not, as a matter of law, constitute unseaworthiness. The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed, holding:
“If someone is injured solely by reason of an act or omission on the part of any member of a crew found to be possesséd of the competence of men of his eall-ing, there can be no. recovery unless the act or omission is proved to be negligent.” 356 F. 2d, at 251.
It is here unnecessary to trace the history of the judicial development and expansion of the doctrine of unseaworthiness. That task was recently performed in Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U. S. 539, 543-549, where the Court, rejecting the notion that a shipowner,is liable for temporary unseaworthiness only-if he is negligent, concluded: “There is no suggestion in any of the decisions that the duty is less onerous with respect to ... an unsea-worthy condition which may be only temporary. . . . What has evolved is a complete divorcement of unseaworthiness liability from concepts of negligence.” 362 U. S., at 549, 550. It is that principle which we conclude the lower courts failed to apply in their decisions in this case.
The basic issue here is whether there is any justification, consistent.with the broad remedial purposes of the doctrine of unseaworthiness, for drawing a distinction between the ship’s equipment, on the one hand, and its personnel, on the other. As regards equipment, the classic case of unseaworthiness arises when the vessel is either insufficiently or defectively equipped. In Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U. S. 96, however., the Court made it clear that the availability of safe and sufficient gear ón board does not preyent the actual use of defective gear from constituting unseaworthiness, for the test of seaworthiness is to be applied “when and where the work is to be done.” Id., at 104. And in Crumady v. The J. H. Fisser, 358 U. S. 423, we further clarified the extent of unseaworthiness liability by holding that, even though the equipment furnished for the particular task is itself safe and sufficient, its misuse by the crew renders the vessel unseaworthy. We emphatically stated the basis of our holding: “Unseaworthiness extends not only to the vessel but to the crew.” Id., at 427. For that proposition the Court cited Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 348 U. S. 336, where we said, “We see no reason to draw a line between the ship and the gear on the one hand and the ship’s personnel on the other.” Id., at 339,
We likewise see ho reason to draw, that line here. That, being so, under Mahnich it makes no . difference that respondent’s vessel was fully manned or that there was a sufficient complement of seamen engaged in the overall docking operation, for there were too few men assigned “when and where” the job of uncoiling the rope was to be done. And under Crumady it makes no difference that the third mate and two men he assigned to perform the job were themselves competent seamen, or that the rope was itself a sound piece of gear. By assigning too few men to uncoil and carry the heavy rope, the mate caused both the men and the rope to be misused.
This analysis, we believe, is required by a clear recognition of the needs of the seaman for protection from dangerous conditions beyond his control and the role of the unseaworthiness doctrine which, by shifting the risk to the shipowner, provides that protection. If petitioner had been ordered to use a defective pulley in lifting the rope, he. would clearly be protected by the doctrine of unseaworthiness. If the pulley itself were sound but petitioner had been ordered to load too much rope on it, he would likewise be protected. If four men had been, assigned to uncoil the rope but two of the men lacked the strength of ordinary efficient seamen, petitioner would again be protected. Should this protection be denied merely because the shipowner, instead of supplying petitioner with unsafe gear, insufficient gear, or incompetent manual assistance, assigned him insufficient manual assistance? We think not. When this Court extended the shipowner’s liability' for unseaworthiness to long-shoremen performing seamen’s work, Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85—either on board or on the pier, Gutierrez v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 373 U. S. 206, either with the ship’s gear or the stevedore’s gear, Alaska S. S. Co. v. Petterson, 347 U. S. 396, either as employees of an independent stevedore or as employees of a shipowner pro hac vice, Reed v. The Yaka, 373 U. S. 410—we noted that “the hazards of marine service, the helplessness of the- men to ward off the perils, of unseaworthiness, the harshpess of forcing them to shoulder their losses alone, and the broad range of the ‘humanitarian policy’ of the doctrine of seaworthiness,” id., at 413, should prevent the shipowner from delegating, shifting, or escaping his duty by using the men or gear of others to perform the ship’s work. By the same token, the shipowner should not be able to escape liability merely because he has used men rather than machines or physical equipment to perform that work.
Petitioner is entitled to present his theory of unseaworthiness to the jury, and the case is reversed and remanded for that purpose. ft ⅛ 80 ^
356 F. 2d 247.
Compare American President Lines, Ltd. v. Redfern, 345 F. 2d 629, with The Magdapur, 3 F. Supp. 971; Koleris v. S. S. Good Hope, 241 F. Supp. 967; and the instant case. Other cases from the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits also seem to suggest a result different from the’one reached in the instant case. See, e. g., Ferrante v. Swedish American Lines, 331 F. 2d 571, cert. dismissed, 379 U. S. 801; Thompson v. Calmar S. S. Corp., 331 F. 2d 657, cert. denied, 379 U. S. 913; Hroncich v. American President Lines, Ltd., 334 F. 2d 282; Scott v. Isbrandtsen Co., 327 F. 2d 113; Blassingill v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 336 F. 2d 367; June T., Inc. v. King, 290 F. 2d 404. For a critical discussion of the decision below, see 66 Col. L. Rev. 1180 (1966).
See generally Gilmore & Black, The Law of Admiralty § 6-38 et seq. (1957).
This statement, of course, was made in the context of our holding that unseaworthiness results when a member of the crew is “not equal in disposition to the ordinary men of that calling.” 348 U. S., at 340. That is so, we explained, because the shipowner has a duty to provide a crew “competent to meet the contingencies of the voyage.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals here recognized that “the. vessel must be manned by ah adequate and proper number of men,” 356 F. 2d, at 251 (see, e. g., DeLima v. Trinidad Corp., 302 F. 2d 585; June T., Inc. v. King, 290 F. 2d 404), but then proceeded 4q draw a distinction between a well-manned ship and a well-manned operation aboard the ship.
Under Mitchell, it makes no difference that the unseaworthy condition caused by inadequate manpower “may be only temporary.” 362 U. S., at 549. See generally Note, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 819 (1963).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed an income tax deficiency against each of three residents of West Virginia and forwarded the assessment lists to the Director of Internal Revenue at Parkersburg for collection. The deficiencies remaining unpaid for more than 10 days- after demand for payment and the taxpayers being then employed by the State of West Virginia, the Director issued notices of levy directed to the State of West Virginia and served them on petitioner, as the State Auditor, seizing the accrued salaries of the taxpayers pursuant to § 6331 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 6331. Petitioner refused to honor the levies and instead issued and delivered payroll warrants to the taxpayers for their then accrued net salaries aggregating $519.71. Thereafter the .Government brought this suit in the Federal District Court against petitioner under § 6332 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 6332, to recover from him personally the $519.71 that he had so paid to the taxpayers in disobedience to and defeat of the Government’s levies. The District Court rendered judgment for the Government and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 252 F. 2d 434. Certiorari was sought on the grounds that § 6331 does not authorize a levy on the accrued salaries of employees of a State, and that, if it be held that it does, petitioner was not a person “obligated with respect to” the accrued and seized salaries, within the meaning of § 6332, and, therefore, is not personally liable for refusing to surrender them to the Government.' We granted the writ to determine those questions. 358 U. S. 809.
Nothing in the Constitution requires that the salaries of state employees be treated any differently, for federal tax purposes, than the salaries of others, Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405; Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, and it is quite clear, generally, that accrued salaries are property and rights to prop-' erty subject to levy. In plain terms, § 6331 proyides for the collection of assessed and unpaid taxes “by levy upon all property and rights to property” belonging to a delinquent taxpayer. Pursuant to that statute a regulation was promulgated expressly interpreting and declaring § 6331 to authorize levy on the accrued salaries of employees of a State to enforce collection of any federal tax.
Although not disputing these principles, petitioner advances two arguments in support of his claim' that the statutes do not authorize a levy on the accrued salaries of employees of a State. First, he contends that a State is not a “person” within the meaning of § 6332, and, second,. he argues that Congress, by specifically authorizing in § 6331 a levy “upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected 'Official, of the United States, 'the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality” thereof, but not similarly specifically authorizing levy upon the accrued salaries or wages of employees of a State, evinced its intention to exclude the latter from such levies.
Though the definition of “person” in § 6332 does not mention States or any sovereign or political entity or their officers among those it “includes” (Note 3), it is equally clear that it does not exclude them. This is made certain by the provisions of § 7701 (b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code that “The terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise .within the meaning of the term defined.” 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 7701 (b). Whether the term “person” when used in a federal statute includes a State cannot be abstractly declared, but depends upon its legislative ewironment, Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360, 370; Georgia v. Evans, 316 U. S. 159, 161. It is clear that § 6332 is stated in all-inclusive terms of general application. “In interpreting federal revenue measures expressed in terms of general application, this Court has ordinarily found them operative in the case of state activities even though States were not expressly indicated as subjects of tax.” Wilmette Park Dist. v. Campbell, 338 U. S. 411, 416, and cases cited. We think that the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation, i. e., the legislative environment, of § 6332 make it plain that Congress intended to and did include States within the.term “person” as used'in § 6332.
Nor is there merit in petitioner’s contention that Congress, by specifically providing in § 6331 for levy upon the accrued salaries of federal employees, but not mentioning state employees, evinced an intention to exclude the latter from levy. The explanation of that action by Congress appears quite clearly to be that this Court had held in Smith v. Jackson, 246 U. S. 388, that a federal disbursing officer might not, in the absence of express congressional authorization, set off an indebtedness of a federal employee to tbe Government against the employee’s salary, and, pursuant to that opinion, the Comptroller General ruled that an “administrative official served with [notices of levy] would be without authority to withhold any portion of the current salary of such employee in satisfaction of the notices of levy and distraint.” 26 Comp. Gen. 907, 912 (1947). It is evident that § 6331 was enacted to overcome that difficulty and to subject the salaries of federal employees to the same collection procedures as are available against all other taxpayers, including employees of a State.
Accordingly we hold that §§ 6331 and 6332 authorize levy upon the accrued salaries of state employees for the collection of any federal tax. • :
This brings us to petitioner’s contention that even if the salaries of state employees are subject to levy, he is not personally liable to the Government for refusing to honor its levies because, contrary to the holding of the courts below, he was not a person “obligated with respect to” the salaries covered thereby. Congress did not define the questioned phrase, nor do we feel called upon here to delimit its scope, for we think it includes, at least, a person who has the sole power to control disposition of the fund, and we also think that, under the West Virginia law, petitioner both had and exercised that power. By a West Virginia statute, 1 W. Va. Code, 1955, § 1031 (1)-, he was empowered and obligated to deduct and withhold from the salaries of state employees sums “to pay taxes as may be required by an act or acts of the congress of the United States of America”; and, similarly, another West Virginia statute, 2 W. Va. Code, 1955, §3834.(18), authorizes garnishments to be served upon him to sequester the salaries of state employees. He alone has the obligation and power to issue warrants for the payment of salaries,. and state employees entitled to payment for services may enforce their rights by mandamus against him. State ex rel. Board of Governors of West Virginia University v. Sims, 133 W. Va. 239, 55 S. E. 2d 505; State ex rel. Board of Governors of West Virginia University v. Sims, 136 W. Va. 789, 68 S. E. 2d 489; State ex rel. Board of Governors of West Virginia University v. Sims, 140 W. Va. 64, 82 S. E. 2d 321. By and to the extent of these West Virginia laws petitioner was obligated and empowered in respect to the sequestered salaries. These laws empowered him completely to control the disposition of that fund. He exercised that power by refusing to honor the Government’s valid levies, and to surrender the fund to the Government. Instead he surrendered the fund to the taxpayers. That action by petitioner resulted in defeat of the Government’s valid levies.
Upon these principles four judges who are constantly required to pass upon West Virginia laws have held that, under the law of that State, petitioner is a person who was obligated with respect to the salaries covered by the Government’s levies. Their conclusion appears to be founded on reason and authority, and under familiar principles will be accepted here. Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, 486-487. Being a person who, under the law of West Virginia, was obligated with respect to the salaries covered by the Government’s levies, petitioner is, by § 6332 (b), made personally liable to the Government in a sum equal to the amount, not exceeding the delinquent taxes, which he refused to surrender to the Government but surrendered instead to the taxpayers in defeat of the Government’s levies. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was therefore correct and must be
Affirmed.
26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 6331, in pertinent part) provides:
“(a) Authority of secretary or delegate. — If any. person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay' the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary or his delegate to collect such tax ... by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer ....
“(b) Seizure and sale of property. — The term ‘levy’ as used in this title includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means. In any case in .which the Secretary or his delegate may levy upon property or rights to property, he may seize and sell such property or rights to property (whether real or personal, tangible or intangible).”
The assessment against each of the taxpayers substantially exceeded in amount the accrued salary owing to each at the time of the levies.
26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) §6332 provides:
“(a) Requirement. — Any person-in possession of (or obligated with respect to)- property or rights to property subject to levy -upon -which a levy has been made shall, upon demand of the Secretary or his delegate, surrender such property or rights (or discharge such obligation) to the Secretary or his delegate, except such p^rt of the property or'rights as is, at the time of such demand, subject to an attachment1 or execution under any judicial process.
“(b)- Penalty for violation. — Any person who fails or refuses to surrender as required by subsection (a) any property or rights to property, subject to levy, upon demand by the Secretary or his delegate, shall be liable in his own person and.estate to the United States in a sum equal to the value of the property or rights not so surrendered, but not exceeding the amount of the taxes for the collection of which such levy has been made, together with costs and interest on such sum at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of such levy.
“(c) Person defined. — The term ‘person,’ as used in subsection (a), includes an officer or employee of. a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.”
Glass City Bank v. United States, 326 U. S. 265, 268; United States v. Long Island Drug Co., 115 F. 2d 983, 986 (C. A. 2d Cir.); 9 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation (Rev.), §49.205.
The only property exempt from levy is that listed in § 6334 (a) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 6334 (a), consisting of certain personal articles, and provisions. It does not exempt salaries or wages.
Section 301.6331-1 (a) (4) (ii) of Treasury Regulations relating to Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes (1954), 26 CFR (revised as of January 1, 1958) §301.6331-1 (a)(4)(h), in pertinent part, provides:
“State and municipal employees. Accrued salaries, wages, or other compensation of any officer, employee, or elected or appointed official of a State or Territory, or of any agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision thereof, are also subject to levy to enforce collection of any Federal tax.”
This Regulation became effective on January 1, 1955, 1955-1 Cum. Bull., p. 195, § 7851, and therefore prior to the service on petitioner of the Government’s notices of levy in October 1955.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California charged the petitioner with unlawful receipt and concealment of narcotics in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 174. Before trial the petitioner made a motion to suppress for use as evidence a package of heroin which, so a California court had found, Los Angeles police officers had obtained from the petitioner in an unconstitutional search and seizure. After a hearing the District Court denied the motion to suppress, finding that federal agents had not participated in the search, and finding also that the California officers had obtained the evidence in a lawful manner. The package of narcotics was admitted in evidence over the petitioner’s renewed objection at his subsequent trial. He was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, accepting the District Court’s finding that the seizure had been lawful, and holding that in any event illegally seized evidence “may nevertheless be received in a federal prosecution, if the seizure was made without the participation of federal officials.” 256 F. 2d 173, at 176. Certiorari was granted in an order which limited the questions for consideration to two, 359 U. S. 965:
“1. Independently of the state court’s determination, was the evidence used against petitioner in the federal prosecution obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States?
“2. If the evidence was unlawfully obtained, was such evidence admissible in the federal prosecution of petitioner because it was obtained by state officers without federal participation?”
In Elkins v. United States, decided today, ante, p. 206, the Court has answered the second question by holding that evidence seized in an unreasonable search by state officers is to be excluded from a federal criminal trial upon the timely objection of a defendant who has standing to complain. The only question that remains in this case, therefore, is whether the Los Angeles officers obtained the package of heroin “during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant’s immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.” Ante, p. 223. As in most cases involving a claimed unconstitutional search and seizure, resolution of the question requires a particularized evaluation of the conduct of the officers involved. See Go-Bart Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357.
At about ten o’clock on the night of February 18, 1957, two Los Angeles police officers, dressed in plain clothes and riding in an unmarked car, observed a taxicab standing in a parking lot next to an apartment house at the corner of First and Flower Streets in Los Angeles. The neighborhood had a reputation for “narcotics activity.” The officers saw the petitioner look up and down the street, walk across the lot, and get into the cab. Neither officer had ever before seen the petitioner, and neither of them had any idea of his identity. Except for the reputation of the neighborhood, neither officer had received information of any kind to suggest that someone might be engaged in criminal activity at that time and place. They were not searching for a participant in any previous crime. They were in possession of no arrest or search warrants.
The taxicab drove away, and the officers followed it in their car for a distance of about two miles through the city. At the intersection of First and State Streets the cab stopped for a traffic light. The two officers alighted from their car and approached on foot to opposite sides of the cab. One of the officers identified himself as a policeman. In the next minute there occurred a rapid succession of events. The cab door was opened; the petitioner dropped a recognizable package of narcotics to the floor of the vehicle; one of the officers grabbed the petitioner as he alighted from the cab; the other officer retrieved the package; and the first officer drew his revolver.
The precise chronology of all that happened is not clear in the record. In their original arrest report the police stated that the petitioner dropped the package only after one of the officers had opened the cab door. In testifying later, this officer said that he saw the defendant drop the package before the door of the cab was opened. The taxi driver gave a substantially different version of what occurred. He stated that one of the officers drew his revolver and “took hold of the defendant’s arm while he was still in the cab.”
A state criminal prosecution was instituted against the petitioner, charging him with possession of narcotics, a felony under California law. Cal. Health and Safety Code, § 11500. At a preliminary hearing the two Los Angeles officers testified as to the circumstances surrounding the arrest and seizure. When the case came on for trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the petitioner moved to suppress as evidence the package of heroin which the police had seized. On the basis of the transcript of the preliminary hearing, and after brief argument by counsel, the court granted the motion and entered a judgment of acquittal.
Thereafter, one of the Los Angeles officers who had arrested the petitioner discussed the case with his superiors and suggested giving the evidence to United States authorities. He then got in touch with federal narcotics agents and told them about the petitioner’s case. This led to the federal prosecution we now review.
In holding that the package of heroin which had been seized by the state officers was admissible as evidence in the federal trial, the District Court placed prime reliance upon the silver platter doctrine, there having been no participation by federal agents in the search and seizure. But the court also expressed the opinion, based upon the transcript of the state court proceedings and additional testimony of the two Los Angeles police officers at the hearing on the motion to suppress, that the officers had obtained the evidence lawfully. The court was of the view that the seizure was permissible as an incident to a legal arrest, or, alternatively, that the petitioner had abandoned the narcotics when he dropped them to the floor of the taxicab. At the time this opinion was expressed, however, the district judge had not yet heard the taxicab driver’s version of the circumstances surrounding the arrest and seizure. The driver did not testify until the trial itself. After he had testified, the package of heroin was offered in evidence. The petitioner’s counsel objected, and the court overruled the objection without comment. See Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298, 312-313; Amos v. United States, 255 U. S. 313, 316-317; Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 264. For all that appears, this ruling may then have been based solely upon the silver platter doctrine. Moreover, the Court of Appeals gave no consideration to the question of the legality of the state search and seizure, relying as it did upon the silver platter doctrine and rejecting the petitioner’s contention that the state court’s determination of illegality precluded the federal trial court from making an independent inquiry into the matter.
With the case in such a posture, we have concluded that the interests of justice will best be served by remanding the case to the District Court. There, free from the entanglement of other issues that have now become irrelevant, the lawfulness of the policemen’s conduct can be determined in accord with the basic principles governing the validity of searches and seizures by federal officers under the Fourth Amendment.
Under these principles the inquiry in the present case will be narrowly oriented. The seizure can survive constitutional inhibition only upon a showing that the surrounding facts brought it within one of the exceptions to the rule that a search must rest upon a search warrant. Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 499; United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48, 51. Here justification is primarily sought upon the claim that the search was an incident to a lawful arrest. Yet upon no possible view of the circumstances revealed in the testimony of the Los Angeles officers could it be said that there existed probable cause for an arrest at the time the officers decided to alight from their car and approach the taxi in which the petitioner was riding. Compare Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160; Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132; Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98. This the Government concedes.
If, therefore, the arrest occurred when the officers took their positions at the doors of the taxicab, then nothing that happened thereafter could make that arrest lawful, or justify a search as its incident. United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581; Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10; Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301; Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98. But the Government argues that the policemen approached the standing taxi only for the purpose of routine interrogation, and that they had no intent to detain the petitioner beyond the momentary requirements of such a mission. If the petitioner thereafter voluntarily revealed the package of narcotics to the officers’ view, a lawful arrest could then have been supported by their reasonable cause to believe that a felony was being committed in their presence. The validity of the search thus turns upon the narrow question of when the arrest occurred, and the answer to that question depends upon an evaluation of the conflicting testimony of those who were there that night.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, joined by Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker, see ante, p. 233.]
[For memorandum of Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Whittaker, see ante, p. 251.]
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
The petitioner later broke free from the policeman’s grasp and ran into an alley. There the officer apprehended him after shooting him in the back.
“Q. Will you just tell us in your own words, Mr. Smith, what happened immediately after the time you saw Officer Beckmann?
“A. Well, he appeared alongside my taxicab on the right-hand side opposite the front window on the right holding a flashlight in his right hand, I believe, and his billfold in his left. . . .
“The Court: Then what happened?
“The Witness: Then I believe he turned toward the defendant who was riding in the back of the cab and I think he motioned with his billfold toward the defendant and he opened the door. Now somewhere along in here I think Beckmann disposed of his flashlight. I didn’t notice exactly what happened there. '
“By Mrs. Bulgrin:
“Q. What did the defendant do? What was happening as far as the defendant was concerned?
“A. Well, he appeared to be becoming quite agitated.
“Q. While he was inside the cab?
“A. While he was inside the cab, yes.
“Q. When the door opened did he get out?
“A. Well, there are other events before he got out.
“The Court: What were they?
“The Witness: Well, I am trying to get these in the right order. It is difficult because things happened quickly. . . .
“The Witness: Officer Beckmann opened the door and I asked him who he was, that is, he opened the rear door of the taxicab and he said, 'We are police officers.’ I just wanted to satisfy my own mind about that. I didn’t know whether he was a policeman or a hijacker positively, but I thought that he was a policeman but I wanted to be sure. So he said, ‘We are police officers.’
“I thought probably it was just a routine examination. I work the night shift, have for some time, and I have been stopped by the police and they have checked the occupants of my cab. There have been quite a few holdups of taxi drivers and I just thought it was a routine thing.
“But the defendant was getting quite agitated and I noticed at this time that Officer Beckmann had his revolver drawn, which seemed to me somewhat extraordinary just to stop and question an occupant of a cab, and said something to the effect that you are scaring him, what is the big idea, something like that. I don’t remember my exact words.
“As I recall then Officer Beckmann took the defendant by the arm—
"By Mrs. Bulgrin: “Q. That was after the defendant got out of the cab, is that correct?
“A. It was my impression that Officer Beckmann took hold of the defendant’s arm while he was still in-the cab. . . .
“The Court: How could you tell the defendant was agitated ?
“The Witness: Well, it is a rough impression but I was sufficiently impressed with the fact at the time to protest to Officer Beckmann that he was frightening him, and as far as I knew there was no good cause to be frightening him with a drawn revolver. Maybe it was me who was agitated.”
On cross-examination the taxi driver testified as follows:
“Well, I would say that the most prominent thing in my eyesight at the time was this revolver, which looked the size of a cannon. . . .
“At the time he opened the door, I can’t say just at what point in the order of these events he drew his revolver, but at some time before or after the door was opened, while Rios was still sitting in the cab, he drew his revolver.”
California follows the so-called exclusionary rule. People v. Cahan, 44 Cal. 2d 434, 282 P. 2d 905. The basis for the trial court’s suppression of the evidence is revealed in the following excerpt from the judge’s brief oral opinion:
“As I see it, I can’t possibly see how this arrest could have originally been attempted under the information the officer very frankly tells us that he had. I don't think any reasonable man would think a felony had been committed because a man comes out of a building, looks up the street, and the other way on the street, then looks up First Street, then walks to an automobile in a parking lot, gets in a taxicab and drives away. What in the world there is in that, together with the fact it happens to be First and Hope or First and Flower — I forget which it is — and also that somebody else was arrested in a taxicab, when there are so many hundreds of taxicabs in this community, about three months before, just to state it shows the absurdity of it, insofar as I see, and your motion to suppress the evidence will be granted — . . .
“I find him not guilty as charged. They will get you sometime, Rios; they didn’t get you this time but they will sometime.”
“Q. What occasioned the presentation of this case to'the Federal grand jury after the ruling in the Superior Court across the street, Mr. Beckmann, in this particular case ?
"A. After the ruling in the Superior Court, approximately a week or two weeks later, I conferred with my divisional commander, Captain Clavis, about the case, and at that time I showed him the arrest reports and discussed the case with him.
“He then called Captain Madden of the Narcotics Division of the Los Angeles Police Department. I then went over and talked to Captain Madden of the Los Angeles Police Department. Captain Madden then looked at the arrest report, and I discussed the case with him going to the Federal Narcotics to present the case.
“Q. Whose idea was that? Was that yours or Captain Madden’s?
“A. Mine.
“Q. In other words, did you institute the discussion with Captain Madden ?
“A. Yes. Captain Madden then called Federal Narcotics and I went over to Federal Narcotics and talked to Mr. Goven. At that time I showed him a copy of my arrest report and discussed the case with him.”
At the time of the arrest the California statute governing arrest without warrant provided as follows:
“A peace officer may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to him, or may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
“1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
“2. When a person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
“3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
"4. On a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the party arrested.
“5. At night, when there is reasonable cause to believe that he has committed a felony.” Cal. Penal Code (1956 ed.), §836 (later amended, Stat. 1957, c. 2147, § 2).
A passenger who lets a package drop to the floor of the taxicab in which he is riding can hardly be said to have “abandoned” it. An occupied taxicab is not to be compared to an open field, Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57, or a vacated hotel room, Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, in a sense, is a tale of a great city’s — and the Nation’s — basic problems in disposing of human waste. “How” and “where” are the ultimate questions, and they are intertwined. The issues presently before the Court, however, center in the administrative processes by which the city and the Nation seek to resolve those basic problems.
I
Respondent city of Los Angeles owns and operates the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Playa Del Rey, Cal. Since 1960, the Hyperion plant has processed most of the city’s sewage, and has discharged the wastes through three “outfalls” extending into the Pacific Ocean. The shortest outfall terminates about one mile from the coastline in 50 feet of water. It is operative only during emergencies caused by increased sewage flow during wet weather or by power failures at the pumping plant. The second outfall terminates about five miles out. Approximately 340 million gallons of treated wastewater are discharged every day into the ocean, at a depth of 187 feet, through that outfall. This wastewater receives at least “primary treatment,” but about one-third of the flow also receives “secondary treatment” by an activated sludge process. The third outfall terminates about seven miles from the coast. It is through this third outfall that the solids that have been removed during treatment are discharged into the ocean, at a depth of 300 feet. Prior to discharge the solid materials, commonly referred to as sludge, have been digested, screened, and diluted with secondary effluent. App. 3-4.
The Hyperion plant is operated under permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). Such permits are issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), established by § 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as added by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 880, and as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (1976 ed. and Supp. II). The FWPCA was enacted with a stated and obviously worthy objective, that is, “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” § 101 (a), 86 Stat. 816, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 (a). In order to achieve that objective, Congress declared that “it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985.” § 101 (a)(1).
As one means of reaching that goal, Congress in § 301 (a) of the FWPCA provided: “Except as in compliance with this section and sections 302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act [33 U. S. C. §§ 1312, 1316, 1317, 1328, 1342, and 1344], the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.” 86 Stat. 844, 33 U. S. C. § 1311 (a). Section 402 (a) (1) authorizes the Administrator of the EPA, “after opportunity for public hearing,” to issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, notwithstanding § 301 (a), upon condition that such discharge will meet all applicable requirements established in other sections of the Act, or such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the Act’s goals and objectives. 86 Stat. 880, 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (a)(1). One of the requirements applicable to an NPDES permit for a publicly owned treatment works, such as the Hyperion plant, is specified in § 301 (b)(1)(B). That provision requires such works in existence on July 1, 1977, to achieve “effluent limitations based upon secondary treatment as defined by the Administrator.” 86 Stat. 845, 33 U. S. C. §1311 (b)(1)(B).
II
The EPA has promulgated regulations providing for notice and public participation in any permit proceeding under the NPDES. Those regulations, implementing the statutory requirement that any NPDES permit be issued “after opportunity for public hearing,” are the focus of this case. The regulations state: “Public notice of the proposed issuance, denial or modification of every permit or denial shall be circulated in a manner designed to inform interested and. potentially interested persons of the discharge and of the proposed determination to issue, deny, or modify a permit for the discharge.” 40 CFR § 125.32 (a) (1978). That public notice “shall include at least”: (1) circulation of the notice within the affected geographical area by posting in the post office and “public places” nearest the applicant’s premises; or posting “near the entrance to the applicant’s premises and in nearby places,” or publication in local newspapers; (2) the mailing of notice to the permit applicant and “appropriate” federal and state authorities; and (3) the mailing of notice to any person or group who has requested placement on the NPDES permit mailing list for actions affecting the geographical area. Ibid.
Following the issuance of public notice the EPA Regional Administrator is directed to provide at least a 30-day period during which interested persons may submit written views concerning the proposed action or may request that a hearing be held. § 125.32 (b)(1). If the Regional Administrator “finds a significant degree of public interest in a proposed permit,” he is directed to hold a public hearing on the proposed action at which interested parties may submit oral or written statements and data. § 125.34. Following a determination by the Regional Administrator to take a proposed permit action, he is directed to forward a copy of that determination to any person who has submitted written comments. If the determination is substantially changed from the initial proposed action, he must give public notice of that determination. In either event, his determination constitutes the final action of the EPA unless a timely request for an adjudicatory hearing is granted. § 125.35.
Any interested person, within 10 days following the date of the determination, may request an “adjudicatory hearing” or a “legal decision” with respect to the determination. § 125.36 (b). A request for an adjudicatory hearing is to be granted by the Regional Administrator if the request “[s]ets forth material issues of fact relevant to the questions of whether a permit should be issued, denied or modified.” § 125.36 (c) (1) (ii). Issues of law, on the other hand, are not to be considered at an adjudicatory hearing. If a request for an adjudicatory hearing raises a legal issue, that issue is to be referred by the hearing officer to the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and the General Counsel for resolution. If a request for an adjudicatory hearing raises only legal issues, a hearing will not be granted and the Regional Administrator will refer those issues to the aforementioned officers. § 125.36 (m).
Ill
The EPA and the CRWQCB first issued a joint permit to the city of Los Angeles for discharges of. treated sewage from the Hyperion plant in November 1974. See App. 4. That permit, covering only the 1- and 5-mile outfalls, was issued following EPA publication of notice of its intent to issue a permit, an opportunity for the submission of written comments, and a public hearing. On August 18, 1975, the 1974 permit was rescinded by the federal and state authorities, and replaced with a permit covering all three outfalls. Id., at 3. The 1975 permit conditioned continued discharges from the Hyperion plant on compliance by the city with a schedule designed to achieve full secondary treatment of wastewater by October 1, 1979, and the gradual elimination of the discharge of sludge into the ocean over a 30-month period following “concept approval” of a plan for alternative disposal of the sludge. Id., at 17-19.
In July 1976, the EPA notified Los Angeles that its 1975 NPDES permit would expire on February 1, 1977, and that a new permit would be needed if discharges were to continue beyond that date. Record 44. The city filed an application for a new permit on July 30. Id., at 45-80. Thereafter, in September 1976, the CRWQCB suggested to the EPA that the city’s current permit might be extended for six months to take into account any effect of pending federal legislation that would modify the FWPCA’s mandatory compliance dates for achievement of effluent limitations based upon secondary-treatment. Id., at 119. See n. 4, supra. On January 24, 1977, after a public hearing, the EPA and the CRWQCB did extend the expiration date of the 1975 permit from February 1 to June 30, 1977, citing inadequate time to review the city’s application for a new permit. App. 93.
On April 26, 1977, the EPA advised the city that it again proposed to extend the expiration date of its NPDES permit for the Hyperion plant, this time from June 30, 1977, to December 17, 1979. All other terms and conditions of the permit were to remain unchanged. App. 115-120. Notice of the proposed action was published in the Los Angeles Times the following day. See L. A. Times, Apr. 27, 1977, part V, p. 2, cols. 6-7. That notice described the permit and its proposed modification, and advised persons wishing to comment upon objections or to appear at a public hearing to submit their comments or requests for a hearing to the regional office of the EPA within 30 days. Neither the city nor the respondent PLF, nor any other party, requested a hearing or filed comments on the proposed extension, and the EPA’s Regional Administrator determined that public interest in the modification proposal was insufficient to warrant convening a public hearing. On May 23, at a public hearing, the CRWQCB officially extended the expiration date of the state permit for the Hyperion plant until December 17, 1979. App. 154. On June 2, 1977, the Regional Administrator of the EPA transmitted to the city his final determination to extend the time of expiration of the federal permit to the same 1979 date. Id., at 149.
On June 10, 1977, the PLF filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the regional enforcement division of the EPA, seeking information concerning the proposed extension of the expiration date of the Hyperion permit and, specifically, whether that extension had been approved. Id., at 157. When informed by telephone on June 13 that the EPA’s final determination had been made on June 2, and that a request for an adjudicatory hearing*could be accepted only if filed that day, see 40 CFR § 125.36 (b)(1), respondent Kilroy, represented by PLF attorneys, filed such a request. Under EPA regulations, Kilroy’s request for a hearing, if granted, would automatically stay the effectiveness of the permit modification pending disposition of the request. § 125.35 (d)(2).
Respondent Kilroy’s request for an adjudicatory hearing presented two issues that he wished to raise:
“1. Whether the requirements of the permit should be modified in that the project that is the subject of the compliance schedule set forth in NPDES permit CA010991 ■ [the Hyperion permit] is being evaluated in an EIS by the EPA pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, the compliance schedule should not be mandated in an NPDES permit until the NEPA study is completed; and
“2. Whether the procedures used and the record developed were adequate [for the] issuance of an NPDES permit.” App. 160.
Within 10 days of receiving Kilroy’s request, the Regional Administrator responded by certified mail, stating his determination that the request did not set forth material issues of fact relevant to the question whether the permit should be extended. Thus, he concluded that Kilroy’s request had not met the requirements of 40 CFR § 125.36 (c)(1) (ii). The Regional Administrator did construe the request, however, as one raising issues of law relating to the appropriate interpretation to be given regulations that had been promulgated under the FWPCA. He therefore certified to the EPA’s General Counsel three issues of law raised by the request. App. 166. Before the General Counsel’s ruling on the certified issues of law was announced, respondents PLF and Kilroy, joined now by the city of Torrance, theretofore a stranger to the formal proceedings, filed a timely petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking review of the Regional Administrator’s action extending the expiration date of the Hyperion permit. A similar petition was filed by respondent city of Los Angeles. The petitions were consolidated for review. The Court of Appeals stayed the effect of the compliance schedules incorporated within the 1975 permit, pending final disposition of the consolidated cases. Even though the city’s NPDES permit for the Hyperion plant, as modified by the EPA on June 2, 1977, stated that it expired December 17, 1979, the terms of the permit, other than those aspects of the compliance schedules requiring completion after January 1, 1977, have remained in effect, both through the Court of Appeals’ stay and by operation of law. The case, therefore, clearly has not become moot.
IV
The Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the Administrator for the holding of a “proper hearing.” 586 F. 2d 650, 660-661 (CA9 1978). After first determining that it had jurisdiction to hear respondents' petitions, and rejecting Los Angeles’ argument that only the State of California had the authority to extend the Hyperion NPDES permit, id., at 654-657, the court held that the EPA had failed to provide the “opportunity for public hearing” required by § 402 (a)(1) when it extended that permit. All parties agreed that the EPA had not in fact conducted a hearing prior to its extension of the permit on June 2, 1977. The EPA contended, however, that an opportunity for a hearing had been provided; it claimed that notice of the proposed extension had been published and that, when no one requested a hearing, it was proper under agency regulations for the Regional Administrator to conclude that there was insufficient public interest in the permit extension to necessitate a hearing. See 40 CFR § 125.34 (a). The Court of Appeals rejected the EPA’s contention, holding: The court also relied on language in Independent Bankers Assn. v. Board of Governors, 170 U. S. App. D. C. 278, 516 F. 2d 1206 (1975), to the effect that certain “opportunity for hearing” requirements of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, 84 Stat. 1765, 12 U. S. C. § 1843 (c)(8), required the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to hold an evidentiary hearing unless it could “show that the parties could gain nothing thereby, because they disputed none of the material facts upon which the agency’s decision could rest.” 170 U. S. App. D. C., at 292, 516 F. 2d, at 1220.
“The fact that no one requested a hearing prior to the decision is appropriately considered in this analysis, but it is not decisive. It must be shown that the material facts supporting the decision are not subject to dispute.” 586 F. 2d, at 658-659 (footnotes omitted).
The Court of Appeals distinguished decisions of this Court in which it was held that a failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of any right thereto under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 742, 30 U. S. C. § 801 et seq., and that an agency may place the burden of demonstrating that a case presents disputed issues of material fact on the party challenging the agency’s action. 586 F. 2d, at 658-659, nn. 3 and 4 (discussing National Coal Operators’ Assn. v. Kleppe, 423 U. S. 388, 397-398 (1976); Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U. S. 609, 620 (1973); and United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 205 (1956)).
On the record before it, the Court of Appeals concluded that “the reasonableness of the EPA’s compliance schedule [incorporated within the Hyperion NPDES permit] depends upon facts that may be disputed and with respect to which the record in this case is silent.” 586 F. 2d, at 659. With respect to such factors as the adequacy of the Palos Verdes or other landfill site, the ability of the city to acquire the capacity to transport sludge to that site within designated time limits, and the possible effect on navigable waters of land disposal of the sludge, the court stated: “[W]e can conclude unequivocally neither that the parties have no dispute about these matters nor that they do.” Ibid. Thus, the court found itself unable to deny respondents an adjudicatory hearing on the ground that there was no dispute concerning the material facts upon which the EPA’s decision to extend the permit had been based.
The Administrator of the EPA petitioned.this Court for review of the question whether § 402 (a)(1) requires the EPA to conduct an adjudicatory hearing before taking action on an NPDES permit issuance or modification where, after notice of the proposed action, no one requested a hearing before the action was taken and the only request filed subsequently raised no material issue of fact. We granted certiorari to review this important issue in a rapidly developing area of the law. 442 U. S. 928 (1979).
y
A
Petitioner’s basic contentions are that the EPA was entitled to condition the availability of a public hearing on the extension of the Hyperion permit on the filing of a proper request, and that it similarly was entitled to condition an adjudicatory hearing following its extension decision on the identification of a disputed issue of material fact by an interested party. We agree with both contentions.
Initially, we must state our disagreement with respondents’ characterization of the holding of the Court of Appeals. They argue that the court’s decision was based on a finding that the EPA in this case did not comply with its own regulations governing public participation in the NPDES permit issuance process, rather than on a legal conclusion that the regulations are invalid. We conclude, on the contrary, that, although the court did not explicitly hold the regulations to be invalid, its decision renders them essentially meaningless. Rather than permitting the Regional Administrator to decide, in the first instance, whether there is sufficient public interest in a proposed issuance or modification of a permit to justify a public hearing, 40 CFR § 125.34 (a), and to limit any adjudicatory hearing to the situation where an interested party raises a material issue of fact, § 125.36 (c)(1)(ii), the Court of Appeals would require the agency to justify every failure to hold a hearing by proof that the material facts supporting its action “are not subject to dispute.” 586 F. 2d, at 659. This holding is contrary to this Court’s approval in past decisions of agency rules, similar to those at issue here, that have required an applicant who seeks a hearing to meet a threshold burden of tendering evidence suggesting the need for a hearing. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott tfe Dunning, Inc., 412 U. S., at 620-621, and cases cited therein.
Moreover, it is important to note that the regulations described in Part II of this opinion, supra, were designed to implement the statutory command that permits be issued “after opportunity for public hearing.” § 402 (a)(1), 86 Stat. 880, 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (a)(1) (emphasis supplied). In the past, this Court has held that a similar statutory requirement that an “opportunity” for a hearing be provided may be keyed to a request for a hearing. See National Coal Operators’ Assn. v. Kleppe, 423 U. S., at 398-399. And only recently the Court re-emphasized the fundamental administrative law principle that “the formulation of procedures was basically to be left within the discretion of the agencies to which Congress had confided the responsibility for substantive judgments.” Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U. S. 519, 524 (1978).
Neither can we ignore the fact that under the standard applied by the Court of Appeals, the EPA would be required to hold hearings on most of the actions it takes with respect to NPDES permit issuances and modifications. Hearings would be required even in cases, such as this, in which the proposed action only extends a permit’s expiration date without at all affecting the substantive conditions that had been considered during earlier hearings. The Administrator advises us that each year the EPA grants about 100 requests for adjudicatory hearings under the NPDES program, issues about 2,200 permits, and takes thousands of actions with respect to permits. Brief for Petitioner 34-35; see United States Steel Corp. v. Train, 556 F. 2d 822, 834, n. 14 (CA7 1977). Affirmance of the Court of Appeals’ rationale obviously would raise serious questions about the EPA’s ability to administer the NPDES program. See Weinberger, 412 U. S., at 621; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S. 112, 132-133 (1977).
We recognize the validity of respondents’ contention that the. legislative history of the FWPCA indicates a strong congressional desire that the public have input in decisions concerning the elimination of water pollution. The FWPCA itself recites:
“Public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or program established by the Administrator... under this Act shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator.” § 101 (e), 86 Stat. 817, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 (e).
Passages in the FWPCA’s legislative history indicate that this general policy of encouraging public participation is applicable to the administration of the NPDES permit program. See, e. g., 118 Cong. Rec. 37060 (1972) (remarks of Rep. Dingell during debate on override of the President’s veto of the FWPCA). The Report of the Committee on Public Works accompanying the Senate bill emphasized that an essential element of the NPDES program is public participation, and that “[t]he public must have a genuine opportunity to speak on the issue of protection of its waters.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 72 (1971).
Nonetheless, we conclude that the regulations the EPA has promulgated to implement this congressional policy are fully consistent with the legislative purpose, and are valid. Respondents, in fact, do not contest seriously the proposition that the EPA’s regulations are valid on their face; the thrust of their arguments before this Court has been that the EPA, in this instance, failed to apply its regulations consistently with their purpose.
B
Having rejected the Court of Appeals’ invalidation of the EPA’s public participation regulations, we turn to the issues framed by respondents. First, PLF and Kilroy contend that the EPA’s regulations required the Regional Administrator to hold a public hearing in this case because there was a “significant degree of public interest” in the extension of the Hyperion permit. See 40 CFR § 125.34 (a). They also place substantial reliance upon those agency regulations that set general guidelines for public participation in water pollution control. During the period at issue here, one such regulation provided:
“Where the opportunity for public hearing is called for in the Act, and in other appropriate instances, a public hearing shall be held if the hearing official finds significant public interest (including the filing of requests or petitions for such hearing) or pertinent information to be gained. Instances of doubt should be resolved in favor of holding the hearing, or if necessary, of providing alternative opportunity for public participation.” 40 CFR § 105.7 (c).
Notwithstanding the orientation of these regulations toward the encouragement of public participation in the NPDES permit issuance process, our examination of the record leads us to reject respondents’ contention that the EPA failed to comply with.its regulations in this case. It is undisputed that the most controversial aspects of the Hyperion permit — the compliance schedule for secondary treatment, the “sludge-out” requirement, and the resultant requirement that the city develop an alternative method of sludge disposal — were all included within the 1975 permit. That permit was issued following EPA publication of advance notice of its tentative determination to revise the initial 1974 permit, and a hearing on the proposed revisions. None of the respondents objected to the issuance of the 1975 permit or requested an adjudicatory hearing. We agree with the position advanced by petitioner that respondents may not reopen consideration of substantive conditions contained within the 1975 permit through hearing requests relating to a proposed permit modification that did not even purport to affect those conditions.
The EPA’s determination to modify the 1975 permit by extending its expiration date to December 17, 1979, was made following newspaper publication of the proposed action, including notice of an opportunity for submission of comments and hearing requests. Respondent Los Angeles received an individual notice of the EPA’s tentative determination to extend the permit, and raised no objection. Respondents PLF and Kilroy, whq argue that the EPA was aware of their interest in the Hyperion permit and their opposition to the Interim Sludge Disposal Project, could have received such individual notice if they had asked to be placed on the EPA’s mailing list for notices of proposed agency actions within the pertinent geographical area. 40 CFR § 125.32 (a)(3). They made no such request. Under the circumstances, we think it reasonable that the Regional Administrator decided to extend the expiration date of the permit without another public hearing, on the grounds that the public had not exhibited a significant degree of interest in the action under consideration, and that information pertinent to such a decision would not have been adduced if a hearing had been held. This simply is not a case in which doubt existed concerning the need for a hearing.
Second, respondents suggest that the EPA’s provision of notice to the general public concerning the proposed permit extension was inadequate. The PLF and Kilroy argue that notice by newspaper publication was not adequate to apprise interested parties of the EPA’s tentative determination, and was inconsistent with the policy of encouraging public participation that underlies the statute and regulations. Based on our conclusion that the EPA’s regulations implementing the rather amorphous “opportunity for public hearing” requirement of § 402 are valid, we have no hesitancy in concluding that the form of notice provided in this case, fully consistent with the regulations, was not inadequate.
Los Angeles argues that it was not given adequate notice of the proposed extension of its permit because it was never informed that the EPA regarded the federal “sludge-out” compliance schedule contained in the 1975 permit not to have been modified by subsequent orders of the CRWQCB. See n. 6, supra. This argument was not addressed directly by the Court of Appeals. It would be appropriate, therefore, for this Court not to attempt to resolve it here, even if we had an adequate record to do so. More fundamentally, however, an additional reason dictates that the city’s argument not be resolved in the context of this lawsuit at all. Los Angeles claims that the more lenient sludge-out schedule adopted by the CRWQCB in its order of May 24, 1976 (incorporating within the Hyperion permit a four-phase alternative sludge disposal plan to be completed by April 1, 1980) has been approved by the EPA with respect to the federal permit. The EPA presently takes the position that state modifications of the sludge-out plan, adopted pursuant to California law, did not alter the initial compliance schedule incorporated in the 1975 federal permit. The agency’s position will be tested in United States v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 77 3047 R (CD Cal., filed Aug. 12, 1977), an enforcement action brought by the Government under § 309 of the FWPCA, 86 Stat. 859, 33 U. S. C. § 1319 (1976 ed. and Supp. II).
The enforcement action seeks to enjoin the city from violating the conditions of its permit and to impose civil penalties against the city for past failures to comply with the permit’s schedules. App. 181. It has been stayed by the Court of Appeals pending the outcome of this case. Brief for Petitioner 17, n. 13. The argument that the city raises here concerning its understanding of the compliance schedules will be resolved far more effectively in the Government’s enforcement action than in the adjudicatory hearing the Court of Appeals would have awarded respondents in this case. Furthermore, even if the city had raised its argument in a public hearing on the proposed permit extension, that argument would have had little relevance to the EPA’s final determination because the EPA’s proposed action did not purport to change the substantive conditions that are the focus of the city’s complaint.
Finally, respondents suggest that the EPA erred in not holding an adjudicatory hearing on the issues raised in respondent Kilroy’s request. We agree with petitioner, however, who contends that Kilroy’s request raised legal, rather than factual, issues, and who notes that respondents treated the request in that fashion in arguing the issues Kilroy presented before the EPA’s General Counsel. See n. 9, supra. Even in their arguments before this Court, respondents have continued to raise factual issues that are relevant only to their contention that greater adverse effects on both the marine and land environment will result from the Interim Sludge Disposal Project than from the continued discharge of sludge into the ocean. If such issues had been raised in a timely request for an adjudicatory hearing, we agree with petitioner that the EPA could have taken the position that such issues, regardless of their merits, were not pertinent to a determination to extend the Hyperion permit’s expiration date. That determination had no impact on the compliance schedule for “sludge-out” that already had long been in effect.
C
In sum, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the EPA is required to hold a public hearing on every NPDES permit action it takes unless it can show that the material facts supporting its action “are not subject to dispute.” We hold, rather, that the agency’s regulations implementing the statutory requirement of “an opportunity for public hearing” under § 402 of the FWPCA are valid. Respondents have failed to demonstrate that those regulations were not applied properly in the context of this case. The Court of Appeals’ judgment remanding the case to the agency for an adjudicatory hearing on the EPA’s extension of the expiration date of Los Angeles’ NPDES permit for its Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Under applicable regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency defines “primary treatment” as “the first stage in wastewater treatment where substantially all floating or settleable solids, are removed by floatation and/or sedimentation.” 40 CFR § 125.58 (m) (1979).
The agency by its regulations describes “secondary treatment” as that treatment which will attain “the minimum level of effluent quality... in terms of... parameters [sic].” These so-called “parameters” (but compare any dictionary’s definition of this term) are specified levels of biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, and pH values. 40 CFR §§ 125.58 (r) and 133.102 (1979).
In March 1973, the EPA and the California State Water Resources Control Board entered into an understanding that gave the State primary responsibility for administering the NPDES program in California, with the.EPA retaining jurisdiction over discharges beyond the limits of the territorial sea, that is, more than three miles out from the coastline. EPA permits are thus required for the Hyperion plant’s discharges through the 5- and 7-mile outfalls. The CRWQCB, acting pursuant to California's Porter-Cologne Act, Cal. Water Code Ann. § 13260 et seq. (West 1971), also requires a state permit for these outfalls.
A general description of the original Federal-Water Pollution Control Act passed in 1948, 62 Stat. 1155, the events that led to the 1972 Amendment, and the operation of the NPDES program, with particular emphasis on its implementation in California, is set forth in EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U. S. 200, 202-209 (1976), and need not be repeated here.
Although the EPA has taken the position in this litigation that § 301 (b)(1)(B) required the city to end the Hyperion plant’s discharge of sludge into the ocean by July 1, 1977, the compliance schedule incorporated in the 1975 NPDES permit required the city to achieve total “sludge-out” by April 1978. The EPA asserts that this less stringent compliance schedule was necessitated by the practical inability of Los Angeles to meet the FWPCA’s requirements. Reply Brief for Petitioner 8, n. 5. Congress subsequently has acted to permit the operator of a publicly owned treatment works, in certain circumstances, to request the EPA Administrator to extend the time allowed for achieving the limitations of § 301 (b)(1)(B). Compliance must be attained, however, by July 1, 1983. Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217, § 45, 91 Stat. 1584, 33 U. S. C. § 1311 (i) (1) (1976 ed., Supp. II). The city has applied for an extension of the July 1, 1977, secondary-treatment deadline established by §301 (b)(1)(B), but that application has not yet been acted upon by the EPA. Brief for Respondent City of Los Angeles 6, n. 5.
The EPA’s public participation regulations were modified after the events central to this case took place. 44 Fed. Reg. 32854 (1979). Many features of the regulations that are at issue here, however, have been retained. See 40 CFR §§ 124.41-45, 124.61-64, 124.71-101, 124.111-127, and 124.131-135 (1979). All references in this opinion to the EPA’s public participation regulations, unless otherwise designated, are to the 1978 compilation.
On December 1, 1975, the CRWQCB issued an order modifying the city’s compliance schedule for alternative sludge disposal. That order announced that “concept approval” had been given on October 1, 1975, and fixed definite dates for achieving the elimination of sludge discharge into the ocean. Total "sludge-out” was to be achieved by April 1, 1978. App. 51. In subsequent orders, the CRWQCB found that the city had failed to meet several deadlines for the submission of plans and specifications for various phases of the sludge discharge elimination project. The CRWQCB then modified the relevant compliance dates, and extended the deadline for total “sludge-out”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit is here for a second time. In Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993) (Shaw I), we held that plaintiffs whose complaint alleged that the deliberate segregation of voters into separate and bizarre-looking districts on the basis of race stated a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We remanded the case for further consideration by the District Court. That court held that the North Carolina redistricting plan did classify voters by race, but that the classification survived strict scrutiny and therefore did not offend the Constitution. We now hold that the North Carolina plan does violate the Equal Protection Clause because the State’s reapportionment scheme is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
The facts are set out in detail in our prior opinion, and we shall only summarize them here. After the 1990 census, North Carolina’s congressional delegation increased from 11 to 12 members. The State General Assembly adopted a reapportionment plan, Chapter 601, that included one majority-black district, District 1, located in the northeastern region of the State. 1991 N. C. Sess. Laws, ch. 601. The legislature then submitted the plan to the Attorney General of the United States for preclearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1988 ed.). The Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, acting on the Attorney General’s behalf, objected to the proposed plan because it failed “to give effect to black and Native American voting strength” in “the south-central to southeastern part of the state” and opined that the State’s reasons for not creating a second majority-minority district appeared “to be pretextual.” App. 151— 153. Duly chastened, the legislature revised its districting scheme to include a second majority-black district. 1991 N. C. Extra Sess. Laws, ch. 7. The new plan, Chapter 7, located the minority district, District 12, in the north-central or Piedmont region, not in the south-central or southeastern region identified in the Justice Department’s objection letter. The Attorney General nonetheless precleared the revised plan.
By anyone’s measure, the boundary lines of Districts 1 and 12 are unconventional. A map portrays the districts’ deviance far better than words, see the Appendix to the opinion of the Court in Shaw I, supra, but our prior opinion describes them as follows:
“The first of the two majority-black districts... is somewhat hook shaped. Centered in the northeast portion of the State, it moves southward until it tapers to a narrow band; then, with finger-like extensions, it reaches far into the southern-most part of the State near the South Carolina border....
“The second majority-black district, District 12, is even more unusually shaped. It is approximately 160 miles long and, for much of its length, no wider than the [Interstate]-85 corridor. It winds in snakelike fashion through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas ‘until it gobbles in enough enclaves of black neighborhoods.’” Shaw I, supra, at 635-636 (citation omitted).
Five North Carolinians commenced the present action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against various state officials. Following our reversal of the District Court’s dismissal of their complaint in Shaw I, the District Court allowed a number of individuals to intervene, 11 on behalf of the plaintiffs and 22 for the defendants. After a 6-day trial, the District Court unanimously found “that the Plan’s lines were deliberately drawn to produce one or more districts of a certain racial composition.” 861 F. Supp. 408, 417,473-474 (1994). A majority of the court held that the plan was constitutional, nonetheless, because it was narrowly tailored to further the State’s compelling interests in complying with §§2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973, 1973c. 861 F. Supp., at 474. The dissenting judge disagreed with that portion of the judgment. We noted probable jurisdiction. 515 U. S. 1172 (1995).
As a preliminary matter, appellees challenge appellants’ standing to continue this lawsuit. In United States v. Hays, 515 U. S. 737 (1995), we recognized that a plaintiff who resides in a district which is the subject of a racial-gerrymander claim has standing to challenge the legislation which created that district, but that a plaintiff from outside that district lacks standing absent specific evidence that he personally has been subjected to a racial classification. Two appellants, Ruth Shaw and Melvin Shimm, live in District 12 and thus have standing to challenge that part of Chapter 7 which defines District 12. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 909 (1995). The remaining appellants do not reside in District 1, however, and they have not provided specific evidence that they personally were assigned to their voting districts on the basis of race. Therefore, we conclude that only Shaw and Shimm have standing and only with respect to District 12.
We explained in Miller v. Johnson that a racially gerrymandered districting scheme, like all laws that classify citizens on the basis of race, is constitutionally suspect. Id., at 904-905; see also Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 657; Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200 (1995). This is true whether or not the reason for the racial classification is benign or the purpose remedial. Shaw I, supra, at 642-643, 653; Adarand, supra, at 228-229. Applying traditional equal protection principles in the voting-rights context is “a most delicate task,” Miller, supra, at 905, however, because a legislature may be conscious of the voters’ races without using race as a basis for assigning voters to districts. Shaw I, supra, at 645-646; Miller, 515 U. S., at 916. The constitutional wrong occurs when race becomes the “dominant and controlling” consideration. Id., at 911, 915-916.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the race-based motive and may do so either through “circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and demographics” or through “more direct evidence going to legislative purpose.” Id., at 916. After a detailed account of the process that led to enactment of the challenged plan, the District Court found that the General Assembly of North Carolina “deliberately drew” District 12 so that it would have an effective voting majority of black citizens. 861 F. Supp., at 473.
Appellees urge upon us their view that this finding is not phrased in the same language that we used in our opinion in Miller v. Johnson, supra, where we said that a plaintiff must show “that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.” Id., at 916.
The District Court, of course, did not have the benefit of our opinion in Miller at the time it wrote its opinion. While it would have been preferable for the court to have analyzed the case in terms of the standard laid down in Miller, that was not possible. This circumstance has no consequence here because we think that the District Court’s findings, read in the light of the evidence that it had before it, comport with the Miller standard.
First, the District Court had evidence of the district’s shape and demographics. The court observed “the obvious fact” that the district’s shape is “highly irregular and geographically non-compact by any objective standard that can be conceived.” 861 F. Supp., at 469. In fact, the serpentine district has been dubbed the least geographically compact district in the Nation. App. 332.
The District Court also had direct evidence of the legislature’s objective. The State’s submission for preclearance expressly acknowledged that Chapter 7’s “overriding purpose was to comply with the dictates of the Attorney General’s December 18,1991 letter and to create two congressional districts with effective black voting majorities.” App. 162 (emphasis added). This admission was confirmed by Gerry Cohen, the plan’s principal draftsman, who testified that creating two majority-black districts was the “principal reason” for Districts 1 and 12. Id., at 675; Tr. 514. Indeed, ap-pellees in their first appearance before the District Court “formally concede[d] that the state legislature deliberately created the two districts in a way to assure black-voter majorities,” Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. 461, 470 (EDNC 1992), and that concession again was credited by the District Court on remand, 861 F. Supp., at 473-474. See also Shaw I, supra, at 666 (White, J., dissenting) (“The State has made no mystery of its intent, which was to respond to the Attorney General’s objections by improving the minority group’s prospects of electing a candidate of its choice” (citation omitted)). Here, as in Miller, “we fail to see how the District Court could have reached any conclusion other than that race was the predominant factor in drawing [the challenged district].” Miller, supra, at 918.
In his dissent, Justice Stevens argues that strict scrutiny does not apply where a State “respects” or “complies] with traditional districting principles.” Post, at 931-932 (“[R]ace-based districting which respects traditional districting principles does not give rise to constitutional suspicion”), post, at 932 (“Miller demonstrates that although States may avoid strict scrutiny by complying with traditional districting principles... ”). That, however, is not the standard announced and applied in Miller; where we held that strict scrutiny applies when race is the “predominant” consideration in drawing the district lines such that “the legislature subordinate^] traditional race-neutral districting principles... to racial considerations.” Miller, supra, at 916. (Justice Stevens articulates the correct standard in his dissent, post, at 930, but he fails to properly apply it.) The Miller standard is quite different from the one that Justice Stevens advances, as an examination of the dissent’s reasoning demonstrates. The dissent explains that “two race-neutral, traditional districting criteria” were at work in determining the shape and placement of District 12, and from this suggests that strict scrutiny should not apply. Post, at 936-939. We do not quarrel with the dissent’s claims that, in shaping District 12, the State effectuated its interest in creating one rural and one urban district, and that partisan politicking was actively at work in the districting process. That the legislature addressed these interests does not in any way refute the fact that race was the legislature’s predominant consideration. Race was the criterion that, in the State’s view, could not be compromised; respecting communities of interest and protecting Democratic incumbents came into play only after the race-based decision had been made.
Racial classifications are antithetical to the Fourteenth Amendment, whose “central purpose” was “to eliminate racial discrimination emanating from official sources in the States.” McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 192 (1964); Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 491 (1989) (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (“[T]he Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment... desired to place clear limits on the States’ use of race as a criterion for legislative action, and to have the federal courts enforce those limitations”). While appreciating that a racial classification causes “fundamental injury” to the “individual rights of a person,” Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U. S. 656, 661 (1987), we have recognized that, under certain circumstances, drawing racial distinctions is permissible where a governmental body is pursuing a “compelling state interest.” A State, however, is constrained in how it may pursue that end: “[T]he means chosen to accomplish the State’s asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose.” Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 280 (1986) (opinion of Powell, J.). North Carolina, therefore, must show not only that its redistricting plan was in pursuit of a compelling state interest, but also that “its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve [that] compelling interest.” Miller, 515 U. S., at 920.
Appellees point to three separate compelling interests to sustain District 12: to eradicate the effects of past and present discrimination; to comply with § 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and to comply with §2 of that Act. We address each in turn.
A State’s interest in remedying the effects of past or present racial discrimination may in the proper case justify a government’s use of racial distinctions. Croson, 488 U. S., at 498-506. For that interest to rise to the level of a compelling state interest, it must satisfy two conditions. First, the discrimination must be “‘identified discrimination.’” Id., at 499, 500, 505, 507, 509. “While the States and their subdivisions may take remedial action when they possess evidence” of past or present discrimination, “they must identify that discrimination, public or private, with some specificity before they may use race-conscious relief.” Id., at 504. A generalized assertion of past discrimination in a particular industry or region is not adequate because it “provides no guidance for a legislative body to determine the precise scope of the injury it seeks to remedy.” Id., at 498 (opinion of O’Connor, J.). Accordingly, an effort to alleviate the effects of societal discrimination is not a compelling interest. Wygant, supra, at 274-275, 276, 288. Second, the institution that makes the racial distinction must have had a “strong basis in evidence” to conclude that remedial action was necessary, “before it embarks on an affirmative-action program,” 476 U. S., at 277 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added).
In this suit, the District Court found that an interest in ameliorating past discrimination did not actually precipitate the use of race in the redistricting plan. While some legislators invoked the State’s history of discrimination as an argument for creating a second majority-black district, the court found that these members did not have enough voting power to have caused the creation of the second district on that basis alone. 861 F. Supp., at 471.
Appellees, to support their claim that the plan was drawn to remedy past discrimination, rely on passages from two reports prepared for this litigation by a historian and a social scientist. Brief for Appellees Gingles et al. 40-44, citing H. Watson, Race and Politics in North Carolina, 1865-1994, App. 610-624 (excerpts), and J. Kousser, After 120 Years: Redistricting and Racial Discrimination in North Carolina, id., at 602-609 (excerpts). Obviously these reports, both dated March 1994, were not before the General Assembly when it enacted Chapter 7. And there is little to suggest that the legislature considered the historical events and social-science data that the reports recount, beyond what individual members may have recalled from personal experience. We certainly cannot say on the basis of these reports that the District Court’s findings on this point were clearly erroneous.
Appellees devote most of their efforts to arguing that the race-based redistricting was constitutionally justified by the State’s duty to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The District Court agreed and held that compliance with §§2 and 5 of the Act could be, and in this suit was, a compelling state interest. 861 F. Supp., at 437. In Miller, we expressly left open the question whether under the proper circumstances compliance with the Voting Rights Act, on its own, could be a compelling interest. Miller, 515 U. S., at 921 (“[w]hether or not in some cases compliance with the Voting Rights Act, standing alone, can provide a compelling interest independent of any interest in remedying past discrimination...”). Here once again we do not reach that question because we find that creating an additional majority-black district was not required under a correct reading of § 5 and that District 12, as drawn, is not a remedy narrowly tailored to the State’s professed interest in avoiding § 2 liability.
With respect to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, we believe our decision in Miller forecloses the argument, adopted by the District Court, that failure to engage in the race-based districting would have violated that section. In Miller, we considered an equal protection challenge to Georgia’s Eleventh Congressional District. As appellees do here, Georgia contended that its redistricting plan was necessary to meet the Justice Department’s preclearance demands. The Justice Department had interposed an objection to a prior plan that created only two majority-minority districts. We held that the challenged congressional plan was not required by a correct reading of § 5 and therefore compliance with that law could not justify race-based districting. Id., at 921 (“ [Compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws cannot justify race-based districting where the challenged district was not reasonably necessary under a constitutional reading and application of those laws”).
We believe the same conclusion must be drawn here. North Carolina’s first plan, Chapter 601, indisputably was ameliorative, having created the first majority-black district in recent history. Thus, that plan, “ 'even if [it] fall[s] short of what might be accomplished in terms of increasing minority representation,’ ” “ ‘cannot violate § 5 unless the new apportionment itself so discriminates on the basis of race or color as to violate the Constitution.’” Id., at 924, quoting Days, Section 5 and the Role of the Justice Department, in B. Grofman & C. Davidson, Controversies in Minority Voting 56 (1992), and Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 141 (1976).
As in Miller, the United States relies on the purpose prong of § 5 to explain the Department’s preclearance objections, alleging that North Carolina, for pretextual reasons, did not create a second majority-minority district. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24. We again find the Government’s position “insupportable.” Miller, supra, at 924. The General Assembly, in its submission filed with Chapter 601, explained why it did not create a second minority district; among its goals were “to keep precincts whole, to avoid dividing counties into more than two districts, and to give black voters a fair amount of influence by creating at least one district that was majority black in voter registration and by creating a substantial number of other districts in which black voters would exercise a significant influence over the choice of congressmen.” App. 142. The submission also explained in detail the disadvantages of other proposed plans. See, e. g., id., at 139, 140, 143 (Balmer Congress 6.2 Plan’s “[s]econd ‘minority’ district did not have effective minority voting majority” because it “depended on the cohesion of black and Native American voters, and no such pattern was evident” and “this plan dramatically decreased black influence” in four other districts). A memorandum, sent to the Department of Justice on behalf of the legislators in charge of the redistrieting process, provided still further reasons for the State’s decision not to draw two minority districts as urged by various interested parties. App. 94-138; 861 F. Supp., at 480-481, n. 9 (Voorhees, C. J., dissenting). We have recognized that a “State’s policy of adhering to other districting principles instead of creating as many majority-minority districts as possible does not support an inference that the plan ‘so discriminates on the basis of race or color as to violate the Constitution,’ and thus cannot provide any basis under §5 for the Justice Department’s objection.” Miller, supra, at 924 (citations omitted).
It appears that the Justice Department was pursuing in North Carolina the same policy of maximizing the number of majority-black districts that it pursued in Georgia. See Miller, supra, at 924-925, and n. The two States underwent the preclearance processes during the same time period and the objection letters they received from the Civil Rights Division were substantially alike. App. in Miller v. Johnson, O. T. 1994, No. 94-631, pp. 99-107. A North Carolina legislator recalled being told by the Assistant Attorney General that “you have twenty-two percent black people in this State, you must have as close to twenty-two percent black Congressmen, or black Congressional Districts in this State.” App. 201. See also Deposition of Senator Dennis Winner, id., at 698. We explained in Miller that this maximization policy is not properly grounded in § 5 and the Department’s authority thereunder. 515 U. S., at 925 (“In utilizing §5 to require States to create majority-minority districts wherever possible, the Department of Justice expanded its authority under the statute beyond what Congress intended and we have upheld”). We again reject the Department’s expansive interpretation of §5. Id., at 926-927. Cf. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997, 1017 (1994) (“Failure to maximize cannot be the measure of § 2”).
With respect to §2, appellees contend, and the District Court found, that failure to enact a plan with a second majority-black district would have left the State vulnerable to a lawsuit under this section. Our precedent establishes that a plaintiff may allege a §2 violation in a single-member district if the manipulation of districting lines fragments politically cohesive minority voters among several districts or packs them into one district or a small number of districts, and thereby dilutes the voting strength of members of the minority population. Id., at 1007. To prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must prove that the minority group “is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district”; that the minority group “is politically cohesive”; and that “the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it... usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 50-51 (1986); Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25 (1993) (recognizing that the three Gingles preconditions would apply to a §2 challenge to a single-member district). A court must also consider all other relevant circumstances and must ultimately find based on the totality of those circumstances that members of a protected class “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b). See De Grandy, supra, at 1010-1012.
We assume, arguendo, for the purpose of resolving this suit, that compliance with § 2 could be a compelling interest, and we likewise assume, arguendo, that the General Assembly believed a second majority-minority district was needed in order not to violate §2, and that the legislature at the time it acted had a strong basis in evidence to support that conclusion. We hold that even with the benefit of these assumptions, the North Carolina plan does not survive strict scrutiny because the remedy — the creation of District 12— is not narrowly tailored to the asserted end.
Although we have not always provided precise guidance on how closely the means (the racial classification) must serve the end (the justification or compelling interest), we have always expected that the legislative action would substantially address, if not achieve, the avowed purpose. See Miller, supra, at 922 (“[T]he judiciary retains an independent obligation... to ensure that the State’s actions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest”); Wygant, 476 U. S., at 280 (opinion of Powell, J.) (“[T]he means chosen to accomplish the State’s asserted purpose must be specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish that purpose”) id., at 278, n. 5 (opinion of Powell, J.) (race-based state action must be remedial); Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 655 (“A reapportionment plan would not be narrowly tailored to the goal of avoiding retrogression if the State went beyond what was reasonably necessary to avoid retrogression”). Cf. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 88 (1995) (With regard to the remedial authority of a federal court: “ ‘The remedy must... be related to “the condition alleged to offend the Constitution... and must be “‘remedial in nature, that is, it must be designed as nearly as possible “to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct” ’ ”) (quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 280-281 (1977), in turn quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717, 738, 746 (1974)). Where, as here, we assume avoidance of § 2 liability to be a compelling state interest, we think that the racial classification would have to realize that goal; the legislative action must, at a minimum, remedy the anticipated violation or achieve compliance to be narrowly tailored.
District 12 could not remedy any potential §2 violation. As discussed above, a plaintiff must show that the minority group is “geographically compact” to establish §2 liability. No one looking at District 12 could reasonably suggest that the district contains a “geographically compact” population of any race. See 861 F. Supp., at 469. Therefore where that district sits, “there neither has been a wrong nor can be a remedy.” Growe, supra, at 41 (footnote omitted).
Appellees do not defend District 12 by arguing that the district is geographically compact, however. Rather they contend, and a majority of the District Court agreed, 861 F. Supp., at 454-455, n. 50, that once a legislature has a strong basis in evidence for concluding that a §2 violation exists in the State, it may draw a majority-minority district anywhere, even if the district is in no way coincident with the compact Gingles district, as long as racially polarized voting exists where the district is ultimately drawn. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50-51, 54-56.
We find this position singularly unpersuasive. We do not see how a district so drawn would avoid §2 liability. If a §2 violation is proved for a particular area, it flows from the fact that individuals in this area “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b). The vote-dilution injuries suffered by these persons are not remedied by creating a safe majority-black district somewhere else in the State. For example, if a geographically compact, cohesive minority population lives in south-central to southeastern North Carolina, as the Justice Department’s objection letter suggested, District 12 that spans the Piedmont Crescent would not address that § 2 violation. The black voters of the south-central to southeastern region would still be suffering precisely the same injury that they suffered before District 12 was drawn. District 12 would not address the professed interest of relieving the vote dilution, much less be narrowly tailored to accomplish the goal.
Arguing, as appellees do and the District Court did, that the State may draw the district anywhere derives from a misconception of the vote-dilution claim. To accept that the district may be placed anywhere implies that the claim, and hence the coordinate right to an undiluted vote (to cast a ballot equal among voters), belongs to the minority as a group and not to its individual members. It does not. See § 1973 (“the right of any citizen”).
The United States submits that District 12 does, in fact, incorporate a “substantial portio[n]” of the concentration of minority voters that would have given rise to a §2 claim. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27. Specifically, the Government claims that “District 12... contains the heavy concentration of African Americans in Mecklenburg County, the same urban component included in the second minority opportunity district in some of the alternative plans.” Ibid. The portion of District 12 that lies in Meck-lenburg County covers not more than 20% of the district. See Exhibit 301 of Plaintiff-Intervenors, Map A, Map 9B. We do not think that this degree of incorporation could mean that District 12 substantially addresses the §2 violation. We hold, therefore, that District 12 is not narrowly tailored to the State’s asserted interest in complying with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
The complaint also named the Attorney General of the United States and the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division as defendants. The District Court granted the federal officials’ motion to dismiss, Shaw v. Barr, 808 F. Supp. 461 (EDNC 1992).
Justice Stevens would dismiss the complaint for a lack of standing. Post, at 921-923. Here, as in other places in his dissent, Justice Stevens’ disagreement is more with the Court’s prior decisions in Shaw I, 509 U. S. 630 (1993), United States v. Hays, 515 U. S. 737 (1995), and Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900 (1995), than with this decision. Justice Stevens challenged the Court’s standing analysis and its finding of cognizable injury in both Hays, supra, at 751 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), and Miller, supra, at 929-931 (Stevens, J., dissenting), and both Justice White and Justice Souter advanced many of the same arguments in Shaw I. See Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 659-674 (White, J., dissenting); id., at 680-687, and n. 9 (Souter, J., dissenting). Their position has been repeatedly rejected by the Court. See id., at 644-652; Miller, supra, at 909; and Hays, supra, at 744-745.
Justice Stevens in dissent incorrectly reads Miller as demonstrating that “although States may avoid strict scrutiny by complying with traditional districting principles, they may not do so by proffering pretextual, race-neutral explanations.” Post, at 932. Miller plainly states that although “compliance with ‘traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions’ may well suffice to refute a claim of racial gerrymandering,” a State cannot make such a refutation where “those factors were subordinated to racial objectives.” Miller, 515 U. S., at 919 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Justice Stevens in dissent discerns three reasons that he believes “may have motivated” the legislators to favor the creation of the two minority districts and that he believes together amount to a compelling state interest. Post, at 941. As we explain below, a racial classification cannot withstand strict scrutiny based upon speculation about what “may have motivated” the legislature. To be a compelling interest, the State must show that the alleged objective was the legislature’s “actual purpose” for the discriminatory classification, see Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 730, and n. 16 (1982), and the legislature must have had a strong basis in evidence to support that justification before it implements the classification. See infra, at 910. Even if the proper factual basis existed, we believe that the three reasons Justice Stevens proffers, separately or combined, would not amount to a compelling interest. First, the dissent seems to acknowledge that its initial reason — the “sorry history of race relations in North Carolina,” post, at 941—did not itself drive the decision to create the minority districts, presumably for the reasons we discuss infra, at 910. The dissent contends next that an “acceptable reason for creating a second majority-minority district” was the “State’s interest in avoiding the litigation that would have been necessary to overcome the Attorney General’s objection”.under § 5. Post, at 942. If this were true, however, Miller v. Johnson would have been wrongly decided because there the Court rejected the contention that complying with the Justice Department’s preclearance objection could be a compelling interest. Miller, supra, at 921-922. It necessarily follows that avoiding the litigation required to overcome the Department’s objection could not be a compelling interest. The dissent’s final reason — “the interest in avoiding the expense and unpleasantness of [§2] litigation” “regardless of the possible outcome of [that] litigation,” post, at 943 — sweeps too broadly. We assume, arguendo, that a State may have a compelling interest in complying with the properly interpreted Voting Rights Act. Infra, at 915. But a State must also have a “strong basis in evidence,” see Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 656 (quoting Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 500 (1989)), for believing that it is violating the Act. It has no such interest in avoiding meritless lawsuits.
For examples of this limitation in application see Wygant, 476 U. S., at 274-276 (where a plurality of the Court concluded that remedying societal discrimination and promoting role models for students was not a compelling interest); Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., supra, at 498-506.
The United States attempts to distinguish this suit from Miller by relying on the District Court’s finding that North Carolina conducted “its own independent reassessment” of Chapter 601 and found “the Department’s objection was legally and factually supportable.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25; 861 F. Supp. 408, 474 (1994) (case below). The “reassessment” was the legislature’s determination that it may be susceptible to a §2 challenge. Id., at 464-465. Even if the General Assembly properly reached that conclusion, we doubt that a showing of discriminatory effect under § 2, alone, could support a claim of discriminatory purpose under § 5. Even if discriminatory purpose could be shown, the means of avoiding such a violation could be race neutral, and so we also doubt that the prospect of violating the purpose prong of § 5 could justify a race-based redistricting plan such as the one implemented by North Carolina.
We do not suggest that where the governmental interest is eradicating the effects of past discrimination the race-based action necessarily would have to achieve fully its task to be narrowly tailored.
Justice Stevens in dissent argues that it does not matter that District 12 could not possibly remedy a § 2 violation because he believes the State’s plan would avoid § 2 liability. Post, at 946-947. As support, Justice Stevens relies on our decision in Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997 (1994), which he reads to say that “a plaintiff cannot make out a prima
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
Must a litigant possess Article III standing in order to intervene of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) ? The parties do not dispute-and we hold-that such an intervenor must meet the requirements of Article III if the intervenor wishes to pursue relief not requested by a plaintiff. In the present case, it is unclear whether the intervenor seeks different relief, and the Court of Appeals did not resolve this threshold issue. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for that court to determine whether the intervenor seeks such additional relief.
I
In 2001, land developer Steven Sherman paid $2.7 million to purchase nearly 400 acres of land in the town of Chester, New York (Town). Sherman planned to build a housing subdivision called MareBrook, complete with 385 housing units, a golf course, an onsite restaurant, and other amenities. Sherman applied for approval of his plan and thus began a "journey through the Town's ever-changing labyrinth of red tape." Sherman v. Chester, 752 F.3d 554, 557 (C.A.2 2014).
In 2012, Sherman filed this suit against the Town in New York state court. The suit concerned "the decade's worth of red tape put in place" by the Town and its regulatory bodies. Id., at 558. According to Sherman, the Town obstructed his plans for the subdivision and forced him to spend around $5.5 million to comply with the Town's demands. Id., at 558, 560. All of this, Sherman claimed, left him financially exhausted and on the brink of personal bankruptcy. Id., at 560. Sherman brought nine federal- and state-law claims against the Town, including a regulatory takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See App. 98-122. The Town removed the case to a Federal District Court, which dismissed Sherman's takings claim as unripe. Opinion and Order in No. 1:12-cv-00647 (SDNY), Dkt. 14, p. 25. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the ripeness determination and remanded for the case to go forward. Chester, supra, at 557.
On remand, real estate development company Laroe Estates, Inc. (the respondent here) filed a motion to intervene of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). This Rule requires a court to permit intervention by a litigant that "claims an interest related to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." Laroe alleged that in 2003 it had entered into an agreement with Sherman regarding the MareBrook property. Under this agreement, Laroe was to make $6 million in payments to Sherman, secured by a mortgage on all of the development, and Sherman was to sell Laroe parcels of land within the proposed subdivision when the MareBrook plan was approved. However, Laroe reserved the right to terminate the entire agreement if Sherman was unable to obtain Town approval for a sufficient number of lots. While this agreement was in place and Sherman continued his futile quest for regulatory approval, Laroe paid Sherman more than $2.5 million.
In 2013, TD Bank commenced a foreclosure proceeding on Sherman's property. In an effort to save the deal, Laroe and Sherman entered into a new agreement. That agreement provided that the purchase price of the property would be the $2.5 million that Laroe had already advanced Sherman plus any amount Sherman had to pay to settle with TD Bank. Once the Town approved the plan, Laroe was required to transfer a certain number of lots back to Sherman. In addition to imposing this transfer obligation, the agreement deemed Laroe to have paid for the land in full. Laroe was also given the authority to settle the debt Sherman owed TD Bank and to terminate the agreement if the settlement failed. The settlement did fail, and TD Bank took over the property. But Laroe never terminated its agreement with Sherman.
In support of its motion to intervene, Laroe argued that, under New York law, it is "the equitable owner of the Real Property" at issue in Sherman's suit. App. 131, 135-139. Laroe asserted that its status as equitable owner gave it an interest in the MareBrook property; that its interest would be impaired if it could not intervene; and that Sherman "ha[d] his own agenda" and consequently could not adequately represent Laroe's interest. Id., at 143-145. Along with its other intervention-related pleadings, Laroe filed an intervenor's complaint asserting a regulatory takings claim that was substantively identical to Sherman's. Laroe's complaint sought, among other things, a "judgment against [the Town] awarding [Laroe] damages," namely, "compensation for the taking of Laroe's interest in the subject real property." Id ., at 162.
The District Court denied Laroe's motion to intervene on the ground that Laroe lacked standing to bring a takings claim "based on its status as contract vendee to the property." App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a. The District Court interpreted Second Circuit precedent-specifically, United States Olympic Comm. v. Intelicense Corp., S. A., 737 F.2d 263, 268 (1984) -to mean that Laroe's equitable interest did not confer standing. App. to Pet. for Cert. 55a-56a.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 828 F.3d 60, 62 (C.A.2 2016). Acknowledging a division among the Courts of Appeals on whether an intervenor of right must meet the requirements of Article III, the Second Circuit sided with the courts that have held that Article III standing is not required. Id., at 64-65.
We granted certiorari. 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 810, 196 L.Ed.2d 596 (2017).
II
Article III of the Constitution limits the exercise of the judicial power to "Cases" and "Controversies." § 2, cl. 1. This fundamental limitation preserves the "tripartite structure" of our Federal Government, prevents the Federal Judiciary from "intrud[ing] upon the powers given to the other branches," and "confines the federal courts to a properly judicial role." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). "If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so." DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006).
"Standing to sue is a doctrine rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy." Spokeo, supra, at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1547. "The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches." Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013). Our standing doctrine accomplishes this by requiring plaintiffs to "alleg[e] such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to ... justify [the] exercise of the court's remedial powers on [their] behalf." Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish Article III standing, the plaintiff seeking compensatory relief must have "(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, supra, at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 1547. "Absent such a showing, exercise of its power by a federal court would be gratuitous and thus inconsistent with the Art. III limitation." Simon, supra, at 38, 96 S.Ct. 1917.
Our standing decisions make clear that " 'standing is not dispensed in gross.' " Davis v. Federal Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724, 734, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008) (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358, n. 6, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) ; alteration omitted). To the contrary, "a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought." Davis, supra, at 734, 128 S.Ct. 2759 (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., DaimlerChrysler, supra, at 352, 126 S.Ct. 1854 ("[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought"); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 185, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (same); Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105-106, and n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (a plaintiff who has standing to seek damages must also demonstrate standing to pursue injunctive relief).
The same principle applies when there are multiple plaintiffs. At least one plaintiff must have standing to seek each form of relief requested in the complaint. Both of the parties accept this simple rule.
The same principle applies to intervenors of right. Although the context is different, the rule is the same: For all relief sought, there must be a litigant with standing, whether that litigant joins the lawsuit as a plaintiff, a coplaintiff, or an intervenor of right. Thus, at the least, an intervenor of right must demonstrate Article III standing when it seeks additional relief beyond that which the plaintiff requests. This result follows ineluctably from our Article III case law, so it is not surprising that both parties accept it (as does the United States as amicus curiae ). See Brief for Petitioner 13 (arguing that an intervenor must always demonstrate standing); Brief for Respondent 28 ("[A]n intervenor who ... seeks relief beyond that requested by a party with standing must satisfy Article III"); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16 (An intervenor must demonstrate its own standing if it "seek[s] damages" or "injunctive relief that is broader than or different from the relief sought by the original plaintiff(s)").
In sum, an intervenor of right must have Article III standing in order to pursue relief that is different from that which is sought by a party with standing. That includes cases in which both the plaintiff and the intervenor seek separate money judgments in their own names. Cf. General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 402, n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982) (declining to address the State's standing "until [it] obtains relief different from that sought by plaintiffs whose standing has not been questioned").
That principle dictates the disposition of this case. It is unclear whether Laroe seeks the same relief as Sherman or instead seeks different relief, such as a money judgment against the Town in Laroe's own name. Laroe's complaint-the best evidence of the relief Laroe seeks-requests a judgment awarding damages to Laroe . App. 162. Unsurprisingly, Sherman requests something different: specifically, compensation for the taking of his interest in the property. Id., at 122. In other words, as Laroe's counsel conceded at oral argument, the complaint plainly seeks separate monetary relief for Laroe directly against the Town. Tr. of Oral Arg. 43-44. And, as Laroe's counsel conceded further, if Laroe is "seeking additional damages in [its] own name," "at that point, an Article III inquiry would be required." Id., at 47.
To be sure, at some points during argument in the Court of Appeals, Laroe made statements that arguably indicated that Laroe is not seeking damages different from those sought by Sherman. In particular, Laroe's counsel stated that he was "not saying that Sherman and [Laroe's] damages are not the same damages," and insisted that there is "exactly one fund, and the town doesn't have to do anything except turn over the fund." Tr. 16, 33; see also Reply Brief in No. 15-1086(CA2), p. 12 (similar). At other points, however, the same counsel made statements pointing in the opposite direction. When asked directly whether "there would be separate awards to you and to the Sherman estate"
if Sherman's suit was successful, Laroe's counsel admitted that he "ha[d] never contemplated how [damages] ge[t] allocated at the end of the day" and suggested bifurcated proceedings so that once liability was settled, Laroe and Sherman could "duke it out" over damages if necessary. Tr. 32-35. And in its Court of Appeals briefing, Laroe argued that it-not Sherman-would be entitled to most of the damages from the takings claim, flagging the allocation issue as one that the District Court would have to resolve. Brief for Appellant in No. 15-1086(CA2), p. 32 ("[T]he trier of fact will have to determine the relative allocation of rights over the fund.... Specifically, what is the value of Sherman's bare legal title as compared to Laroe's equitable title in the subject property"); Reply Brief in No. 15-1086, at 15 ("[M]ost, if not all of the benefits" of this litigation "will accrue [to] Laroe"); see also 828 F.3d, at 70 (noting that Sherman and Laroe "may disagree about ... the issue of damages were they to prevail"). Taken together, these representations at best leave it ambiguous whether Laroe is seeking damages for itself or is simply seeking the same damages sought by Sherman.
Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals did not resolve this ambiguity. In fact, the section of its opinion concerning standing did not discuss whether Laroe sought different relief than Sherman. Id ., at 64-66. Elsewhere, in a different context, the court did acknowledge Laroe's statement that it sought "essentially the same" damages as Sherman. Id., at 66. But the court also found that "it is unclear from the record whether Laroe believes the Town is directly liable to Sherman or Laroe for the taking." Ibid .
This confusion needs to be dispelled. If Laroe wants only a money judgment of its own running directly against the Town, then it seeks damages different from those sought by Sherman and must establish its own Article III standing in order to intervene. We leave it to the Court of Appeals to address this question on remand.
* * *
For these reasons, 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.
Sherman died in 2013, and his estate replaced him as the plaintiff.
App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a, n. 2.
We assume for the sake of argument only that Laroe does not have Article III standing. If resolution of this question becomes necessary on remand, the Court of Appeals will be required to determine whether the District Court's decision was correct.
See Brief for Petitioner 23 ("If different parties raising a single issue seek different relief, then standing must be shown for each one"); Brief for Respondent 15 ("[A] case or controversy as to one claim does not extend the judicial power to different claims or forms of relief").
Before this Court, Laroe's counsel represented that Laroe is not seeking damages of its own and is seeking only to maximize Sherman's recovery. Tr. of Oral Arg. 43-44. But in light of the ambiguous record and the lack of a reasoned conclusion on this question from the Court of Appeals, we are not inclined to resolve it in the first instance. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005) ("[W]e are a court of review, not first view").
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In two cases argued on the same day last Term we considered the standard that courts of appeals should apply when reviewing the reasonableness of sentences imposed by district judges. The first, Rita v. United States, 551 U. S. 338 (2007), involved a sentence within the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; we held that when a district judge’s discretionary decision in a particular case accords with the sentence the United States Sentencing Commission deems appropriate “in the mine run of cases,” the court of appeals may presume that the sentence is reasonable. Id., at 351.
The second case, Claiborne v. United States, involved a sentence below the range recommended by the Guidelines, and raised the converse question whether a court of appeals may apply a “proportionality test,” and require that a sentence that constitutes a substantial variance from the Guidelines be justified by extraordinary circumstances. See Claiborne v. United States, 549 U. S. 1016 (2006). We did not have the opportunity to answer this question because the case was mooted by Claiborne’s untimely death. Claiborne v. United States, 551 U. S. 87 (2007) (per curiam). We granted certiorari in the case before us today in order to reach that question, left unanswered last Term. 551 U. S. 1113 (2007). We now hold that, while the extent of the difference between a particular sentence and the recommended Guidelines range is surely relevant, courts of appeals must review all sentences — whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range — under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. We also hold that the sentence imposed by the experienced District Judge in this case was reasonable.
I
In February or March 2000, petitioner Brian Gall, a second-year college student at the University of Iowa, was invited by Luke Rinderknecht to join an ongoing enterprise distributing a controlled substance popularly known as “ecstasy.” Gall — who was then a user of ecstasy, cocaine, and marijuana — accepted the invitation. During the ensuing seven months, Gall delivered ecstasy pills, which he received from Rinderknecht, to other conspirators, who then sold them to consumers. He netted over $30,000.
A month or two after joining the conspiracy, Gall stopped using ecstasy. A few months after that, in September 2000, he advised Rinderknecht and other co-conspirators that he was withdrawing from the conspiracy. He has not sold illegal drugs of any kind since. He has, in the words of the District Court, “self-rehabilitated.” App. 75. He graduated from the University of Iowa in 2002, and moved first to Arizona, where he obtained a job in the construction industry, and later to Colorado, where he earned $18 per hour as a master carpenter. He has not used any illegal drugs since graduating from college.
After Gall moved to Arizona, he was approached by federal law enforcement agents who questioned him about his involvement in the ecstasy distribution conspiracy. Gall admitted his limited participation in the distribution of ecstasy, and the agents took no further action at that time. On April 28,2004 — approximately V/z years after this initial interview, and 3V2 years after Gall withdrew from the conspiracy — an indictment was returned in the Southern District of Iowa charging him and seven other defendants with participating in a conspiracy to distribute ecstasy, cocaine, and marijuana, that began in or about May 1996 and continued through October 30, 2002. The Government has never questioned the truthfulness of any of Gall’s earlier statements or contended that he played any role in, or had any knowledge of, other aspects of the conspiracy described in the indictment. When he received notice of the indictment, Gall moved back to Iowa and surrendered to the authorities. While free on his own recognizance, Gall started his own business in the construction industry, primarily engaged in subcontracting for the installation of windows and doors. In his first year, his profits were over $2,000 per month.
Gall entered into a plea agreement with the Government, stipulating that he was “responsible for, but did not necessarily distribute himself, at least 2,500 grams of [ecstasy], or the equivalent of at least 87.5 kilograms of marijuana.” Id., at 25. In the agreement, the Government acknowledged that “on or about September of 2000,” Gall had communicated his intent to stop distributing ecstasy to Rinderknecht and other members of the conspiracy. Ibid. The agreement further provided that recent changes in the Guidelines that enhanced the recommended punishment for distributing ecstasy were not applicable to Gall because he had withdrawn from the conspiracy prior to the effective date of those changes.
In her presentence report, the probation officer concluded that Gall had no significant criminal history; that he was not an organizer, leader, or manager; and that his offense did not involve the use of any weapons. The report stated that Gall had truthfully provided the Government with all of the evidence he had concerning the alleged offenses, but that his evidence was not useful because he provided no new information to the agents. The report also described Gall’s substantial use of drugs prior to his offense and the absence of any such use in recent years. The report recommended a sentencing range of 30 to 37 months of imprisonment.
The record of the sentencing hearing held on May 27,2005, includes a “small flood” of letters from Gall’s parents and other relatives, his fiance, neighbors, and representatives of firms doing business with him, uniformly praising his character and work ethic. The transcript includes the testimony of several witnesses and the District Judge’s colloquy with the assistant United States attorney (AUSA) and with Gall. The AUSA did not contest any of the evidence concerning Gall’s law-abiding life during the preceding five years, but urged that “the guidelines are appropriate and should be followed,” and requested that the court impose a prison sentence within the Guidelines range. Id., at 93. He mentioned that two of Gall’s co-conspirators had been sentenced to 30 and 35 months, respectively, but upon further questioning by the District Court, he acknowledged that neither of them had voluntarily withdrawn from the conspiracy.
The District Judge sentenced Gall to probation for a term of 36 months. In addition to making a lengthy statement on the record, the judge filed a detailed sentencing memorandum explaining his decision, and provided the following statement of reasons in his written judgment:
“The Court determined that, considering all the factors under 18 U. S. C. 3553(a), the Defendant’s explicit withdrawal from the conspiracy almost four years before the filing of the Indictment, the Defendant’s post-offense conduct, especially obtaining a college degree and the start of his own successful business, the support of family and friends, lack of criminal history, and his age at the time of the offense conduct, all warrant the sentence imposed, which was sufficient, but not greater than necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing.” Id., at 117.
At the end of both the sentencing hearing and the sentencing memorandum, the District Judge reminded Gall that probation, rather than “an act of leniency,” is a “substantial restriction of freedom.” Id., at 99, 125. In the memorandum, he emphasized:
“[Gall] will have to comply with strict reporting conditions along with a three-year regime of alcohol and drug testing. He will not be able to change or make decisions about significant circumstances in his life, such as where to live or work, which are prized liberty interests, without first seeking authorization from his Probation Officer or, perhaps, even the Court. Of course, the Defendant always faces the harsh consequences that await if he violates the conditions of his probationary term.” Id., at 125.
Finally, the District Judge explained why he had concluded that the sentence of probation reflected the seriousness of Gall’s offense and that no term of imprisonment was necessary:
“Any term of imprisonment in this case would be counter effective by depriving society of the contributions of the Defendant who, the Court has found, understands the consequences of his criminal conduct and is doing everything in his power to forge a new life. The Defendant’s post-offense conduct indicates neither that he will return to criminal behavior nor that the Defendant is a danger to society. In fact, the Defendant’s post-offense conduct was not motivated by a desire to please the Court or any other governmental agency, but was the pre-indictment product of the Defendant’s own desire to lead a better life.” Id., at 125-126.
II
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing. Relying on its earlier opinion in United States v. Claiborne, 439 F. 3d 479 (CA8 2006), it held that a sentence outside of the Guidelines range must be supported by a justification that “ ‘ “is proportional to the extent of the difference between the advisory range and the sentence imposed.”’” 446 F. 3d 884, 889 (CA8 2006) (quoting Claiborne, 439 F. 3d, at 481, in turn quoting United States v. Johnson, 427 F. 3d 423, 426-427 (CA7 2005)). Characterizing the difference between a sentence of probation and the bottom of Gall’s advisory Guidelines range of 30 months as “extraordinary” because it amounted to “a 100% downward variance,” 446 F. 3d, at 889, the Court of Appeals held that such a variance must be — and here was not — supported by extraordinary circumstances.
Rather than making an attempt to quantify the value of the justifications provided by the District Judge, the Court of Appeals identified what it regarded as five separate errors in the District Judge’s reasoning: (1) He gave “too much weight to Gall’s withdrawal from the conspiracy”; (2) given that Gall was 21 at the time of his offense, the District Judge erroneously gave “significant weight” to studies showing impetuous behavior by persons under the age of 18; (3) he did not “properly weigh” the seriousness of Gall’s offense; (4) he failed to consider whether a sentence' of probation would result in “unwarranted” disparities; and (5) he placed “too much emphasis on Gall’s post-offense rehabilitation.” Id., at 889-890. As we shall explain, we are not persuaded that these factors, whether viewed separately or in the aggregate, are sufficient to support the conclusion that the District Judge abused his discretion. As a preface to our discussion of these particulars, however, we shall explain why the Court of Appeals’ rule requiring “proportional” justifications for departures from the Guidelines range is not consistent with our remedial opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005).
Ill
In Booker we invalidated both the statutory provision, 18 U. S. C. § 3553(b)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), which made the Sentencing Guidelines mandatory, and § 3742(e) (2000 ed. and Supp. IV), which directed appellate courts to apply a de novo standard of review to departures from the Guidelines. As a result of our decision, the Guidelines are now advisory, and appellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether they are “reasonable.” Our explanation of “reasonableness” review in the Booker opinion made it pellucidly clear that the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard of review now applies to appellate review of sentencing decisions. See 543 U. S., at 260-262; see also Rita, 551 U. S., at 361-362 (Stevens, J., concurring).
It is also clear that a district judge must give serious consideration to the extent of any departure from the Guidelines and must explain his conclusion that an unusually lenient or an unusually harsh sentence is appropriate in a particular case with sufficient justifications. For even though the Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, they are, as we pointed out in Rita, the product of careful study based on extensive empirical evidence derived from the review of thousands of individual sentencing decisions. Id., at 349.
In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence outside the Guidelines range, appellate courts may therefore take the degree of variance into account and consider the extent of a deviation from the Guidelines. We reject, however, an appellate rule that requires “extraordinary” circumstances to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range. We also reject the use of a rigid mathematical formula that uses the percentage of a departure as the standard for determining the strength of the justifications required for a specific sentence.
As an initial matter, the approaches we reject come too close to creating an impermissible presumption of unreasonableness for sentences outside the Guidelines range. See id., at 354-355 (“The fact that we permit courts of appeals to adopt a presumption of reasonableness does not mean that courts may adopt a presumption of unreasonableness”). Even the Government has acknowledged that such a presumption would not be consistent with Booker. See Brief for United States in Rita v. United States, O. T. 2006, No. 06-5754, pp. 34-35.
The mathematical approach also suffers from infirmities of application. On one side of the equation, deviations from the Guidelines range will always appear more extreme — in percentage terms — when the range itself is low, and a sentence of probation will always be a 100% departure regardless of whether the Guidelines range is 1 month or 100 years. Moreover, quantifying the variance as a certain percentage of the maximum, minimum, or median prison sentence recommended by the Guidelines gives no weight to the “substantial restriction of freedom” involved in a term of supervised release or probation. App. 95.
We recognize that custodial sentences are qualitatively more severe than probationary sentences of equivalent terms. Offenders on probation are nonetheless subject to several standard conditions that substantially restrict their liberty. See United States v. Knights, 534 U. S. 112, 119 (2001) (“Inherent in the very nature of probation is that probationers ‘do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled’ ” (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U. S. 868, 874 (1987); internal quotation marks omitted)). Probationers may not leave the judicial district, move, or change jobs without notifying, and in some cases receiving permission from, their probation officer or the court. They must report regularly to their probation officer, permit unannounced visits to their homes, refrain from associating with any person convicted of a felony, and refrain from excessive drinking. USSG §5B1.3. Most probationers are also subject to individual “special conditions” imposed by the court. Gall, for instance, may not patronize any establishment that derives more than 50% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol, and must submit to random drug tests as directed by his probation officer. App. 109.
On the other side of the equation, the mathematical approach assumes the existence of some ascertainable method of assigning percentages to various justifications. Does withdrawal from a conspiracy justify more or less than, say, a 30% reduction? Does it matter that the withdrawal occurred several years ago? Is it relevant that the withdrawal was motivated by a decision to discontinue the use of drugs and to lead a better life? What percentage, if any, should be assigned to evidence that a defendant poses no future threat to society, or to evidence that innocent third parties are dependent on him? The formula is a classic example of attempting to measure an inventory of apples by counting oranges.
Most importantly, both the exceptional circumstances requirement and the rigid mathematical formulation reflect a practice — common among courts that have adopted “proportional review” — of applying a heightened standard of review to sentences outside the Guidelines range. This is inconsistent with the rule that the abuse-of-discretion standard of review applies to appellate review of all sentencing decisions — whether inside or outside the Guidelines range.
As we explained in Rita, a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. See 551 U. S., at 347-348. As a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark. The Guidelines are not the only consideration, however. Accordingly, after giving both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, the district judge should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party. In so doing, he may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable. See id., at 351. He must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. If he decides that an outside-Guidelines sentence is warranted, he must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. We find it uncontroversial that a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one. After settling on the appropriate sentence, he must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing. Id., at 356-358.
Regardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range, the appellate court must review the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. It must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Assuming that the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, the appellate court should then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. When conducting this review, the court will, of course, take into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness. Id., at 347. But if the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, the court may not apply a presumption of unreasonableness. It may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance. The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.
Practical considerations also underlie this legal principle. “The sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case. The judge sees and hears the evidence, makes credibility determinations, has full knowledge of the facts and gains insights not conveyed by the record.” Brief for Federal Public and Community Defenders et al. as Amici Curiae 16. “The sentencing judge has access to, and greater familiarity with, the individual case and the individual defendant before him than the Commission or the appeals court.” Rita, 551 U. S., at 357-358. Moreover, “[district courts have an institutional advantage over appellate courts in making these sorts of determinations, especially as they see so many more Guidelines cases than appellate courts do.” Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. 81, 98 (1996)
“It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” Id., at 113. The uniqueness of the individual case, however, does not change the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review that applies to all sentencing decisions. As we shall now explain, the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case does not reflect the requisite deference and does not support the conclusion that the District Court abused its discretion.
IV
As an initial matter, we note that the District Judge committed no significant procedural error. He correctly calculated the applicable Guidelines range, allowed both parties to present arguments as to what they believed the appropriate sentence should be, considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, and thoroughly documented his reasoning. The Court of Appeals found that the District Judge erred in failing to give proper weight to the seriousness of the offense, as required by § 3553(a)(2)(A), and failing to consider whether a sentence of probation would create unwarranted disparities, as required by § 3553(a)(6). We disagree.
Section 3553(a)(2)(A) requires judges to consider “the need for the sentence imposed... to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” The Court of Appeals concluded that “the district court did not properly weigh the seriousness of Gall’s offense” because it “ignored the serious health risks ecstasy poses.” 446 F. 3d, at 890. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, the District Judge plainly did consider the seriousness of the offense. See, e. g., App. 99 (“The Court, however, is bound to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of joining a conspiracy to distribute MDMA or Ecstasy”); id., at 122. It is true that the District Judge did not make specific reference to the (unquestionably significant) health risks posed by ecstasy, but the prosecutor did not raise ecstasy’s effects at the sentencing hearing. Had the prosecutor raised the issue, specific discussion of the point might have been in order, but it was not incumbent on the District Judge to raise every conceivably relevant issue on his own initiative.
The Government’s legitimate concern that a lenient sentence for st serious offense threatens to promote disrespect for the law is at least to some extent offset by the fact that seven of the eight defendants in this case have been sentenced to significant prison terms. Moreover, the unique facts of Gall’s situation provide support for the District Judge’s conclusion that, in Gall’s case, “a sentence of imprisonment may work to promote not respect, but derision, of the law if the law is viewed as merely a means to dispense harsh punishment without taking into account the real conduct and circumstances involved in sentencing.” Id., at 126.
Section 3553(a)(6) requires judges to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” The Court of Appeals stated that “the record does not show that the district court considered whether a sentence of probation would result in unwarranted disparities.” 446 F. 3d, at 890. As with the seriousness of the offense conduct, avoidance of unwarranted disparities was clearly considered by the Sentencing Commission when setting the Guidelines ranges. Since the District Judge correctly calculated and carefully reviewed the Guidelines range, he necessarily gave significant weight and consideration to the need to avoid unwarranted disparities.
Moreover, as we understand the colloquy between the District Judge and the AUSA, it seems that the judge gave specific attention to the issue of disparity when he inquired about the sentences already imposed by a different judge on two of Gall’s codefendants. The AUSA advised the District Judge that defendant Harbison had received a 30-month sentence and that Gooding had received 35 months. The following colloquy then occurred:
“THE COURT:... You probably know more about this than anybody. How long did those two stay in the conspiracy, and did they voluntarily withdraw?
“MR. GRIESS: They did not.
“THE COURT: They did not?
“MR. GRIESS: They did not voluntarily withdraw. And they were in the conspiracy, I think, for a shorter period of time, but at the very end.
“THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
“MR. GRIESS: A significant difference there, Your Honor, is that they were in the conspiracy after the guidelines changed and, therefore, were sentenced at a much higher level because of that.” App. 88.
A little later Mr. Griess stated: “The last thing I want to talk about goes to sentencing disparity.... Obviously, the Court is cognizant of that and wants to avoid any unwarranted sentencing disparities.” Id., at 89. He then discussed at some length the sentence of 36 months imposed on another codefendant, Jarod Yoder, whose participation in the conspiracy was roughly comparable to Gall’s. Griess voluntarily acknowledged three differences between Yoder and Gall: Yoder was in the conspiracy at its end and therefore was sentenced under the more severe Guidelines, he had a more serious criminal history, and he did not withdraw from the conspiracy.
From these facts, it is perfectly clear that the District Judge considered the need to avoid unwarranted disparities, but also considered the need to avoid unwarranted similarities among other co-conspirators who were not similarly situated. The District Judge regarded Gall’s voluntary withdrawal as a reasonable basis for giving him a less severe sentence than the three codefendants discussed with the AUSA, who neither withdrew from the conspiracy nor rehabilitated themselves as Gall had done. We also note that neither the Court of Appeals nor the Government has called our attention to a comparable defendant who received a more severe sentence.
Since the District Court committed no procedural error, the only question for the Court of Appeals was whether the sentence was reasonable — i. e., whether the District Judge abused his discretion in determining that the § 3553(a) factors supported a sentence of probation and justified a substantial deviation from the Guidelines range. As we shall now explain, the sentence was reasonable. The Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary was incorrect and failed to demonstrate the requisite deference to the District Judge’s decision.
V
The Court of Appeals gave virtually no deference to the District Court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors justified a significant variance in this case. Although the Court of Appeals correctly stated that the appropriate standard of review was abuse of discretion, it engaged in an analysis that more closely resembled de novo review of the facts presented and determined that, in its view, the degree of variance was not warranted.
The Court of Appeals thought that the District Court “gave too much weight to Gall’s withdrawal from the conspiracy because the court failed to acknowledge the significant benefit Gall received from being subject to the 1999 Guidelines.” 446 F. 3d, at 889. This criticism is flawed in that it ignores the critical relevance of Gall’s voluntary withdrawal, a circumstance that distinguished his conduct not only from that of all his codefendants, but from the vast majority of defendants convicted of conspiracy in federal court. The District Court quite reasonably attached great weight to the fact that Gall voluntarily withdrew from the conspiracy after deciding, on his own initiative, to change his life. This lends strong support to the District Court’s conclusion that Gall is not going to return to criminal behavior and is not a danger to society. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). Compared to a case where the offender’s rehabilitation occurred after he was charged with a crime, the District Court here had greater justification for believing Gall’s turnaround was genuine, as distinct from a transparent attempt to build a mitigation case.
The Court of Appeals thought the District Judge “gave significant weight to an improper factor” when he compared Gall’s sale of ecstasy when he was a 21-year-old adult to the “impetuous and ill-considered” actions of persons under the age of 18. 446 F. 3d, at 890. The appellate court correctly observed that the studies cited by the District Judge do not explain how Gall’s “specific behavior in the instant case was impetuous or ill-considered.” Ibid.
In that portion of his sentencing memorandum, however, the judge was discussing the “character of the defendant,” not the nature of his offense. App. 122. He noted that Gall’s criminal history included a ticket for underage drinking when he was 18 years old and possession of marijuana that was contemporaneous with his offense in this case. In summary, the District Judge observed that all of Gall’s criminal history, “including the present offense, occurred when he was twenty-one-years old or younger” and appeared “to stem from his addictions to drugs and alcohol.” Id., at 122, 123. The District Judge appended a long footnote to his discussion of Gall’s immaturity. The footnote includes an excerpt from our opinion in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 569 (2005), which quotes a study stating that a lack of maturity and an undeveloped sense of responsibility are qualities that “ ‘often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions.’ ”
The District Judge clearly stated the relevance of these studies in the opening and closing sentences of the footnote:
“Immaturity at the time of the offense conduct is not an inconsequential consideration. Recent studies on the development of the human brain conclude that human brain development may not become complete until the age of twenty-five.... [T]he recent [National Institutes of Health] report confirms that there is no bold line demarcating at what age a person reaches full maturity. While age does not excuse behavior, a sentencing court should account for age when inquiring into the conduct of a defendant.” App. 123, n. 2.
Given the dramatic contrast between Gall’s behavior before he joined the conspiracy and his conduct after withdrawing, it was not unreasonable for the District Judge to view Gall’s immaturity at the time of the offense as a mitigating factor, and his later behavior as a sign that he had matured and would not engage in such impetuous and ill-considered conduct in the future. Indeed, his consideration of that factor finds support in our cases. See, e. g., Johnson v. Texas, 509 U. S. 350, 367 (1993) (holding that a jury was free to consider a 19-year-old defendant’s youth when determining whether there was a probability that he would continue to commit violent acts in the future and stating that “ ‘youth is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage’ ” (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104,115 (1982))).
Finally, the Court of Appeals thought that, even if Gall’s rehabilitation was dramatic and permanent, a sentence of probation for participation as a middleman in a conspiracy distributing 10,000 pills of ecstasy “lies outside the range of choice dictated by the facts of the case.” 446 F. 3d, at 890 (internal quotation marks omitted). If the Guidelines were still mandatory, and assuming the facts did not justify a Guidelines-based downward departure, this would provide a sufficient basis for setting aside Gall’s sentence because the Guidelines state that probation alone is not an appropriate sentence for comparable offenses. But the Guidelines are not mandatory, and thus the “range of choice dictated by the facts of the case” is significantly broadened. Moreover, the Guidelines are only one of the factors to consider when imposing sentence, and § 3553(a)(3) directs the judge to consider sentences other than imprisonment.
We also note that the Government did not argue below, and has not argued here, that a sentence of probation could never be imposed for a crime identical to Gall’s. Indeed, it acknowledged that probation could be permissible if the record contained different — but in our view, no more compelling — mitigating evidence. Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38 (stating that probation could be an appropriate sentence, given the exact same offense, if “there are compelling family circumstances where individuals will be very badly hurt in the defendant’s family if no one is available to take care of them”).
The District Court quite reasonably attached great weight to Gall’s self-motivated rehabilitation, which was undertaken not at the direction of, or under supervision by, any court, but on his own initiative. This also lends strong support to the conclusion that imprisonment was not necessary to deter Gall from engaging in future criminal conduct or to protect the public from his future criminal acts. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C).
The Court of Appeals clearly disagreed with the District Judge’s conclusion that consideration of the § 3553(a) factors justified a sentence of probation; it believed that the circumstances presented here were insufficient to sustain such a marked deviation from the Guidelines range. But it is not for the Court of Appeals to decide de novo whether the justification for a variance is sufficient or the sentence reasonable. On abuse-of-discretion review, the Court of Appeals should have given due deference to the District Court’s reasoned and reasonable decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Ecstasy is sometimes called “MDMA” because its scientific name is “methylenedioxymethamphetamine.” App. 24, 118.
Notably, not all of the Guidelines are tied to this empirical evidence. For example, the Sentencing Commission departed from the empirical approach when setting the Guidelines range for drug offenses, and chose instead to key the Guidelines to the statutory mandatory minimum sentences that Congress established for such crimes. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 1A1.1 (Nov. 2006) (USSG). This decision, and its effect on a district judge’s authority to deviate from the Guidelines range in a particular drug case, is addressed in Kimbrough v. United States, post, p. 85.
Several Courts of Appeals had rejected such a presumption of unreasonableness even prior to our decision in Rita. See, e. g., United States v. Howard, 454 F. 3d 700, 703 (CA7 2006) (“Although a sentence outside the range does not enjoy the presumption of reasonableness that one within the range does, it does not warrant a presumption of unreasonableness”); United States v. Matheny, 450 F. 3d 633, 642 (CA6 2006) (“[T]his court’s holding that sentences within the advisory guideline range are presumptively reasonable does not mean that sentences outside of that range are presumptively unreasonable”); United States v. Myers, 439 F. 3d 415, 417 (CA8 2006) (“We have determined that a sentence imposed within the guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. While it does not follow that a sentence outside the guidelines range is unreasonable, we review a district court’s decision to depart from the appropriate guidelines range for abuse of discretion” (citation omittéd)).
See also Advisory Council of Judges of National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Guides for Sentencing 13-14 (1957) (“Probation is not granted out of a spirit of leniency.... As the Wickersham Commission said, probation is not merely ‘letting an offender off easily’ ”); 1 N. Cohen, The Law of Probation and Parole § 7:9 (2d ed. 1999) (“[T]he probation or parole conditions imposed on an individual can have a significant impact on both that person and society.... Often these conditions comprehensively regulate significant facets of their day-to-day lives.... They may become subject to frequent searches by government officials, as well as to mandatory counseling sessions with a caseworker or psychotherapist”).
Notably, when the Court of Appeals explained its disagreement with the District Judge’s decision in this ease, it made no attempt to quantify the strength of any of the mitigating circumstances.
Section 3553(a) lists seven factors that a sentencing court must consider. The first factor is a broad command to consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a)(1). The second factor requires the consideration of the general purposes of sentencing, including:
“the need for the sentence imposed—
“(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises the question whether admiralty jurisdiction extends to claims arising from agency contracts. In Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477 (1855), this Court held that an agent who had advanced funds for repairs and supplies necessary for a vessel could not bring a claim in admiralty against the vessel’s owners. Minturn has been interpreted by some lower courts as establishing a per se rule excluding agency contracts from admiralty. We now consider whether Minium should be overruled.
I—
This case arose over an unpaid bill for fuels acquired for the vessel, Green Harbour ex William Hooper (Hooper). The Hooper is owned by respondent Central Gulf Lines, Inc. (Central Gulf) and was chartered by the Waterman Steamship Corporation (Waterman) for use in maritime commerce. Petitioner Exxon Corporation (Exxon) was Waterman’s exclusive worldwide supplier of gas and bunker fuel oil for some 40 years.
In 1983, Waterman and Exxon negotiated a marine fuel requirements contract. Under the terms of the contract, upon request, Exxon would supply Waterman’s vessels with marine fuels when the vessels called at ports where Exxon could supply the fuels directly. Alternatively, in ports where Exxon had to rely on local suppliers, Exxon would arrange for the local supplier to provide Waterman vessels with fuel. In such cases, Exxon would pay the local supplier for the fuel and then invoice Waterman. Thus, while Exxon’s contractual obligation was to provide Waterman’s vessels with fuel when Waterman placed an order, it met that obligation sometimes in the capacity of “seller” and other times in the capacity of “agent.”
In the transaction at issue here, Exxon acted as Waterman’s agent, procuring bunker fuel for the Hooper from Arabian Marine Operating Co. (Arabian Marine) of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In October 1983, Arabian Marine delivered over 4,000 tons of fuel to the Hooper in Jeddah and invoiced Exxon for the cost of the fuel. Exxon paid for the fuel and invoiced Waterman, in turn, for $763,644. Shortly thereafter, Waterman sought reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code; Waterman never paid the full amount of the fuel bill. During the reorganization proceedings, Central Gulf agreed to assume personal liability for the unpaid bill if a court were to hold the Hooper liable in rem for that cost.
Subsequently, Exxon commenced this litigation in federal district court against Central Gulf in personam and against the Hooper in rem. Exxon claimed to have a maritime lien on the Hooper under the Federal Maritime Lien Act, 46 U. S. C. §971 (1982 ed.). The District Court noted that “[a] prerequisite to the existence of a maritime lien based on a breach of contract is that the subject matter of the contract must fall within the admiralty jurisdiction.” 707 F. Supp. 155, 158 (SDNY 1989). Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F. 2d 798 (CA2 1984), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1031 (1985), the District Court concluded that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction over the claim. See 707 F. Supp., at 159-161. In Peralta, the Second Circuit held that it was constrained by this Court's decision in Minturn v. Maynard, supra, and by those Second Circuit cases faithfully adhering to Minturn, to follow a per se rule excluding agency contracts from admiralty jurisdiction. See Peralta, supra, at 802-804. The District Court also rejected the argument that Exxon should be excepted from the Minturn rule because it had provided credit necessary for the Hooper to purchase the fuel and thus was more than a mere agent. To create such an exception, the District Court reasoned, “‘would blur, if not obliterate, a rather clear admiralty distinction.’” 707 F. Supp., at 161, quoting Peralta, supra, at 804.
The District Court denied Exxon’s motion for reconsideration. The court first rejected Exxon’s claim that in procuring fuel for Waterman it was acting as a.seller rather than an agent. Additionally, the District Court declined Exxon’s invitation to limit the Minturn rule to either general agency or preliminary service contracts. Finally, the District Court determined that even if it were to limit Minturn, Exxon’s contract with Waterman was both a general agency contract and a preliminary services contract and thus was excluded from admiralty jurisdiction under either exception. See 717 F. Supp. 1029, 1031-1037 (SDNY 1989).
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit summarily affirmed the judgment of the District Court “substantially for the reasons given” in the District Court’s two opinions. App. to Pet. for Cert. A2, judgt. order reported at 904 F. 2d 33 (1990). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits as to the scope of the Minturn decision and to consider whether Minturn should be overruled. 498 U. S. 1045 (1991). Today we are constrained to overrule Minturn and hold that there is no per se exception of agency contracts from admiralty jurisdiction.
II
Section 1333(1) of Title 28 U. S. C. grants federal district courts jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” In determining the boundaries of admiralty jurisdiction, we look to the purpose of the grant. See Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 24 (1871). As we recently reiterated, the “fundamental interest giving rise to maritime jurisdiction is ‘the protection of maritime commerce.’” Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U. S. 358, 367 (1990), quoting Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U. S. 668, 674 (1982). This case requires us to determine whether the limits set upon admiralty jurisdiction in Minturn are consistent with that interest.
The decision in Minturn has confounded many, and we think the character of that three-paragraph opinion is best appreciated when viewed in its entirety:
“The respondents were sued in admiralty, by process in personam. The libel charges that they are owners of the steamboat Gold Hunter; that they had appointed the libellant their general agent or broker; and exhibits a bill, showing a balance of accounts due libellant for money paid, laid out, and expended for the use of respondents, in paying for supplies, repairs, and advertising of the steamboat, and numerous other charges, together with commissions on the disbursements, &c.
“The court below very properly dismissed the libel, for want of jurisdiction. There is nothing in the nature of a maritime contract in the case. The libel shows nothing but a demand for a balance of accounts between agent and principal, for which an action of assumpsit, in a common law court, is the proper remedy. That the money advanced and paid for respondents was, in whole or in part, to pay bills due by a steamboat for repairs or supplies, will not make the transaction maritime, or give the libellant a remedy in admiralty. Nor does the local law of California, which authorizes an attachment of vessels for supplies or repairs, extend to the balance of accounts between agent and principal, who have never dealt on the credit, pledge, or security of the vessel.
“The case is too plain for argument.” 17 How. 477.
While disagreeing over what sorts of agency contracts fall within Minium’s ambit, lower courts have uniformly agreed that Minturn states a per se rule barring at least some classes of agency contracts from admiralty. See n. 4, supra.
Minturn appears to have rested on two rationales: (1) that the agent’s claim was nothing more than a “demand for a balance of accounts” which could be remedied at common law through an action of assumpsit; and (2) that the agent had no contractual or legal right to advance monies “on the credit, pledge, or security of the vessel.” The first rationale appears to be an application of the then-accepted rule that “the admiralty has no jurisdiction at all in matters of account between part owners,” The Steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Pet. 175, 182 (1837), or in actions in assumpsit for the wrongful withholding of money, see Archawski v. Hanioti, 350 U. S. 532, 534 (1956) (“A line of authorities emerged to the effect that admiralty had no jurisdiction to grant relief in such cases”). The second rationale appears to be premised on the then-accepted rule that a contract would not be deemed maritime absent a “hypothecation” or a pledge by the vessel’s owner of the vessel as security for debts created pursuant to the contract. In other words, to sue in admiralty on a contract, the claimant had to have some form of a lien interest in the vessel, even if the action was one in personam. See e. g., Gardner v. The New Jersey, 9 F. Cas. 1192, 1195 (No. 5233) (D. Pa. 1806); see generally, Note, 17 Conn. L. Rev. 595, 597-598 (1985).
Both of these rationales have since been discredited. In Archawski, supra, the Court held that an action cognizable as assumpsit would no longer be automatically excluded from admiralty. Rather, “admiralty has jurisdiction, even where the libel reads like indebitatus assumpsit at common law, provided that the unjust enrichment arose as a result of the breach of a maritime contract.” 350 U. S., at 536. Only 16 years after Minturn was decided, the Court also cast considerable doubt on the “hypothecation requirement.” In Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1 (1871), the Court explained that, in determining whether a contract falls within admiralty, “the true criterion is the nature and subject-matter of the contract, as whether it was a maritime contract, having reference to maritime service or maritime transactions.” Id., at 26. Several subsequent cases followed this edict of Dunham and rejected the relevance of the hypothecation requirement to establishing admiralty jurisdiction. See North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Railway & Shipbuild ing Co., 249 U. S. 119, 126 (1919); Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Barlum, 293 U. S. 21, 47-48 (1934).
Thus, to the extent that Mintum’s theoretical underpinnings can be discerned, those foundations are no longer the law of this Court. Minturifs approach to determining admiralty jurisdiction, moreover, is inconsistent with the principle that the “nature and subject-matter” of the contract at issue should be the crucial consideration in assessing admiralty jurisdiction. Insurance Co. v. Dunham, supra, at 26. While the Mint-urn Court viewed it as irrelevant “[t]hat the money advanced and paid for respondents was, in whole or in part, to pay bills due by a steamboat for repairs or supplies,” the trend in modern admiralty case law, by contrast, is to focus the jurisdictional inquiry upon whether the nature of the transaction was maritime. See e. g., Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U. S. 731, 735-738 (1961). See also Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Dimon S. S. Corp., 290 U. S. 117, 124 (1933) (“Admiralty is not concerned with the form of the action, but with its substance”).
Finally, the proposition for which Minturn stands —a per se bar of agency contracts from admiralty— ill serves the purpose of the grant of admiralty jurisdiction. As noted, the admiralty jurisdiction is designed to protect maritime commerce. See supra, at 608. There is nothing in the nature of an agency relationship that necessarily excludes such relationships from the realm of maritime commerce. Rubrics such as “general agent” and “special agent” reveal nothing about whether the services actually performed pursuant to a contract are maritime in nature. It is inappropriate, therefore, to focus on the status of a claimant to determine whether admiralty jurisdiction exists. Cf. Sisson, 497 U. S., at 364, n. 2 (“the demand for tidy rules can go too far, and when that demand entirely divorces the jurisdictional inquiry from the purposes that support the exercise of jurisdiction, it has gone too far”).
We conclude that Minturn is incompatible with current principles of admiralty jurisdiction over contracts and therefore should be overruled. We emphasize that our ruling is a narrow one. We remove only the precedent of Minturn from the body of rules that have developed over what types of contracts are maritime. Rather than apply a rule excluding all or certain agency contracts from the realm of admiralty, lower courts should look to the subject matter of the agency contract and determine whether the services performed under the contract are maritime in nature. See generally Kossick, supra, at 735-738 (analogizing the substance of the contract at issue to established types of “maritime” obligations and finding the contract within admiralty jurisdiction).
Ill
There remains the question whether admiralty jurisdiction extends to Exxon’s claim regarding the delivery of fuel in Jeddah. We conclude that it does. Like the District Court, we believe it is clear that when Exxon directly supplies marine fuels to Waterman’s ships, the arrangement is maritime in nature. See 707 F. Supp., at 161. Cf. The Golden Gate, 52 F. 2d 397 (CA9 1931) (entertaining an action in admiralty for the value of fuel oil furnished to a vessel), cert. denied sub nom. Knutsen v. Associated Oil Co., 284 U. S. 682 (1932). In this case, the only difference between the New York delivery over which the District Court asserted jurisdiction, see n. 2, supra, and the Jeddah delivery was that, in Jeddah, Exxon bought the fuels from a third party and had the third party deliver them to the Hooper. The subject matter of the Jeddah claim, like the New York claim, is the value of the fuel received by the ship. Because the nature and subject-matter of the two transactions are the same as they relate to maritime commerce, if admiralty jurisdiction extends to one, it must extend to the other. Cf. North Pacific, supra, at 128 (“[T]here is no difference in character as to repairs made upon ... a vessel . . . whether they are made while she is afloat, while in dry dock, or while hauled up [on] land. The nature of the service is identical in the several cases, and the admiralty jurisdiction extends to all”). We express no view on whether Exxon is entitled to a maritime lien under the Federal Maritime Lien Act. That issue is not before us, and we leave it to be decided on 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.
The relevant provision of the Federal Maritime Lien Act has been amended and recodified at 46 U. S. C. § 31342.
In the same action, Exxon also claimed a maritime lien on the Hooper for a separate unpaid fuel bill for approximately 42 tons of gas oil Exxon had supplied directly to the Hooper in New York. The District Court held that because Exxon was the “supplier” rather than an agent with respect to the New York delivery, the claim for $13,242 fell within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction. The court granted summary judgment in Exxon’s favor on this claim. 707 F. Supp., at 161-162. This ruling is not at issue here.
The preliminary contract rule, which excludes “preliminary services” from admiralty, was enunciated in the Second Circuit as early as 1881. See The Thames, 10 F. 848 (SDNY 1881) (“The distinction between preliminary services leading to a maritime contract and such contracts themselves have [sic] been affirmed in this country from the first, and not yet departed from”). In the Second Circuit, the agency exception to admiralty jurisdiction — the Minturn rule — has been fused with the preliminary contract rule. See Cory Bros. & Co. v. United States, 51 F. 2d 1010, 1012 (CA2 1931) (explaining Minturn as involving a preliminary services contract). In denying Exxon’s motion for reconsideration, the District Court declined to “disentangle” the two rules, asserting that Circuit precedent had established the rule of Minturn “as a subset of the preliminary contract rule.” 717 F. Supp. 1029, 1036 (SDNY 1989).
Compare E. S. Binnings, Inc. v. MTV Saudi Riyadh, 815 F. 2d 660, 662-665, and n. 4 (CA11 1987) (general agency contracts for performance of preliminary services excluded from admiralty jurisdiction); and Peralta Shipping Corp. v. Smith & Johnson (Shipping) Corp., 739 F. 2d 798 (CA2 1984) (all general agency contracts excluded), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1031 (1985) with Hinkins Steamship Agency, Inc. v. Freighters. Inc., 498 F. 2d 411, 411-412 (CA9 1974) (per curiam) (looking to the character of the work performed by a “husbanding agent’’ and concluding that the contract was maritime because the services performed were “necessary for the continuing voyage”); and id., at 412 (arguably limiting Minturn to general agency as opposed to special agency contracts); and Hadjipateras v. Pacifica, S. A., 290 F. 2d 697, 703-704, and n. 15 (CA5 1961) (holding an agency contract for management and operation of a vessel within admiralty jurisdiction and limiting Minturn to actions for “an accounting as such”). See also Ameejee Valleejee & Sons v. M/V Victoria U., 661 F. 2d 310, 312 (CA4 1981) (espousing a “general proposition of law” that a general agent may not invoke admiralty jurisdiction while a special agent can).
As early as 1870, however, this Court narrowed the reach of Minturn and cast doubt on its validity. See The Kalorama, 10 Wall. 204, 217 (1870) (distinguishing Minturn and allowing agents who had advanced funds for repairs and supplies for a vessel to sue in admiralty where it was “expressly agreed that the advances should be furnished on the credit of the steamer”).
These decisions were part of a larger trend started in the 19th century of eschewing the restrictive prohibitions on admiralty jurisdiction that prevailed in England. See e. g.. Waring v. Clarke. 5 How. 441, 464-459 (1847) (holding that the constitutional grant of admiralty jurisdiction did not adopt the statutory and judicial rules limiting admiralty jurisdiction in England); The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443, 456-457 (1852) (rejecting the English tide-water doctrine that “measureplj the jurisdiction of the admiralty by the tide"); Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall., at 26 (rejecting the English locality rule on maritime contracts “which concedes [admiralty] jurisdiction, with a few exceptions, only to contracts made upon the sea and to be executed thereon").
As noted, the District Court regarded the services performed by Exxon in the Jeddah transaction as “preliminary” and characterized the rule excluding agency contracts from admiralty as “a subset” of the preliminary contract doctrine. See supra, at 607, and n. 3. This Court has never ruled on .the validity of the preliminary contract doctrine, nor do we reach that question here. However, we emphasize that Mintu rn has been overruled and that courts should focus on the nature of the services performed by the agent in determining whether an agency contract is a maritime contract.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed respondent’s conviction for bank robbery. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court improperly admitted testimony which impeached one of respondent’s witnesses. We hold that the District Court did not err, and we reverse.
Respondent John Abel and two cohorts were indicted for robbing a savings and loan in Bellflower, Cal., in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). The cohorts elected to plead guilty, but respondent went to trial. One of the cohorts, Kurt Ehle, agreed to testify against respondent and identify him as a participant in the robbery.
Respondent informed the District Court at a pretrial conference that he would seek to counter Ehle’s testimony with that of Robert Mills. Mills was not a participant in the robbery but was friendly with respondent and with Ehle, and had spent time with both in prison. Mills planned to testify that after the robbery Ehle had admitted to Mills that Ehle intended to implicate respondent falsely, in order to receive favorable treatment from the Government. The prosecutor in turn disclosed that he intended to discredit Mills’ testimony by calling Ehle back to the stand and eliciting from Ehle the fact that respondent, Mills, and Ehle were all members of the “Aryan Brotherhood,” a secret prison gang that required its members always to deny the existence of the organization and to commit perjury, theft, and murder on each member’s behalf.
Defense counsel objected to Ehle’s proffered rebuttal testimony as too prejudicial to respondent. After a lengthy discussion in chambers the District Court decided to permit the prosecutor to cross-examine Mills about the gang, and if Mills denied knowledge of the gang, to introduce Ehle’s rebuttal testimony concerning the tenets of the gang and Mills’ and respondent’s membership in it. The District Court held that the probative value of Ehle’s rebuttal testimony outweighed its prejudicial effect, but that respondent might be entitled to a limiting instruction if his counsel would submit one to the court.
At trial Ehle implicated respondent as a participant in the robbery. Mills, called by respondent, testified that Ehle told him in prison that Ehle planned to implicate respondent falsely. When the prosecutor sought to cross-examine Mills concerning membership in the prison gang, the District Court conferred again with counsel outside of the jury’s presence, and ordered the prosecutor not to use the term “Aryan Brotherhood” because it was unduly prejudicial. Accordingly, the prosecutor asked Mills if he and respondent were members of a “secret type of prison organization” which had a creed requiring members to deny its existence and lie for each other. When Mills denied knowledge of such an organization the prosecutor recalled Ehle.
Ehle testified that respondent, Mills, and he were indeed members of a secret prison organization whose tenets required its members to deny its existence and “lie, cheat, steal [and] kill” to protect each other. The District Court sustained a defense objection to a question concerning the punishment for violating the organization’s rules. Ehle then further described the organization and testified that “in view of the fact of how close Abel and Mills were” it would have been “suicide” for Ehle to have told Mills what Mills attributed to him. Respondent’s counsel did not request a limiting instruction and none was given.
The jury convicted respondent. On his appeal a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. 707 F. 2d 1013 (1983). The Court of Appeals held that Ehle’s rebuttal testimony was admitted not just to show that respondent’s and Mills’ membership in the same group might cause Mills to color his testimony; the court held that the contested evidence was also admitted to show that because Mills belonged to a perjurious organization, he must be lying on the stand. This suggestion of perjury, based upon a group tenet, was impermissible. The court reasoned:
“It is settled law that the government may not convict an individual merely for belonging to an organization that advocates illegal activity. Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 219-24 . . . ; Brandenb[u]rg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 .... Rather, the government must show that the individual knows of and personally accepts the tenets of the organization. Neither should the government be allowed to impeach on the grounds of mere membership, since membership, without more, has no probative value. It establishes nothing about the individual’s own actions, beliefs, or veracity.” Id., at 1016 (citations omitted).
The court concluded that Ehle’s testimony implicated respondent as a member of the gang; but since respondent did not take the stand, the testimony could not have been offered to impeach him and it prejudiced him “by mere association.” Id., at 1017.
We hold that the evidence showing Mills’ and respondent’s membership in the prison gang was sufficiently probative of Mills’ possible bias towards respondent to warrant its admission into evidence. Thus it was within the District Court’s discretion to admit Ehle’s testimony, and the Court of Appeals was wrong in concluding otherwise.
Both parties correctly assume, as did the District Court and the Court of Appeals, that the question is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. But the Rules do not by their terms deal with impeachment for “bias,” although they do expressly treat impeachment by character evidence and conduct, Rule 608, by evidence of conviction of a crime, Rule 609, and by showing of religious beliefs or opinion, Rule 610. Neither party has suggested what significance we should attribute to this fact. Although we are nominally the promulgators of the Rules, and should in theory need only to consult our collective memories to analyze the situation properly, we are in truth merely a conduit when we deal with an undertaking as substantial as the preparation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the case of these Rules, too, it must be remembered that Congress extensively reviewed our submission, and considerably revised it. See 28 U. S. C. §2076; 4 J. Bailey III & O. Trelles II, Federal Rules of Evidence: Legislative Histories and Related Documents (1980).
Before the present Rules were promulgated, the admissibility of evidence in the federal courts was governed in part by statutes or Rules, and in part by case law. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 43(a) (prior to 1975 amendment); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 26 (prior to 1975 amendment); Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109 (1943); Funk v. United States, 290 U. S. 371 (1933); Shepard v. United States, 290 U. S. 96 (1933). This Court had held in Alford v. United States, 282 U. S. 687 (1931), that a trial court must allow some cross-examination of a witness to show bias. This holding was in accord with the overwhelming weight of authority in the state courts as reflected in Wigmore’s classic treatise on the law of evidence. See id., at 691, citing 3 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1368 (2d ed. 1923); see also District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 630-633 (1937). Our decision in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308 (1974), holds that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment requires a defendant to have some opportunity to show bias on the part of a prosecution witness.
With this state of unanimity confronting the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence, we think it unlikely that they intended to scuttle entirely the evidentiary availability of cross-examination for bias. One commentator, recognizing the omission of any express treatment of impeachment for bias, prejudice, or corruption, observes that the Rules “clearly contemplate the use of the above-mentioned grounds of impeachment.” E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence §40, p. 85 (3d ed. 1984). Other commentators, without mentioning the omission, treat bias as a permissible and established basis of impeachment under the Rules. 3 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 341, p. 470 (1979); 3 J. Wein-stein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶607[03] (1981).
We think this conclusion is obviously correct. Rule 401 defines as “relevant evidence” evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 402 provides that all relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the United States Constitution, by Act of Congress, or by applicable rule. A successful showing of bias on the part of a witness would have a tendency to make the facts to which he testified less probable in the eyes of the jury than it would be without such testimony.
The correctness of the conclusion that the Rules contemplate impeachment by showing of bias is confirmed by the references to bias in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rules 608 and 610, and by the provisions allowing any party to attack credibility in Rule 607, and allowing cross-examination on “matters affecting the credibility of the witness” in Rule 611(b). The Courts of Appeals have upheld use of extrinsic evidence to show bias both before and after the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e. g., United States v. James, 609 F. 2d 36, 46 (CA2 1979), cert. denied, 445 U. S. 905 (1980); United States v. Frankenthal, 582 F. 2d 1102, 1106 (CA7 1978); United States v. Brown, 547 F. 2d 438, 445-446 (CA8), cert. denied sub nom. Hendrix v. United States, 430 U. S. 937 (1977); United States v. Harvey, 547 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA2 1976); United States v. Robinson, 174 U. S. App. D. C. 224, 227-228, 530 F. 2d 1076, 1079-1080 (1976); United States v. Blackwood, 456 F. 2d 526, 530 (CA2), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 863 (1972).
We think the lesson to be drawn from all of this is that it is permissible to impeach a witness by showing his bias under the Federal Rules of Evidence just as it was permissible to do so before their adoption. In this connection, the comment of the Reporter for the Advisory Committee which drafted the Rules is apropos:
“In principle, under the Federal Rules no common law of evidence remains. ‘All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided. . ..’ In reality, of course, the body of common law knowledge continues to exist, though in the somewhat altered form of a source of guidance in the exercise of delegated powers.” Cleary, Preliminary Notes on Reading the Rules of Evidence, 57 Neb. L. Rev. 908, 915 (1978) (footnote omitted).
Ehle’s testimony about the prison gang certainly made the existence of Mills’ bias towards respondent more probable. Thus it was relevant to support that inference. Bias is a term used in the “common law of evidence” to describe the relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony in favor of or against a party. Bias may be induced by a witness’ like, dislike, or fear of a party, or by the witness’ self-interest. Proof of bias is almost always relevant because the jury, as finder of fact and weigher of credibility, has historically been entitled to assess all evidence which might bear on the accuracy and truth of a witness’ testimony. The “common law of evidence” allowed the showing of bias by extrinsic evidence, while requiring the cross-examiner to “take the answer of the witness” with respect to less favored forms of impeachment. See generally McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 40, at 89; Hale, Bias as Affecting Credibility, 1 Hastings L. J. 1 (1949).
Mills’ and respondent’s membership in the Aryan Brotherhood supported the inference that Mills’ testimony was slanted or perhaps fabricated in respondent’s favor. A witness’ and a party’s common membership in an organization, even without proof that the witness or party has personally adopted its tenets, is certainly probative of bias. We do not read our holdings in Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203 (1961), and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969), to require a different conclusion. Those cases dealt with the constitutional requirements for convicting persons under the Smith Act and state syndicalism laws for belonging to organizations which espoused illegal aims and engaged in illegal conduct. Mills’ and respondent’s membership in the Aryan Brotherhood was not offered to convict either of a crime, but to impeach Mills’ testimony. Mills was subject to no sanction other than that he might be disbelieved. Under these circumstances there is no requirement that the witness must be shown to have subscribed to all the tenets of the organization, either casually or in a manner sufficient to permit him to be convicted under laws such as those involved in Scales and Brandenburg. For purposes of the law of evidence the jury may be permitted to draw an inference of subscription to the tenets of the organization from membership alone, even though such an inference would not be sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution under the Smith Act.
Respondent argues that even if the evidence of membership in the prison gang were relevant to show bias, the District Court erred in permitting a full description of the gang and its odious tenets. Respondent contends that the District Court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, because the prejudicial effect of the contested evidence outweighed its probative value. In other words, testimony about the gang inflamed the jury against respondent, and the chance that he would be convicted by his mere association with the organization outweighed any probative value the testimony may have had on Mills’ bias.
Respondent specifically contends that the District Court should not have permitted Ehle’s precise description of the gang as a lying and murderous group. Respondent suggests that the District Court should have cut off the testimony after the prosecutor had elicited that Mills knew respondent and both may have belonged to an organization together. This argument ignores the fact that the type of organization in which a witness and a party share membership may be relevant to show bias. If the organization is a loosely knit group having nothing to do with the subject matter of the litigation, the inference of bias arising from common membership may be small or nonexistent. If the prosecutor had elicited that both respondent and Mills belonged to the Book of the Month Club, the jury probably would not have inferred bias even if the District Court had admitted the testimony. The attributes of the Aryan Brotherhood — a secret prison sect sworn to perjury and self-protection — bore directly not only on the fact of bias but also on the source and strength of Mills’ bias. The tenets of this group showed that Mills had a powerful motive to slant his testimony towards respondent, or even commit perjury outright.
A district court is accorded a wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules. Assessing the probative value of common membership in any particular group, and weighing any factors counseling against admissibility is a matter first for the district court’s sound judgment under Rules 401 and 403 and ultimately, if the evidence is admitted, for the trier of fact.
Before admitting Ehle’s rebuttal testimony, the District Court gave heed to the extensive arguments of counsel, both in chambers and at the bench. In an attempt to avoid undue prejudice to respondent the court ordered that the name “Aryan Brotherhood” not be used. The court also offered to give a limiting instruction concerning the testimony, and it sustained defense objections to the prosecutor’s questions concerning the punishment meted out to unfaithful members. These precautions did not prevent all prejudice to respondent from Ehle’s testimony, but they did, in our opinion, ensure that the admission of this highly probative evidence did not unduly prejudice respondent. We hold there was no abuse of discretion under Rule 403 in admitting Ehle’s testimony as to membership and tenets.
Respondent makes an additional argument based on Rule 608(b). That Rule allows a cross-examiner to impeach a witness by asking him about specific instances of past conduct, other than crimes covered by Rule 609, which are probative of his veracity or “character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” The Rule limits the inquiry to cross-examination of the witness, however, and prohibits the cross-examiner from introducing extrinsic evidence of the witness’ past conduct.
Respondent claims that the prosecutor cross-examined Mills about the gang not to show bias but to offer Mills’ membership in the gang as past conduct bearing on his veracity. This was error under Rule 608(b), respondent contends, because the mere fact of Mills’ membership, without more, was not sufficiently probative of Mills’ character for truthfulness. Respondent cites a second error under the same Rule, contending that Ehle’s rebuttal testimony concerning the gang was extrinsic evidence offered to impugn Mills’ veracity, and extrinsic evidence is barred by Rule 608(b).
The Court of Appeals appears to have accepted respondent’s argument to this effect, at least in part. It said:
“Ehle’s testimony was not simply a matter of showing that Abel’s and Mills’ membership in the same organization might ‘cause [Mills], consciously or otherwise, to color his testimony.’ . . . Rather it was to show as well that because Mills and Abel were members of a gang whose members ‘will lie to protect the members,’ Mills must be lying on the stand.” 707 F. 2d, at 1016.
It seems clear to us that the proffered testimony with respect to Mills’ membership in the Aryan Brotherhood sufficed to show potential bias in favor of respondent; because of the tenets of the organization described, it might also impeach his veracity directly. But there is no rule of evidence which provides that testimony admissible for one purpose and inadmissible for another purpose is thereby rendered inadmissible; quite the contrary is the case. It would be a strange rule of law which held that relevant, competent evidence which tended to show bias on the part of a witness was nonetheless inadmissible because it also tended to show that the witness was a liar.
We intimate no view as to whether the evidence of Mills’ membership in an organization having the tenets ascribed to the Aryan Brotherhood would be a specific instance of Mills’ conduct which could not be proved against him by extrinsic evidence except as otherwise provided in Rule 608(b). It was enough that such evidence could properly be found admissible to show bias.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
707 F. 2d 1013 (1983).
In Scales and Brandenburg we discussed the First Amendment right of association as it bore on the right of persons freely to associate in political groups, short of participating in unlawful activity. See 395 U. S., at 449; 367 U. S., at 229-230. Whatever First Amendment associational rights an inmate may have to join a prison group, see Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U. S. 119 (1977), those rights were not implicated by Ehle’s rebuttal of Mills.
Rule 403 provides:
“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
Rule 608(b) provides in pertinent part:
“(b) Specific instances of conduct. — Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness . . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Rule 3003(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure sets out the requirements for filing proofs of claim in Chapter 9 Municipality and Chapter 11 Reorganization cases. Rule 3003(c)(3) provides that the “court shall fix and for cause shown may extend the time within which proofs of claim or interest may be filed.” Rule 9006 is a general rule governing the computation, enlargement, and reduction of periods of time prescribed in other bankruptcy rules. Rule 9006(b)(1) empowers a bankruptcy court to permit a late filing if the movant’s failure to comply with an earlier deadline “was the result of excusable neglect.” In this case, we are called upon to decide whether an attorney’s inadvertent failure to file a proof of claim within the deadline set by the court can constitute “excusable neglect” within the meaning of the Rule. Finding that it can, we affirm.
HH
On April 12, 1989, petitioner filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The petition sought relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Petitioner also filed a list of its 20 largest unsecured creditors, including all but one of respondents here. The following month, after obtaining extensions of time from the Bankruptcy Court, petitioner filed a statement of financial affairs and schedules of its assets and liabilities. The schedules, as amended, listed all of the respondents except Ft. Oglethorpe Associates Limited Partnership as creditors holding contingent, unliqui-dated, or disputed claims; the Ft. Oglethorpe partnership was not listed at all. Under § 1111 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1111(a), and Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(2), all such creditors are required to file a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court before the deadline, or “bar date,” established by the court.
On April 13,1989, the day after petitioner filed its Chapter 11 petition, the Bankruptcy Court mailed a “Notice for Meeting of Creditors” to petitioner’s creditors. Along with the announcement of a May 5 meeting was the following passage:
“You must file a proof of claim if your claim is scheduled as disputed, contingent or unliquidated, is unlisted or you do not agree with the amount. See 11 U. S. C. Sec. 1111 & Bankruptcy rule 3003. Bar date is August 3, 1989.” App. 29a.
The notice was received and read by Mark A. Berlin, president of the corporate general partners of each of the respondents. Berlin duly attended the creditors’ meeting on May 5. The following month, respondents retained an experienced bankruptcy attorney, Marc Richards, to represent them in the proceedings. Berlin stated in an affidavit that he provided Richards with a complete copy of the case file, including a copy of the court’s April 13,1989, notice to creditors. Berlin also asserted that he inquired of Richards whether there was a deadline for filing claims and that Richards assured him that no bar date had been set and that there was no urgency in filing proofs of claim. Id., at 121a. Richards and Berlin both attended a subsequent meeting of creditors on June 16, 1989.
Respondents failed to file any proofs of claim by the August 3, 1989, bar date. On August 23, 1989, respondents filed their proofs, along with a motion that the court permit the late filing under Rule 9006(b)(1). In particular, respondents’ counsel explained that the bar date, of which he was unaware, came at a time when he was experiencing “a major and significant disruption” in his professional life caused by his withdrawal from his former law firm on July 31, 1989. Id., at 56a. Because of this disruption, counsel did not have access to his copy of the case file in this matter until mid-August. Ibid.
The Bankruptcy Court refused the late filing. Following precedent from the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court held that a party may claim “excusable neglect” only if its “ ‘failure to timely perform a duty was due to circumstances which were beyond [its] reasonable [control.’ ” Id., at 124a (quoting In re South Atlantic Financial Corp., 767 F. 2d 814, 817 (CA11 1985) (some internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied sub nom. Biscayne 21 Condominium Associates, Inc. v. South Atlantic Financial Corp., 475 U. S. 1015 (1986)). Finding that respondents had received notice of the bar date and could have complied, the court ruled that they could not claim “excusable neglect.”
On appeal, the District Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found “respectable authority for the narrow reading of ‘excusable neglect’ ” adopted by the Bankruptcy Court, but concluded that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit would follow “a more liberal approach.” App. 157a. Embracing a test announced by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the District Court remanded with instructions that the Bankruptcy Court evaluate respondents’ conduct against several factors, including: “ ‘ “(1) whether granting the delay will prejudice the debtor; (2) the length of the delay and its impact on efficient court administration; (3) whether the delay was beyond the reasonable control of the person whose duty it was to perform; (4) whether the creditor acted in good faith; and (5) whether clients should be penalized for their counsel’s mistake or neglect.” ’ ” Id., at 158a~159a (quoting In re Dix, 95 B. R. 134, 138 (CA9 Bkrtcy. Appellate Panel 1988) (in turn quoting In re Magouirk, 693 F. 2d 948, 951 (CA9 1982))). The District Court also suggested that the Bankruptcy Court consider whether the failure to comply with the bar date “resulted from negligence, indifference or culpable conduct on the part of a moving creditor or its counsel.” App. 159a.
On remand, the Bankruptcy Court applied the so-called Dix factors and. again denied respondents’ motion. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court found (1) that petitioner would not be prejudiced by the late filings; (2) that the 20-day delay in filing the proofs of claim would have no adverse impact on efficient court administration; (3) that the reason for the delay was not outside respondents’ control; (4) that respondents and their counsel acted in good faith; and (5) that, in light of Berlin’s business sophistication and his actual knowledge of the bar date, it would not be improper to penalize respondents for the neglect of their counsel. App. 168a-172a. The court also found that respondents’ counsel was negligent in missing the bar date and, “[t]o a degree,” indifferent to it. Id., at 172a. In weighing these considerations, the Bankruptcy Court “attache[d] considerable importance to Dix factors 3 and 5,” and concluded that a ruling in respondents’ favor, notwithstanding their actual notice of the bar date, “would render nugatory the fixing of the claims’ bar-date in this case.” Id., at 173a. The District Court affirmed the ruling.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that “excusable neglect” was not limited to cases where the failure to act was due to circumstances beyond the movant’s control. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the District Court that the five “Dix factors” were helpful, although not necessarily exhaustive, guides. In re Pioneer Investment Services Co., 943 F. 2d 673, 677 (1991). The court found, however, that the Bankruptcy Court had misapplied the fifth Dix factor to this case. Because Berlin had inquired of counsel whether there were any impending filing deadlines and been told that none existed, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Bankruptcy Court had “inappropriately penalized the [respondents] for the errors of their counsel.” 943 F. 2d, at 677.
The Court of Appeals also found “it significant that the notice containing the bar date was incorporated in a document entitled ‘Notice for Meeting of Creditors.’ ” Id., at 678. “Such a designation,” the court explained, “would not have put those without extensive experience in bankruptcy on notice that the date appended to the end of this notice was intended to be the final date for filing proof of claims'.” Ibid. Indeed, based on a comparison between the notice in this case and the model notice set out in Official Bankruptcy Form 16, the court concluded that the notice given respondents contained a “dramatic ambiguity,” which could well have confused “[e]ven persons experienced in bankruptcy.” Ibid. Having determined that the fifth Dix factor favored respondents rather than petitioner, the Court of Appeals found that the record demonstrated “excusable neglect.”
Because of the conflict in the Courts of Appeals over the meaning of “excusable neglect,” we granted certiorari, 504 U. S. 984 (1992), and now affirm.
II
A
There is, of course, a range of possible explanations for a party’s failure to comply with a court-ordered filing deadline. At one end of the spectrum, a party may be prevented from complying by forces beyond its control, such as by an act of God or unforeseeable human intervention. At the other, a party simply may choose to flout a deadline. In between lie cases where a party may choose to miss a deadline although for a very good reason, such as to render first aid to an accident victim discovered on the way to the courthouse, as well as cases where a party misses a deadline through inadvertence, miscalculation, or negligence. Petitioner contends that the Bankruptcy Court was correct when it first interpreted Rule 9006(b)(1) to require a showing that the mov-ant’s failure to comply with the court’s deadline was caused by circumstances beyond its reasonable control. Petitioner suggests that exacting enforcement of filing deadlines is essential to the Bankruptcy Code’s goals of certainty and finality in resolving disputed claims. Under petitioner’s view, any showing of fault on the part of the late filer would defeat a claim of “excusable neglect.”
We think that petitioner’s interpretation is not consonant with either the language of the Rule or the evident purposes underlying it. First, the Rule grants a reprieve to out-of-time filings that were delayed by “neglect.” The ordinary meaning of “neglect” is “to give little attention or respect” to a matter, or, closer to the point for our purposes, “to leave undone or unattended to especially] through carelessness.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 791 (1983) (emphasis added). The word therefore encompasses both simple, faultless omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by carelessness. Courts properly assume, absent sufficient indication to the contrary, that Congress intends the words in its enactments to carry “their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42 (1979). Hence, by empowering the courts to accept late filings “where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect,” Rule 9006(b)(1), Congress plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted, where appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control.
Contrary to petitioner’s suggestion, this flexible understanding of “excusable neglect” accords with the policies underlying Chapter 11 and the bankruptcy rules. The “excusable neglect” standard of Rule 9006(b)(1) governs late filings of proofs -of claim in Chapter 11 cases but not in Chapter 7 cases. The rules’ differentiation between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 filings corresponds with the differing policies of the two chapters. Whereas the aim of a Chapter 7 liquidation is the prompt closure and distribution of the debtor’s estate, Chapter 11 provides for reorganization with the aim of rehabilitating the debtor and avoiding forfeitures by creditors. See United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U. S. 198, 203 (1983). In overseeing this latter process, the bankruptcy courts are necessarily entrusted with broad equitable powers to balance the interests of the affected parties, guided by the overriding goal of ensuring the success of the reorganization. See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 466 U. S. 513, 627-528 (1984). This context suggests that Rule 9006’s allowance for late filings due to “excusable neglect” entails a correspondingly equitable inquiry.
The history of the present bankruptcy rules confirms this view. Rule 9006(b) is derived from Rule 906(b) of the former bankruptcy rules, which governed bankruptcy proceedings under the former Bankruptcy Act. Like Rule 9006(b)(1), former Rule 906(b) permitted courts to accept late filings “where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” The forerunner of Rule 3003(c), which now establishes the requirements for filing claims in Chapter 11 cases, was former Rule 10-401(b), which established the filing requirements for proofs of claim in reorganization cases under Chapter X of the former Act, Chapter ll’s predecessor. The Advisory Committee’s Notes accompanying that former Rule make clear that courts were entrusted with the authority under Rules 10-401(b) and 906(b) to accept tardy filings “in accordance with the equities of the situation”:
“If the court has fixed a bar date for the filing of proofs of claim, it may still enlarge that time within the provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 906(b) which is made applicable in this subdivision. This policy is in accord with Chapter X generally which is to preserve rather than to forfeit rights. In § 102 it rejects the notion expressed in §57n of the Act that claims must be filed within a six-month period to participate in any distribution. Section 224(4) of Chapter X of the Act permits distribution to certain creditors even if they fail to file claims and § 204 fixes a minimum period of 5 years before distribution rights under a plan may be forfeited. This approach was intentional as expressed in Senate Report 1916 (75th Cong., 3d Sess., April 20, 1938):
“ ‘Sections 204 and 205 insure participation in the benefits of the reorganization to those who, through inadvertence or otherwise, have failed to file their claims or otherwise evidence their interests during the pendency of the proceedings.’
“This attitude is carried forward in the rules, first by dispensing with the need to file proofs of claims and stock interests in most instances and, secondly, by permitting enlargement of the fixed bar date in a particular case with leave of court and for cause shown in accordance with the equities of the situation.” Advisory Committee’s Note accompanying Rule 10-401(b), reprinted in 13A J. Moore & L. King, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 10-401.01, p. 10-401-4 (14th ed. 1977).
This history supports our conclusion that the enlargement of prescribed time periods under the “excusable neglect” standard of Rule 9006(b)(1) is not limited to situations where the failure to timely file is due to circumstances beyond the control of the filer.
Our view that the phrase “excusable neglect” found in Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1) is not limited as petitioner would have it is also strongly supported by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which use that phrase in several places. Indeed, Rule 9006(b)(1) was patterned after Rule 6(b) of those Rules. Under Rule 6(b), where the specified period for the performance of an act has elapsed, a district court may enlarge the period and permit the tardy act where the omission is the “result of excusable neglect.” As with Rule 9006(b)(1), there is no indication that anything other than the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase was intended by its drafters. It is not surprising, then, that in applying Rule 6(b), the Courts of Appeals have generally recognized that “excusable neglect” may extend to inadvertent delays. Although inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute “excusable” neglect, it is clear that “excusable neglect” under Rule 6(b) is a somewhat “elastic concept” and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.
The “excusable neglect” standard for allowing late filings is also used elsewhere in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When a party should have asserted a counterclaim but did not, Rule 13(f) permits the counterclaim to be set up by amendment where the omission is due to “oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires.” In the context of such a provision, it is difficult indeed to imagine that “excusable neglect” was intended to be limited as petitioner insists it should be.
The same is true of Rule 60(b)(1), which permits courts to reopen judgments for reasons of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” but only on motion made within one year of the judgment. Rule 60(b)(6) goes further, however, and empowers the court to reopen a judgment even after one year has passed for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” These provisions are mutually exclusive, and thus a party who failed to take timely action due to “excusable neglect” may not seek relief more than a year after the judgment by resorting to subsection (6). Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U. S. 847, 863, and n. 11 (1988). To justify relief under subsection (6), a party must show “extraordinary circumstances” suggesting that the party is faultless in the delay. See ibid.; Ackermann v. United States, 340 U. S. 193, 197-200 (1950); Klapprott v. United States, 335 U. S. 601, 613-614 (1949). If a party is partly to blame for the delay, relief must be sought within one year under subsection (1) and the party’s neglect must be excusable. In Klapprott, for example, the petitioner had been effectively prevented from taking a timely appeal of a judgment by incarceration, ill health, and other factors beyond his reasonable control. Four years after a default judgment had been entered against him, he sought to reopen the matter under Rule 60(b) and was permitted to do so. As explained by Justice Black:
“It is contended that the one-year limitation [of subsection (1)] bars petitioner on the premise that the petition to set aside the judgment showed, at most, nothing but ‘excusable neglect.’ And of course, the one-year limitation would control if no more than ‘neglect’ was disclosed by the petition. In that event the petitioner could not avail himself of the broad ‘any other reason’ clause of 60(b). But petitioner’s allegations set up an extraordinary situation which cannot fairly or logically be classified as mere ‘neglect’ on his part. The undenied facts set out in the petition reveal far more than a failure to defend... due to inadvertence, indifference, or careless disregard of consequences.” Id., at 613.
Justice Frankfurter, although dissenting on other grounds, agreed that Klapprott’s allegations of inability to comply with earlier deadlines took his case outside the scope of “excusable neglect” “because ‘neglect’ in the context of its subject matter carries the idea of negligence and not merely of non-action.” Id., at 630.
Thus, at least for purposes of Rule 60(b), “excusable neglect” is understood to encompass situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence. Because of the language and structure of Rule 60(b), a party’s failure to file on time for reasons beyond his or her control is not considered to constitute “neglect.” See Klapprott, supra. This latter result, however, would not obtain under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1). Had respondents here been prevented from complying with the bar date by an act of God or some other circumstance beyond their control, the Bankruptcy Court plainly would have been permitted to find “excusable neglect.” At the same time, reading Rule 9006(b)(1) inflexibly to exclude every instance of an inadvertent or negligent omission would ignore the most natural meaning of the word “neglect” and would be at odds with the accepted meaning of that word in analogous contexts.
B
This leaves, of course, the Rule’s requirement that the party’s neglect of the bar date be “excusable.” It is this requirement that we believe will deter ^editors or other parties from freely ignoring court-ordered deadlines in the hopes of winning a permissive reprieve under Rule 9006(b)(1). With regard to determining whether a party’s neglect of a deadline is excusable, we are in substantial agreement with the factors identified by the Court of Appeals. Because Congress has provided no other guideposts for determining what sorts of neglect will be considered “excusable,” we conclude that the determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. These include, as the Court of Appeals found, the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith. See 943 F. 2d, at 677.
There is one aspect of the Court of Appeals' analysis, however, with which we disagree. The Court of Appeals suggested that it would be inappropriate to penalize respondents for the omissions of their attorney, reasoning that “the ultimate responsibility of filing the... proof[s] of clai[m] rested with [respondents’] counsel.” Ibid. The court also appeared to focus its analysis on whether respondents did all they reasonably could in policing the conduct of their attorney, rather than on whether their attorney, as respondents’ agent, did all he reasonably could to comply with the court-ordered bar date. In this, the court erred.
In other contexts, we have held that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys. In Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626 (1962), we held that a client may be made to suffer the consequence of dismissal of its lawsuit because of its attorney’s failure to attend a scheduled pretrial conference. In so concluding, we found “no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner’s claim because of his counsel’s unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty-on the client.”. Id., at 633. To the contrary,-, the Court wrote:
“Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have ‘notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.’” Id., at 633-634 (quoting Smith v. Ayer, 101 U. S. 320, 326 (1880)).
This principle also underlies our decision in United States v. Boyle, 469 U. S. 241 (1985), that a client could be penalized for counsel’s tardy filing of a tax return. This principle applies with equal force here and requires that respondents be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their chosen counsel. Consequently, in determining whether respondents’ failure to file their proofs of claim prior to the bar date was excusable, the proper focus is upon whether the neglect of respondents and their counsel was excusable.
Ill
Although the Court of Appeals in this case erred in not attributing to respondents the fault of their counsel, we conclude that its result was correct nonetheless. First, petitioner does not challenge the findings made below concerning the respondents’ good faith and the absence of any danger of prejudice to the debtor or of disruption to efficient judicial administration posed by the late filings. Nor would we be inclined in any event to unsettle factual findings entered by a Bankruptcy Court and affirmed by both the District Court and Court of Appeals. See Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U. S. 656, 665 (1987). Indeed, in this case, the Bankruptcy Court took judicial notice of the fact that the debtor’s second amended plan of reorganization, offered after this litigation was well underway, takes account of respondents’ claims. App. 168a-169a. As the Court of Appeals found, the lack of any prejudice to the debtor or to the interests of efficient judicial administration, combined with the good faith of respondents and their counsel, weigh strongly in favor of permitting the tardy claim.
In assessing the culpability of respondents’ counsel, we give little weight to the fact that counsel was experiencing upheaval in his law practice at the time of the bar date. We do, however, consider significant that the notice of the bar date provided by the Bankruptcy Court in this case was outside the ordinary course in bankruptcy cases. As the Court of Appeals noted, ordinarily the bar date in a bankruptcy case should be prominently announced and accompanied by an explanation of its significance. See 943 F. 2d, at 678. We agree with the court that the “peculiar and inconspicuous placement of the bar date in a notice regarding a creditors!’] meeting,” without any indication of the significance of the bar date, left a “dramatic ambiguity” in the notification. Ibid. This is not to say, of course, that respondents’ counsel was not remiss in failing to apprehend the notice. To be sure, were there any evidence of prejudice to petitioner or to judicial administration in this case, or any indication at all of bad faith, we could not say that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in declining to find the neglect to be “excusable.” In the absence of such a showing, however, we conclude that the unusual form of notice employed in this case requires a finding that the neglect of respondents’ counsel was, under all the circumstances, “excusable.”
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c), in relevant part, provides:
“(c) Filing Proof of Claim.
“(1) Who May File. Any creditor or indenture trustee may file a proof of claim within the time prescribed by subdivision (c)(3) of this rule.
“(2) Who Must File. Any creditor or.equity security holder whose claim or interest is not scheduled or scheduled as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated shall file a proof of claim or interest within the time prescribed by subdivision (c)(3) of this rule; any creditor who fails to do so shall not be treated as a creditor with respect to such claim for the purposes of voting and distribution.
“(3) Time for Filing. The court shall fix and for cause shown may extend the time within which proofs of claim or interest may be filed. Notwithstanding the expiration of such time, a proof of claim may be filed to the extent and under the conditions stated in Rule 3002(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4).”
Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) provides:
“(b) Enlargement.
“(1) In General. Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subdivision, when an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified period by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if the request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order or (2) on motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.
“(2) Enlargement Not Permitted. The court may not enlarge the time for taking action under Rules 1007(d), 1017(b)(3), 2003(a) and (d), 7062, 9023, and 9024.
“(3) Enlargment Limited. The 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.”
The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have taken a narrow view of “excusable neglect” under Rule 9006(b)(1), requiring a showing that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the movant’s control. See In re Davis, 936 F. 2d 771, 774 (CA4 1991); In re Danielson, 981 F. 2d 296, 298 (CA7 1992); Hanson v. First Bank of South Dakota, N. A., 828 F. 2d 1310, 1314-1315 (CA8 1987); In re Analytical Systems, Inc., 933 F. 2d 939, 942 (CA11 1991). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, by contrast, has applied a more flexible analysis similar to that employed by the Court of Appeals in the present case. In re Centric Corp., 901 F. 2d 1514, 1517-1518, cert. denied sub nom. Trustees of Centennial State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Centric Corp., 498 U. S. 852 (1990). The Courts of Appeals similarly have divided in their interpretations of “excusable neglect” as found in Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Some courts have required a showing that the movant’s failure to meet the deadline was beyond its control, see, e. g., 650 Park Ave. Corp. v. McRae, 836 F. 2d 764, 767 (CA2 1988); Pratt v. McCarthy, 850 F. 2d 590, 592 (CA9 1988), while others have adopted a more flexible approach similar to that employed by the Court of Appeals in this case, see, e. g., Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Larson, 827 F. 2d 916 (CA3 1987), cert. denied sub nom. Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Secretary of Transp. of Pennsylvania, 484 U. S. 1032 (1988); Lorenzen v. Employees Retirement Plan of Sperry-Hutchinson Co., 896 F. 2d 228, 232-233 (CA7 1990).
The time-computation and time-extension provisions of Rule 9006, like those of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, are generally applicable to any time requirement found elsewhere in the rules unless expressly excepted. Subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of Rule 9006 enumerate those time requirements excluded from the operation of the “excusable neglect” standard. One of the time requirements listed as excepted in Rule 9006(b)(3) is that governing the filing of proofs of claim in Chapter 7 cases. Such filings are governed exclusively by Rule 3002(e). See Rule 9006(b)(3); In re Coastal Alaska Lines, Inc., 920 F. 2d 1428, 1432 (CA9 1990). By contrast, Rule 9006(b) does not make a similar exception for Rule 3003(c), which, as noted earlier, establishes the time requirements for proofs of claim in Chapter 11 cases. Consequently, Rule 9006(b)(1) must be construed to govern the permissibility of late filings in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. See Advisory Committee’s Note accompanying Rule 9006(b)(1).
See Advisory Committee’s Note accompanying Rule 9006(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) provides:
“(b) Enlargement. When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), 60(b), and 74(a), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.”
See, e. g., United States v. Borromeo, 945 F. 2d 750, 753-754 (CA4 1991); Hill v. Marshall, No. 86-3987, 1988 U. S. App. LEXIS 14742, *4 (CA6, Nov. 4, 1988); Dominic v. Hess Oil V. I. Corp., 841 F. 2d 513, 517 (CA3 1988); Sony Corp. v. Elm State Electronics, Inc., 800 F. 2d 317, 319 (CA2 1986); United States ex rel. Robinson v. Bar Assn. of District of Columbia, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 185, 186, 190 F. 2d 664, 665 (1951). But see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp., 931 F. 2d 1551, 1552-1553 (CA Fed. 1991).
4A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165, p. 479 (2d ed. 1987).
The Courts of Appeals generally have given a similar interpretation to “excusable neglect” in the context of Rule 45(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which, like Rule 9006(b), was modeled after Rule 6(b). See, e. g., United States v. Roberts, 978 F. 2d 17, 21-24 (CA1 1992); Warren v. United States, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 160, 163, 358 F. 2d 627, 530 (1965); Calland v. United States, 323 F. 2d 405, 407-408 (CA7 1963).
In assessing what constitutes “excusable neglect” under Rule 13(f), the lower courts have looked, inter alia, to the good faith of the claimant, the extent of the delay, and the danger of prejudice to the opposing party. See, e. g., New York Petroleum Corp. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 757 F. 2d 288, 291 (Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. 1985); Gaines v. Farese, No. 87-5567, 1990 U. S. App. LEXIS 18086,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner is a common carrier authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to transport commodities. When respondent allegedly failed to pay $661.41 in motor freight charges, petitioner filed suit in United States District Court. Its complaint alleged that respondent failed to pay for transport services as required by petitioner’s tariffs on file with the Commission. The complaint also alleged that the action arose under the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 10741(a) (1976 ed., Supp. V), and that the District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1337.
The District Court dismissed the matter for want of subject-matter jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 682 F. 2d 811 (1982). Characterizing the suit as a “simple contract-collection action,” the court could not “discern any proposition of federal law that a court need confront in deciding what, if anything, can be recovered.” Id., at 812.
Under the Interstate Commerce Act, as construed by this Court, the Court of Appeals was in error. In Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Rice, 247 U. S. 201 (1918), this Court squarely held that federal-question jurisdiction existed over a suit to recover $145 allegedly due the carrier for an interstate shipment under tariffs regulated by the Interstate Commerce Act.
“The Interstate Commerce Act requires carrier to collect and consignee to pay all lawful charges duly prescribed by the tariff in respect of every shipment. Their duty and obligation grow out of and depend upon that act.” Id., at 202.
Other federal courts have had no difficulty in following the clear import of Rice. See Madler v. Artoe, 494 F. 2d 323 (CA7 1974); Bernstein Bros. Pipe & Machinery Co. v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 193 F. 2d 441 (CA10 1951); Maritime Service Corp. v. Sweet Brokerage De Puerto Rico, Inc., 537 F. 2d 560 (CA1 1976).
The Court of Appeals’ attempt to distinguish this “most troublesome precedent” is wholly unconvincing. In its view, Rice turned upon the fact that the carrier billed the shipper for an additional amount that, while authorized by lawful tariffs, was contrary to the parties’ understanding. Unlike petitioner’s complaint, the complaint in Rice could not have alleged that the shipper agreed to pay the amount sought; the carrier there had to rely exclusively on the Act to override the parties’ understanding. There is no support for this novel interpretation in Rice or elsewhere. That the consignee attempted to avoid payment by invoking an estoppel defense is an accurate enough portrayal of the facts, but does not obscure that the claim arose under federal law. “As to interstate shipments,” the Court stated, “the parties are held to the responsibilities imposed by the federal law, to the exclusion of all other rules of obligation.” 247 U. S., at 203. A carrier’s claim is, of necessity, predicated on the tariff— not an understanding with the shipper. This was true in Rice and is equally true here. Under the Court of Appeals’ approach, the question of federal jurisdiction would depend upon the defenses pleaded by the shipper — but we have long ago settled that it is the character of the action and not the defense which determines whether there is federal-question jurisdiction. Public Service Comm’n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237, 248 (1952); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco Inc., 415 U. S. 125, 127 (1974). In short, the Court of Appeals has simply confused the factual contours of Rice for its unmistakable holding.
Perhaps unsure of its distinction of Rice, the Court of Appeals went on to “doubt that Rice is still good law.” Needless to say, only this Court may overrule one of its precedents. Until that occurs, Rice is the law, and the decision below cannot be reconciled with it. The petition for certio-rari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
In Rice, the parties had an understanding requiring the carrier to assess all charges immediately upon the delivery of livestock. This arrangement allowed the shipper to include the transportation costs in the price at which the livestock was sold. The dispute resulted from the carrier’s billing the shipper after the delivery and sale of the livestock for an additional $145 to cover disinfecting the freight cars. This additional charge complied with lawful tariffs.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the sale of 50% of the stock of a company is a securities transaction subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws (the Acts).
I
In 1980, respondent Ruefenacht (hereafter respondent) purchased 2,500 shares of the stock of Continental Import & Export, Inc., an importer of wine and spirits, from Joachim Birkle. Birkle was Continental’s president and had owned 100% of the company’s stock prior to the time of the sale. The 2,500 shares, for which respondent paid $250,000, represented 50% of Continental’s outstanding stock.
According to respondent, he purchased the stock in reliance on financial documents and oral representations made by Birkle; Christopher O’Halloran, a certified public accountant; and petitioner Gould, Continental’s corporate counsel. Part of the consideration for the deal was a promise by respondent that he would participate in the firm’s management. The record reveals that he helped solicit contracts for the firm, participated in some hiring decisions, signed a banking resolution so that he could endorse corporate checks in Birkle’s absence, and engaged in other more minor pursuits. All the while, however, respondent remained a full-time employee of another corporation, and his actions on behalf of Continental were at all times subject to Birkle’s veto.
After respondent paid $120,000 of the stock’s purchase price, he began to doubt the accuracy of some of the representations made to him by Birkle and others. Respondent subsequently filed this suit, alleging violations of §§ 12(2) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act), 15 U. S. C. §§77£(2), 77q. He also alleged violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 15 U. S. C. §78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (1984). The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the stock respondent purchased was not a “security” within the meaning of § 3(a)(10) of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78c(a)(10), and §2(1) of the 1933 Act, 15 U. S. C. §77b(1). Finding that respondent intended to manage Continental jointly with Birkle, the court concluded that the sale of business doctrine prevented application of the Acts.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. Ruefenacht v. O’Halloran, 737 F. 2d 320 (1984). It ruled that the plain language of the Acts’ definitions of “security” included the stock at issue here, and it disagreed with the District Court’s conclusion that the sale of business doctrine must be applied in every case to determine whether an instrument is a “security” within the meaning of the Acts. Because the Courts of Appeals are divided over the applicability of the sale of business doctrine to sales of stock arguably transferring control of a closely held business, we granted certiorari. 469 U. S. 1016 (1984). For the reasons stated in our decision announced today in Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, ante, p. 681, we now affirm.
HH HH
In Landreth, we held that where an instrument bears the label “stock” and possesses all of the characteristics typically associated with stock, see United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U. S. 837, 851 (1975), a court will not be required to look beyond the character of the instrument to the economic substance of the transaction to determine whether the stock is a “security” within the meaning of the Acts. The instruments respondent purchased were called “stock,” and the District Court ruled that they possessed all of the characteristics listed by Forman that are usually associated with traditional stock. App. 50a. As we noted in Landreth, ante, at 687, the sale of stock in a corporation is typical of the kind of transaction to which the Acts by their terms apply. We conclude that the stock purchased by respondent is a “security” within the meaning of the Acts, and that the sale of business doctrine does not apply.
I — I HH HH
Aside from the language of the Acts and the characteristics of the instruments, there are sound policy reasons for rejecting the sale of business doctrine as a rule of decision in cases involving the sale of traditional stock in a closely held corporation. As petitioner acknowledges, see Brief for Petitioner 27, application of the doctrine depends primarily in each case on whether control has passed to the purchaser. See, e. g., Sutter v. Groen, 687 F. 2d 197, 203 (CA7 1982); King v. Winkler, 673 F. 2d 342, 345 (CA11 1982); Frederiksen v. Poloway, 637 F. 2d 1147, 1148 (CA7), cert. denied, 451 U. S. 1017 (1981). Control, in turn, may not be determined simply by ascertaining what percentage of the company’s stock has been purchased. To be sure, in many cases, acquisition of more than 50% of the voting stock of a corporation effects a transfer of operational control. In other cases, however, even the ownership of more than 50% may not result in effective control. In still other cases, defacto operational control may be obtained by the acquisition of less than 50%. These seemingly inconsistent results stem from the fact that actual control may also depend on such variables as voting rights, veto rights, or requirements for a super-majority vote on issues pertinent to company management, such as may be required by state law or the company’s certificate of incorporation or its bylaws. See Golden v. Garafalo, 678 F. 2d 1139, 1146 (CA2 1982) (“In ‘economic reality,’ considerably less than 100%, and often less than 50%, of outstanding shares may be a controlling block which, when sold to a single holder, effectively transfers the power to manage the business”); King v. Winkler, supra, at 346 (application of the sale of business doctrine “is not [merely] a function of numbers”). Whether control has passed with the stock may also depend on how involved in management the purchaser intends to be, see Landreth, ante, at 695-696. Therefore, under respondent’s theory, the Acts’ applicability to a sale of stock such as that involved here would rarely be certain at the time of the transaction. Accord, Hazen, Taking Stock of Stock and the Sale of Closely Held Corporations, 61 N. C. L. Rev. 393, 406 (1983). Rather, it would depend on findings of fact made by a court — often only after extensive discovery and litigation.
Application of the sale of business doctrine also would lead to arbitrary distinctions between transactions covered by the Acts and those that are not. Because applicability of the Acts would depend on factors other than the type and characteristics of the instrument involved, a corporation’s stock could be determined to be a security as to the seller, but not as to the purchaser, or as to some purchasers but not others. Likewise, if the same purchaser bought small amounts of stock through several different transactions, it is possible that the Acts would apply as to some of the transactions, but not as to the one that gave him “control.” See Ruefenacht v. O’Halloran, 737 F. 2d, at 335. Such distinctions make little sense in view of the Acts’ purpose to protect investors. Moreover, the parties’ inability to determine at the time of the transaction whether the Acts apply neither serves the Acts’ protective purpose nor permits the purchaser to compensate for the added risk of no protection when negotiating the transaction.
IV
We conclude that the stock at issue here is a “security,” and that the sale of business doctrine does not apply. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is therefore
Affirmed.
[For dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens, see ante, p. 697.]
The complaint named as defendants O’Halloran, Birkle, and Continental, as well as petitioner Gould. Birkle and Continental defaulted for failure to appear. O’Halloran is a respondent under this Court’s Rule 19.6 and filed a brief urging that the decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed.
For example, although the sale of all of a corporation’s stock to a single buyer by a single seller would likely not constitute the sale of a security under the sale of business doctrine as to either party, the same sale to a single buyer by several sellers, none of whom exercised control, would probably be considered to be a securities transaction as to the sellers, but not as to the buyer. See Ruefenacht v. O’Halloran, 737 F. 2d 320, 335, and n. 36 (CA3 1984); McGrath v. Zenith Radio Corp., 651 F. 2d 458, 467-468, n. 5 (CA7), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 835 (1981); Seldin, When Stock is Not a Security, 37 Bus. Law. 637, 679 (1982).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 this case the United States appeals from a District Court decision upholding the merger of Third National Bank in Nashville and Nashville Bank and Trust Company against challenge under § 7 of the Clayton Act. The court below concluded that the merger, which joined the second largest and the fourth largest banks in Davidson County, Tennessee, into a bank which immediately after the merger was the county’s largest bank but since has become the second largest, would not tend substantially to lessen competition and also that any anticom-petitive effect would be outweighed by the “convenience and needs of the community to be served.” We disagree with the District Court on both issues. We hold that the United States established that this merger would tend to lessen competition, and also that the District Court did not point to community benefits in terms of “convenience and needs” sufficient to outweigh the anticompetitive impact.
I.
Like other urban centers in the Southeast, Nashville has grown steadily since World War II in both population and economic activity. Commercial banks, as “the intermediaries in most financial transactions,” grew along with their city. From 1955 to 1964, for example, total assets of all banks located in Davidson County increased from $548,300,000 to $1,053,700,000, an increase of 92.2%. The number of banks hardly changed. Indeed, since 1927 there has been only one new bank in the county, Capital City Bank, and at the time of this merger it had achieved only.9% of the county’s bank assets. The other banks at the time of the merger, and their percentage of total bank assets in Davidson County, were First American National, 38.3%; Third National, 33.6% ; Commerce Union, 21.2%; Nashville Bank, 4.8%; and three small banks, two of them located in Davidson County towns outside Nashville,.6%,.3%, and.3%. The merger before us thus joined one of the three very large banks in Nashville and the one middle-sized bank. Its result was to increase from 93.1% to 97.9% the percentage of total assets held by the three largest banks and from 71.9% to 76.7% the percentage held by the two largest institutions.
The two merging banks played significantly different roles in Nashville banking. Third National was characterized by the Comptroller of the Currency as one of the strongest and best managed banks in the Nation and by the District Court as “strong, dynamic and aggressive.” It had “a history of innovating services or promptly providing new services,” a recruitment program at local universities, a continuous audit program, and a legal lending limit of $2,000,000. It had 14 branches at the time of the merger and served as correspondent for smaller banks located throughout the central south.
Nashville Bank and Trust approached the merger with a more checkered history and a less dynamic present. Until 1956 it was largely a trust institution. In that year, under the direction of W. S. Hackworth, it changed its name from Nashville Trust Company and embarked on a drive to become a full-service commercial bank. This program enjoyed considerable success. Between 1955 and 1964, Nashville Bank’s deposits grew from $20,800,000 to $45,500,000, and its loans and discounts from $8,100,000 to $22,800,000. In both categories it grew faster than the county average and faster than Third National. This growth, however, occurred at a substantially faster rate before 1960 than after that year. Before 1960 it was growing more rapidly than the other banks in the county, and after that year more slowly. Its share of total Nashville banking business thus declined from a high of 5.72% on June 30, 1960, to 4.83% on June 30, 1964.
The District Court made elaborate findings as to why Nashville Bank and Trust “reached a plateau on which it remained until the date of the merger” and why in this period “it was a stagnant and floundering bank.” From those findings, and from the broad picture of Nashville Bank’s history and operations which emerges from the testimony and exhibits in this case, it appears that the principal reason was that key members of its management, the men who had been responsible for the bank’s progress in the late 1950’s, had advanced in age and either retired or slowed their activities. The bank’s officials nonetheless made but scant efforts to recruit and advance young talent. Nashville Bank paid substantially lower salaries than the other Nashville banks, had no funded pension plan, and conducted no systematic recruiting program. On January 1, 1964, the bank’s board of directors had 13 members, of whom four were 75 or over, nine were 65 or older, and 11 were 63 or older. Of the six department heads four were 65 or older and the other two were 59. The average age of the 15 officers working outside the trust department was over 60. The District Court painted in somber hues the banking policies and the economic results which seemed to flow from the failure to hire young talent. Essentially, Nashville Bank was not aggressive or efficient, and it had stopped growing, so that it could not open branches (it had only one) or embark on a correspondent banking program. It was nevertheless an institution of substantial size, with assets of $50,900,000 and deposits of $45,500,000. It was profitable, and it offered somewhat different services, occasionally at somewhat lower rates, than its competitors.
In January 1964, the individuals who had owned controlling shares of Nashville Bank and Trust decided to sell 10,845 shares, a controlling interest, to a group of prominent Nashville citizens headed by William Weaver. The price was $350 per share. In February 1964, the Weaver group opened negotiations looking to a merger with Commerce Union Bank, Nashville’s third largest. The negotiations were unsuccessful, however, because Weaver demanded $460 per share while Commerce Union offered only $360. Weaver then negotiated the sale to Third National, at a price of about $420 per share. The merger was approved by the boards of directors of both banks on March 12, 1964, and, after approval by the Comptroller of the Currency, was consummated on August 18, 1964.
II.
The legislative history of the Bank Merger Act of 1966 leaves no doubt that the Act was passed to make substantial changes in the law applicable to bank mergers. Congress was evidently dissatisfied with the 1960 Bank Merger Act as that Act was interpreted in United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321 (1963), and in United States v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Lexington, 376 U. S. 665 (1964), and wished to alter both the procedures by which the Justice Department challenges bank mergers and the legal standard which courts apply in judging those mergers. The resulting statute, however, as some members of Congress recognized, was more clear and more specific in prescribing new procedures for testing mergers than in expounding the new standard by which they should be judged.
Last Term, in United States v. First City National Bank of Houston, 386 U. S. 361 (1967), this Court interpreted the procedural provisions of the 1966 Act, holding that the Bank Merger Act provided for continued scrutiny of bank mergers under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, but had created a new defense, with the merging banks having the burden of proving that defense. The task of the district courts was to inquire de novo into the validity of a bank merger approved by the relevant bank regulatory agency to determine, first, whether the merger offended the antitrust laws and, second, if it did, whether the banks had established that the merger was nonetheless justified by “the convenience and needs of the community to be served.” Houston Bank reserved “all questions” concerning the substantive meaning of the “convenience and needs” defense. See 386 U. S., at 369, n. 1.
III.
The proceedings that have occurred until now regarding validity of the merger here before us have been scrambled and confused, largely because the relevant statute, the 1966 Bank Merger Act, became law just prior to the trial and did not receive its first interpretation by this Court, in Houston Bank, until the decision below had been rendered.
The two banks agreed to merge on March 12, 1964. On April 27, 1964, they applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for approval, as the 1960 Bank Merger Act required. Pursuant to that Act, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Department of Justice reported to the Comptroller of the Currency on “the competitive factors involved.” The Federal Reserve Board reported that the merger “would have clearly adverse effects on competition” by “eliminat[ing] direct competition which exists between participants and... increas [ing] significantly... already heavy concentration....” The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation reported that “the effect of the proposed merger on competition would be unfavorable.” The Department of Justice reported that the merger “would have severe anticompetitive effects upon banking competition in Metropolitan Nashville.” The Comptroller of the Currency, however, concluded that the merger would not lessen competition and would “improve the charter bank’s ability to serve the convenience and needs of the Nashville public.” On August 4, 1964, he approved the merger.
On August 10, 1964, the United States, as this Court’s decision in Philadelphia Bank authorized, sued in federal district court charging that the proposed merger was in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act and § 1 of the Sherman Act. On August 18, 1964, the District Court refused the Government’s request for a preliminary injunction staying consummation, and on that day the two banks merged.
The antitrust suit against the merger had not come to trial when, on February 21, 1966, the Bank Merger Act of 1966 took effect. Congress had devoted much attention to the impact of that Act on bank mergers still in the process of litigation. In § 2 of the Act, 80 Stat. 10, Congress excluded from all antitrust liability mergers which had been consummated before June 17, 1963, the date of this Court’s Philadelphia Bank decision, and those consummated between June 17, 1963, and February 21, 1966, as to which the Attorney General had not begun litigation on February 21, 1966. However, although Congress considered amendments which would have provided antitrust immunity also for those bank mergers consummated after June 17, 1963, and already the subject of litigation, a decision was made to leave those mergers subject to liability, apparently because the merging parties had known, from Philadelphia Bank, that their consummation was with the risk of an eventual order to dissolve. Congress did provide, in § 2 (c) of the Act, that courts hearing such cases “shall apply the substantive rule of law set forth” in the Act.
Since the trial had been held after the 1966 Act took effect, and since the Comptroller of the Currency and other witnesses, directed by counsel, had addressed themselves to the statutory language contained in that Act, the District Court saw no need to remand to the Comptroller for a new opinion in light of the Act, as was ordered in United States v. Crocker-Anglo National Bank, 263 F. Supp. 125 (D. C. N. D. Cal. 1966). Proceeding to decide the case, the District Judge held that under the new Act, violation of antitrust standards was “primarily a legal issue... [on which courts should make] an independent determination/’ while “convenience and needs of the community is, in the language of the Crocker-Anglo opinion, 'plainly and unquestionably a legislative or administrative determination’... [on which] the Comptroller’s findings should not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence.” The court concluded that the merger did not offend antitrust standards and that the Comptroller’s conclusion that it would benefit the community was supported by substantial evidence. The relief sought by the Justice Department was denied.
IV.
The District Court asserted that one effect of the Bank Merger Act of 1966 was to alter the standards used in determining whether a merger is in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act and § 1 of the Sherman Act. Essentially, the District Court mandated a return to United States v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495 (1948), which this Court has held to be “confined to its special facts.” Lexington Bank, 376 U. S., at 672. In later cases, especially Philadelphia Bank, supra; Lexington Bank, supra; United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 377 U. S. 271 (1964); and United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U. S. 441 (1964), this Court has rejected the Columbia Steel approach to determining whether a merger will tend “substantially to lessen competition.” We find in the 1966 Act, which adopted precisely that § 7 Clayton Act phrase, as well as the “restraint of trade” language of Sherman Act § 1, no intention to adopt an “antitrust standard” for bank cases different from that used generally in the law. Only one conclusion can be drawn from the exhaustive legislative deliberations that preceded passage of the Act: Congress intended bank mergers first to be subject to the usual antitrust analysis; if a merger failed that scrutiny, it was to be permissible only if the merging banks could establish that the merger’s benefits to the community would outweigh its anticompetitive disadvantages. See Houston Bank, supra. Congressman Minish spoke in tune with the language of the Act and the statements of his colleagues when he said:
“It should also be clear from the language of paragraph (5) (b) of this bill, which establishes this single standard, that the competitive factor to be used is drawn directly from Clayton Act section 7 and Sherman Act section 1. Thus, all of the principles developed over the last 75 years in regard to these statutes, such as the definition of relevant market and the failing company doctrine are carried forward unchanged by this proposed legislation.”
We therefore hold that the District Court employed an erroneous standard in applying § 7 of the Clayton Act to the merger. In addition we hold that, appraised by the test enunciated in recent Clayton Act cases, the tendency of the merger substantially to lessen competition is apparent. Nashville had three large banks and one of middle size. In this merger the bank of middle size was absorbed by the second largest of the big banks. By the merger the market share of the three largest banks rose from 93% to 98%; the merged bank alone had almost 40% of the Nashville banking business. In addition, the record is replete with evidence that Nashville Bank and Trust was in fact an important competitive element in certain, though not in all, facets of Nashville banking. It offered somewhat different services, at somewhat different rates, from those offered by other banks, and some customers found those services desirable. Although Nashville Bank failed to increase its percentage share of the Nashville banking market after 1960, the absolute size of its business increased steadily from 1956, when it entered seriously into the commercial banking market, to the date of the merger. Throughout this period it was profitable. The record permits no conclusion that Nashville Bank was in any way a “failing” company. See International Shoe Co. v. FTC, 280 U. S. 291 (1930). On these facts, the conclusion is inescapable that the merger of Third National Bank in Nashville with Nashville Bank and Trust Co. tended to lessen competition in the Nashville commercial banking market. Philadelphia Bank, supra.
V.
Because the District Court erroneously concluded that the merger would not tend to lessen competition, its conclusion upon weighing the competitive effect against the asserted benefits to the community is suspect. To weigh adequately one of these factors against the other requires a proper conclusion as to each. Having decided that the court below erred in assessing competitive impact, we should remand, so that the District Court can perform again the balancing process mandated by the Act.
There is, however, an additional reason to remand. In our view, the District Court misapprehended the meaning of the phrase “convenience and needs of the community”; it misunderstood the weight to be given the relevant factors when seeking to determine whether the anticompetitive effects of a merger are “clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.”
The purpose of the Bank Merger Act was to permit certain bank mergers even though they tended to lessen competition in the relevant market. Congress felt that the role of banks in a community’s economic life was such that the public interest would sometimes be served by a bank merger even though the merger lessened competition. The public interest was the ultimate test imposed. This is clear not only from the language of the Act but from the statements of those who supported it while the Act was under consideration:
“Mr. ASHLEY.... In other words, the merger must be shown to be sufficiently beneficial in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served that, on balance, it may properly be regarded as in the public interest.
“Mr. MULTER.... I believe it was the intention of the Congress originally in 1960 when we enacted the Bank Merger Act that the public interest should be paramount in making any determination with reference to a merger. The words 'in the public interest’ are again written into this bill now and will remain in the law so that there will be no question but that the courts and the agencies must take the public interest into account.
“Mr. ASHLEY. Is.the gentleman saying, as I believe he is, that it is the consensus of the committee, in drafting this bill, that the public interest is to be considered as combining the consideration both of the anticompetitive factors of a particular merger on the one hand, and, on the other, the needs and convenience of the community that may derive from that merger, which, as I say, may result in a diminution of competition; in other words, that the public interest has got to involve a consideration of both of these rather considerable factors?
“Mr. STEPHENS. That is correct....” 112 Cong. Rec. 2446, 2449, 2450.
It is plain that Congress considered both competition in commercial banking and satisfaction of “the convenience and needs of the community” to be in the public interest. It concluded that a merger should be judged in terms of its overall effect upon the public interest. If a merger posed a choice between preserving competition and satisfying the requirements of convenience and need, the injury and benefit were to be weighed and decision was to rest on which alternative better served the public interest.
The necessity of choosing is most clearly posed where the proposed merger would create an institution with capabilities for serving the public interest not possessed by either of the two merging institutions alone and where the potential could be realized only through merger. Thus, it might be claimed, as it is in this case, that a combined bank would have a greater lending capacity and hence be better equipped to serve the financial needs of the community. In Philadelphia Bank, 374 U. S., at 370-371, this Court, acting under the 1960 Bank Merger Act, rejected the relevance of the combined bank’s ability to serve Philadelphia by making large loans that could otherwise only be obtained in New York. The Court found no statutory authorization for considering such a benefit in appraising the legality of a merger. Expressions in Congress during consideration of the 1966 Act suggest that one purpose of that Act was to give this factor, not previously relevant in appraising bank mergers, suitable weight in judging their validity. In the case before us the District Court’s findings of fact suggest that the new bank, with a 20% greater lending limit than Third National Bank previously had, was able to make larger loans, for which Nashville area companies had previously to go to Chicago or New York. The District Court also stated that because Third National Bank operated with a.higher loans-to-deposits ratio than Nashville Bank and Trust, combining their deposits and applying the Third National Bank ratio to the total increased available lending capacity in Nashville by about $2,800,000. But the District Court was not specific in describing the beneficial consequences of such results for the Nashville community, or in defining the value of these additions, especially as compared with the other, and less desirable, results of the merger. Absent such findings, the increased lending capacity of the new bank weighs very little in the balance.
Congress was also concerned about banks in danger of collapse — banks not so deeply in trouble as to call forth the traditional “failing company” defense, but nonetheless in danger of becoming before long financially unsound institutions. Congress seems to have felt that a bank failure is a much greater community catastrophe than the failure of an industrial or retail enterprise, and that a much smaller risk of failure than that required by the failing company doctrine should be sufficient to justify the rather radical preventive step of an anticompeti-tive merger. The Findings of Fact of the District Court included the information that Nashville Bank and Trust Company had a higher than usual percentage of unsound loans, the result of unsatisfactory procedures for investigating and judging credit risks, and that its “rating” had been changed in 1962 from “satisfactory” to “fair.” The District Court drew no conclusion about the extent of the danger these conditions posed for Nashville Bank and Trust’s future, about the feasibility of curative measures short of merger, or about whether other healthy aspects of the bank’s condition — for instance its steady profitability, including after-tax earnings of $368,000 in 1963 — removed any danger of failure in the foreseeable ■future. Absent findings and conclusions of this nature, the District Court seemed to be holding that the merger should be approved simply because Nashville Bank and Trust Company could be a better bank and could render better banking services.
The District Court, it appears, considered the merger beneficial to the community because Nashville Bank and Trust had only one branch, because it had no program of correspondent banking, because its operations were not computerized, because it emphasized real estate loans rather than commercial loans, because its management was old and unable to render sound business advice to borrowers, because it was not recruiting new talent, and because its salary scale was low. Hence a merger was justified because it would solve these problems and produce an institution which, in the words of the House Report, would be capable of
“furnishing better overall service to the community, even though the reduction in the number of competing units, or the concentration in the share of the market in one or more lines of commerce, might result under general antitrust law criteria in a substantial lessening of competition.” H. R. Rep. No. 1221, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 3. (Emphasis in original.)
Undeniably, Nashville Bank and Trust had significant problems of the kind outlined in the findings of the District Court, problems which were primarily rooted in unsatisfactory and backward management. Just as surely, securing better banking service for the community is a proper element for consideration in weighing convenience and need against the loss of competition. Nor is there any doubt on this record that merger with Third National would very probably end the managerial problems of Nashville Bank and Trust and secure the better use of its assets in the public interest. Thus if the gains in better service outweighed the anticompetitive detriment and the merger was essential to secure this net gain to the public interest, the merger should be approved.
But this analysis puts aside possible ways of satisfying the requirement of convenience and need without resort to merger. If the injury to the public interest flowing from the loss of competition could be avoided and the convenience and needs of the community benefited in ways short of merger but within the competence of reasonably able businessmen, the situation is radically different. In such circumstances, we seriously doubt that Congress intended a merger to be authorized by either the banking agencies or the courts. If, for example, just prior to this merger, an experienced banker with competent associates had offered to take over the active management of the bank or another competent businessman with a willingness to tackle the management problems of the bank had offered to buy out the Weaver interests at an acceptable price, it seems obvious that the Weaver group, which seeks to justify the merger in terms of producing an institution rendering better banking service, should not be permitted to merge and to ignore an available alternative. Otherwise, the benefits of competition, acknowledged by Congress, would be sacrificed needlessly. For the same reasons, we think it was incumbent upon those seeking to merge in this case to demonstrate that they made reasonable efforts to solve the management dilemma of Nashville Bank short of merger with a major competitor but failed in these attempts, or that any such efforts would have been unlikely to succeed.
This seems to us the most rational reading of the Act, which was a compromise and satisfied none of the protagonists in this extended controversy. The Act directs the agencies and the courts to consider managerial as well as financial resources in weighing a proposed merger. However, the Act requires as well that the “future prospects of the existing and proposed institutions” be appraised. Part of such appraisal, where managerial deficiencies exist as they do in this case, is determining whether the merging bank is capable of obtaining its own improved management. This test does not demand the impossible or the unreasonable. It merely insists that before a merger injurious to the public interest is approved, a showing be made that the gain expected from the merger cannot reasonably be expected through other means.
The question we therefore face is whether the findings of the District Court sufficiently or reliably establish the unavailability of alternative solutions to the woes of Nashville Bank and Trust Company. In our view, they do not. The District Court described the nature and extent of the bank’s managerial shortcomings. It noted that the Weaver group had discussed these matters extensively with a number of persons, including bankers, and had learned that recruiting new management would be “extremely difficult” at the salaries paid by Nashville Bank. And it concluded that management procurement was difficult for banks in general and an “almost insoluble” problem for Nashville Bank and Trust.
Just how insoluble was not made clear. The District Court did not ask whether the Weaver group had made concrete efforts to recruit new management, especially a chief executive officer, who was needed most. The record seems clear that they made no proposals to any individual prospects in or outside of Nashville, save one rather casual letter to a banking acquaintance in New York, and that they neither sought nor cared to seek the help of firms specializing in finding or furnishing new management. The court made no reference to the possibility that the new owners themselves might have taken active charge of the bank. None of them was a banker, but their successful predecessor Hackworth had not been one before becoming president of Nashville Bank, Nor did the court assess the possibility of a sale to others who might have been willing to face up to the management difficulties over a more extended period. We find nothing in the findings indicating that a bank with assets of $50,000,000 was simply too small to attract competent management or that the Weaver group, the new owners, were mtran-sigently insisting on unreasonably conservative managerial policies. Indeed, the Weaver group included competent and experienced men who realized the desirability of improving an unsatisfactory situation. Rather than making serious efforts to do so themselves or to sell to others who would, they preferred to merge with a competing bank — a step which produced a profit of $750,000 on a two-month investment of $3,800,000.
The burden of showing that an anticompetitive bank merger would be in the public interest because of the benefits it would bring to the convenience and needs of the community to be served rests on the merging banks. Houston Bank, supra. A showing that one bank needed more lively and efficient management, absent a showing that the alternative means for securing such management without a merger would present unusually severe difficulties, cannot be considered to satisfy that burden.
We therefore conclude that the District Court was in error in holding that the factors it cited as ways in which this merger benefited the Nashville community were sufficient to outweigh the anticompetitive effects of the merger. The case must be remanded so that the District Court can consider again the application of the Bank Merger Act to the facts of this merger. Because the District Court heard this case before Houston Bank was decided, it may wish to consider reopening the record, so that the parties will have an opportunity to present new evidence in light of the intervening interpretations of the Act. The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Foutas and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The opinion of the District Court is reported at 260 F. Supp. 869 (D. C. M. D. Tenn. 1966). Its findings of fact and conclusions of law are unreported. Probable jurisdiction was noted at 388 U. S. 905 (1967).
United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 326 (1963).
We cite percentages of total assets for convenience, not because they are alone a valid indication of a bank's market share. The percentages of total deposits and of total loans held by the eight Davidson County banks varied insignificantly from the percentages of total assets. See the District Court’s Finding of Fact No. 66.
260 F. Supp., at 881.
Finding of Fact No. 91.
Finding of Fact No. 134.
80 Stat. 7, 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c) (1964 ed., Supp. II). The Act provides, in relevant part:
“(5) The responsible agency shall not approve—
“(A) any proposed merger transaction which would result in a monopoly, or which would be in furtherance of any combination or conspiracy to monopolize or to attempt to monopolize the business of banking in any part of the United States, or
“(B) any other proposed merger transaction whose effect in any section of the country may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly, or which in any other manner would be in restraint of trade, unless it finds that the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.
“In every case, the responsible agency shall take into consideration the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the existing and proposed institutions, and the convenience and needs of the community to be served.
“(7)
“(B) In any judicial proceeding attacking a merger transaction approved under paragraph (5) on the ground that the merger transaction alone and of itself constituted a violation of aSiy antitrust laws other than [§2 of the Sherman Act], the standards applied by the court shall be identical with those that the banking agencies are directed to apply under paragraph (5).”
See, e. g., 112 Cong. Rec. 2447 (remarks of Congressman Fino).
38 Stat. 731, as amended, 64 Stat. 1125, 15 U. S. C. § 18.
26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 1. The United States appealed to this Court only from the dismissal of the § 7 Clayton Act charge. The § 1 Sherman Act count is therefore not before us.
Liability for monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act was not excluded.
Three mergers are in this category: the Nashville merger at issue here; a California merger, see United States v. Crocker-Anglo National Bank, 263 F. Supp. 125 (D. C. N. D. Cal. 1966); and a St. Louis merger. See H. R. Rep. No. 1221, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 4.
See, e. g., 112’Cong. Rec. 2465 (remarks of Congressman Ashley).
260 F. Supp., at 874. If the District Court failed to review the issues in the case de novo, as this quotation suggests, it committed error. Houston Bank, supra. Other statements in the opinion and findings below suggest that a de novo judgment may also have been reached by the District Court. Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to decide whether undue deference was paid to the Comptroller’s judgment.
We also find in the Act no intention to alter the traditional methods of defining relevant markets in which to appraise the anti-competitive effect of a merger, and so agree with the District Court that commercial banking in Davidson County was the relevant market for appraising this merger.
112 Cong. Rec. 2451. See also 112 Cong. Rec. 2441-2442 (remarks of Congressman Patman); 112 Cong. Rec. 2455 (remarks of Congressman Annunzio); 112 Cong. Rec. 2452 (remarks of Congressman Reuss); 112 Cong. Rec. 2655 (statement of Senator Robertson).
Although the District Court erroneously determined the antitrust impact of the merger, its judgment that the merger was not unlawful under the Act may nevertheless have resulted from a sufficient weighing of the evidence before it. Some of the findings below suggest the view that the merger would tend to lessen competition but that this anticompetitive effect would be outweighed by benefits to the community. The argument need not be pursued, however, since we hold that the District Court also misapplied the Act’s convenience-and-needs provision.
See, e. g., 112 Cong. Rec. 2663 (remarks of Senator Robertson).
See, e. g., 112 Cong. Rec. 2459-2460 (remarks of Congressman Multer).
In Finding of Fact No. 181 the District Court concluded that the bank’s “apparently good earnings record” would have been diminished, absent a merger, by “the expenditures which needed to be made for the proper maintenance of the bank.” Among these expenditures were increased salaries, automation, and establishment of additional branch offices. There is no reason to think that such investment of accrued profits would not have been rewarded with a fair return in the form of increased future profits.
The District Court did conclude, in Finding of Fact No. 184, that the merger was “a business necessity” for Nashville Bank and Trust Co. This general conclusion, without supporting findings, hardly establishes the possibility of eventual failure.
An official of a company specializing in recruitment of executives did testify for the banks at the trial. In his opinion, recruiting executives for Nashville Bank and Trust would have been extremely difficult.
The record contains the revealing statement by William C. Weaver, Jr., the leading member of the group which owned the bank at the time of the merger:
“We finally concluded before we agreed to the merger agreement with the Third National Bank that, if one of us, one of our group, was unable to go down there to the Trust Company and devote full time to its affairs — I would like to say right here that none of us in the group had any commercial banking experience, and that was a serious problem.
“But we concluded that if we were unable to devote our full time to the affairs of the bank, it would be in the best interests of the customers of the bank, the employees of the bank, the stockholders of the bank, and the Nashville community, for us to merge with the Third National Bank.”
Mr. Weaver seems to have felt that one or more members of the new ownership group would have been able to furnish satisfactory executive leadership for the bank.
Capital City Bank, founded in 1960 and but one-fourth the size of Nashville Bank and Trust Co., was apparently flourishing.
In this regard, a recent study concluded that “the small bank can compete successfully with the large bank — if it has the will to do so.” Kohn, Competitive Capabilities of Small Banks, 60 Banking, January 1968, at 64, reporting on the New
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in which they asserted that petitioner’s employee insurance benefits and maternity leave regulations discriminated against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV). The District Court ruled in favor of respondents on the issue of petitioner’s liability under that Act, and petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That court held that it had jurisdiction of petitioner’s appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1291, and proceeded to affirm on the merits the judgment of the District Court. We granted certiorari, 421 U. S. 987 (1975), and heard argument on the merits. Though neither party has questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to entertain the appeal, we are obligated to do so on our own motion if a question thereto exists. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379 (1884). Because we conclude that the District Court’s order was not appealable to the Court of Appeals, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss petitioner’s appeal from the order of the District Court.
Respondents’ complaint, after alleging jurisdiction and facts deemed pertinent to their claim, prayed for a judgment against petitioner embodying the following relief:
“(a) requiring that defendant establish non-discriminatory hiring, payment, opportunity, and promotional plans and programs;
“(b) enjoining the continuance by defendant of the illegal acts and practices alleged herein ;
“(c) requiring that defendant pay over to plaintiffs and to the members of the class the damages sustained by plaintiffs and the members of the class by reason of defendant’s illegal acts and practices, including adjusted backpay, with interest, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and exemplary damages;
“(d) requiring that defendant pay to plaintiffs and to the members of . the class the costs of this suit and a reasonable attorneys’ fee, with interest; and
“(e) such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.” App. 19.
After extensive discovery, respondents moved for partial summary judgment only as to the issue of liability. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 (c). The District Court on January 9, 1974, finding no issues of material fact in dispute, entered an order to the effect that petitioner’s pregnancy-related policies violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also ruled that Liberty Mutual’s hiring and promotion policies violated Title VII. Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the District Court. Its order of February 20, 1974, denying the motion for reconsideration, contains the following concluding language:
“In its Order the court stated it would enjoin the continuance of practices which the court found to be in violation of Title VII. The Plaintiffs were invited to submit the form of the injunction order and the Defendant has filed Notice of Appeal and asked for stay of any injunctive order. Under these circumstances the court will withhold the issuance of the injunctive order and amend the Order previously issued under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (b), as follows:
“And now this 20th day of February, 1974, it is directed that final judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs that Defendant’s policy of requiring female employees to return to work within three months of delivery of a child or be terminated is in violation of the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; that Defendant’s policy of denying disability income protection plan benefits to female employees for disabilities related to pregnancies or childbirth are [sic] in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that it is expressly directed that Judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs upon these claims of Plaintiffs’ Complaint; there being no just reason for delay.” 372 F. Supp. 1146, 1164.
It is obvious from the District Court’s order that respondents, although having received a favorable ruling on the issue of petitioner’s liability to them, received none of the relief which they expressly prayed for in the portion of their complaint set forth above. They requested an injunction, but did not get one; they requested damages, but were not awarded any; they requested attorneys’ fees, but received none.
Counsel for respondents when questioned during oral argument in this Court suggested that at least the District Court’s order of February 20 amounted to a declaratory judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 2201. Had respondents sought only a declaratory judgment, and no other form of relief, we would of course have a different case. But even if we accept respondents’ contention that the District Court’s order was a declaratory judgment on the issue of liability, it nonetheless left unresolved respondents’ requests for an injunction, for compensatory and exemplary damages, and for attorneys’ fees. It finally disposed of none of respondents’ prayers for relief.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals apparently took the view that because the District Court made the recital required by Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b) that final judgment be entered on the issue of liability, and that there was no just reason for delay, the orders thereby became appealable as a final decision pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 11291. We cannot agree with this application of the Rule and statute in question.
Rule 54 (b) “does not apply to a single claim action .... It is limited expressly to multiple claims actions in which 'one or more but less than all’ of the multiple claims have been finally decided and are found otherwise to be ready for appeal.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U. S. 427, 435 (1956). Here, however, respondents set forth but a single claim: that petitioner’s employee insurance benefits and maternity leave regulations discriminated against its women employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They prayed for several different types of relief in the event that they sustained the allegations of their complaint, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8 (a)(3), but their complaint advanced a single legal theory which was applied to only one set of facts. Thus, despite the fact that the District Court undoubtedly made the findings required under the Rule, had it been applicable, those findings do not in a case such as this make the order appealable pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1291. See Mackey, supra, at 437-438.
We turn to consider whether the District Court’s order might have been appealed by petitioner to the Court of Appeals under any other theory. The order, viewed apart from its discussion of Rule 54 (b), constitutes a grant of partial summary judgment limited to the issue of petitioner’s liability. Such judgments are by their terms interlocutory, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 (c), and where assessment of damages or awarding of other relief remains to be resolved have never been considered to be “final” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291. See, e, g., Borges v. Art Steel Co., 243 F. 2d 350 (CA2 1957); Leonidakis v. International Telecoin Corp., 208 F. 2d 934 (CA2 1953); Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, 173 F. 2d 317 (CA3 1949); Russell v. Barnes Foundation, 136 F. 2d 654 (CA3 1943). Thus the only possible authorization for an appeal from the District Court’s order would be pursuant to the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 1292.
If the District Court had granted injunctive relief but had not ruled on respondents’ other requests for relief, this interlocutory order would have been appealable under § 1292 (a) (1). But, as noted above, the court did not issue an injunction. It might be argued that the order of the District Court, insofar as it failed to include the injunctive relief requested by respondents, is an interlocutory order refusing an injunction within the meaning of § 1292 (a)(1). But even if this would have allowed respondents to then obtain review in the Court of Appeals, there was no denial of any injunction sought by petitioner and it could not avail itself of that grant of jurisdiction.
Nor was this order appealable pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). Although the District Court’s findings made with a view to satisfying Rule 54 (b) might be viewed as substantial compliance wdth the certification requirement of that section, there is no showing in this record that petitioner made application to the Court of Appeals within the 10 days therein specified. And that court’s holding that its jurisdiction was pursuant to § 1291 makes it clear that it thought itself obliged to consider on the merits petitioner’s appeal. There can be no assurance that had the other requirements of § 1292 (b) been complied with, the Court of Appeals would have exercised its discretion to entertain the interlocutory appeal.
Were we to sustain the procedure followed here, we would condone a practice whereby a district court in virtually any case before it might render an interlocutory decision on the question of liability of the defendant, and the defendant would thereupon be permitted to appeal to the court of appeals without satisfying any of the requirements that Congress carefully set forth. We believe that Congress, in enacting present §§ 1291 and 1292 of Title 28, has been well aware of the dangers of an overly rigid insistence upon a “final decision” for appeal in every case, and has in those sections made ample provision for appeal of orders which are not “final” so as to alleviate any possible hardship. We would twist the fabric of the statute more than it will bear if we were to agree that the District Court’s order of February 20, 1974, was appealable to the Court of Appeals.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The portion of the District Court’s order concerning petitioner’s hiring and promotion policies was separately appealed to a different panel of the Court of Appeals. The judgment rendered by the Third Circuit upon that appeal is not before us in this case. See Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 508 F. 2d 239, cert. denied, 421 U. S. 1011 (1975).
“Judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties. “When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”
Following Mackey, the Rule was amended to insure that orders finally disposing of some but not all of the parties could be appealed pursuant to its provisions. That provision is not implicated in this case, however, to which Mackey’s exposition of the Rule remains fully accurate.
We need not here attempt any definitive resolution of the meaning of what constitutes a claim for relief within the meaning of the Rules. See 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶¶ 54.24, 54.33 (2d ed. 1975). It is sufficient to recognize that a complaint asserting only one legal right, even if seeking multiple remedies for the alleged violation of that right, states a single claim for relief.
“The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:
“(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”
“When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Truth in Lending Act, 82 Stat. 146, 16 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq., when a loan made in a consumer credit transaction is secured by the borrower’s principal dwelling, the borrower may rescind the loan agreement if the lender fails to deliver certain forms or to disclose important terms accurately. See 15 U. S. C. § 1635. Under § 1635(f) of the statute, this right of rescission “shall expire” in the usual case three years after the loan eloses or upon the sale of the secured property, whichever date is earlier. The question here is whether a borrower may assert this right to rescind as an affirmative defense in a collection action brought by the lender more than three years after the consummation of the transaction. We answer no and hold that § 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year period.
I
The declared purpose of the Act is “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, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices.” 15 U. S. C. § 1601(a); see Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U. S. 356, 363-368 (1973). Accordingly, the Act requires creditors to provide borrowers with clear and accurate disclosures of terms dealing with things like finance charges, annual percentage rates of interest, and the borrower’s rights. See §§1631, 1632, 1635, 1638. Failure to satisfy the Act subjects a lender to criminal penalties for noncompliance, see § 1611, as well as to statutory and actual damages traceable to a lender’s failure to make the requisite disclosures, see §1640. Section 1640(e) provides that an action for such damages “may be brought” within one year after a violation of the Act, but that a borrower may assert the right to damages “as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off” in a collection action brought by the lender even after the one year is up.
Going beyond these rights to damages, the Act also authorizes a borrower whose loan is secured with his “principal dwelling,” and who has been denied the requisite disclosures, to rescind the loan transaction entirely “until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the information and rescission forms required under this section together with a statement containing the material disclosures required under this subchapter, whichever is later.” § 1635(a). A borrower who exercises this right to rescind “is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest given by [him], including any such interest arising by operation of law, becomes void” upon rescission. § 1635(b). Within 20 days after receiving notice of rescission, the lender must “return to the [borrower] any money or property given as earnest money, downpayment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction.” Ibid. The Act provides, however, that the borrower’s right of rescission “shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first,” even if the required disclosures have never been made. § 1685(f). The Act gives a borrower no express permission to assert the right of rescission as an affirmative defense after the expiration of the 3-year period.
The borrowers in this case, petitioners David and Linda Beach, built a house in Jupiter, Florida, in 1986 with a secured $85,000 construction loan from Fidelity Federal Savings Bank of Florida. In the same year, the Beaches refinanced the house with a loan from Great Western Bank. In 1991, the Beaches stopped making mortgage payments, and in 1992 the bank began this foreclosure proceeding. The Beaches acknowledged their default but raised affirmative defenses, alleging that the bank’s failure to make disclosures required by the Act gave them rights under §§1635 and 1640 to rescind the mortgage agreement and to reduce the bank’s claim by the amount of their actual and statutory damages.
The Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida agreed that under § 1640 the Beaches were entitled to “offset the amount owed to Great Western” by $896 in actual damages and $1,000 in statutory damages because the bank had overstated the monthly mortgage payment by $0.58 and the finance charge by $201.84. But the court rejected the Beaches’ effort to rescind the mortgage under § 1685, holding that the loan at issue was immune to rescission as part of a “residential mortgage transaction” (defined in § 1602(w)) and, in the alternative, that any right to rescind had expired after three years, in 1989. The court found it telling that Congress had included no saving clause to revive an expired right of rescission as a defense in the nature of recoupment or setoff.
The State’s intermediate appellate court affirmed, Beach v. Great Western Bank, 670 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1996), and so did the Supreme Court of Florida, which addressed only the issue of rescission as a defense, Beach v. Great Western Bank, 692 So. 2d 146 (1997). That court remarked on the plain language of § 1685(f) as evidence of unconditional congressional intent to limit the right of rescission to three years and explained that its prior cases permitting a defense of recoupment by an ostensibly barred elaim were distinguishable because, among other things, they involved statutes of limitation, not statutes extinguishing rights defensively asserted.
Because the reading of § 1635(f) given by the Supreme Court of Florida conflicts with the decisions of several other courts, we granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 912 (1997), to determine whether under federal law the statutory right of rescission provided by §1635 may be revived as an affirmative defense after its expiration under § 1635(f). We affirm.
II
The Beaches concede that any right they may have had to institute an independent proceeding for rescission under § 1635 lapsed in 1989, three years after they closed the loan with the bank, but they argue that the restriction to three years in § 1635(f) is a statute of limitation governing only the institution of suit and accordingly has no effect when a borrower claims a § 1635 right of rescission as a “defense in recoupment” to a collection action. They are, of course, correct that as a general matter a defendant’s right to plead “recoupment,” a “ ‘defense arising out of some feature of the transaction upon which the plaintiff’s action is grounded,’ ” Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 329 U. S. 296, 299 (1946) (quoting Bull v. United States, 295 U. S. 247, 262 (1935)), survives the expiration of the period provided by a statute of limitation that would otherwise bar the recoupment claim as an independent cause of action. So long as the plaintiff’s action is timely, see ibid., a defendant may raise a claim in recoupment even if he could no longer bring it independently, absent “‘the clearest congressional language’ ” to the contrary. Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U. S. 258, 264 (1993) (quoting United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 59, 71 (1956)). As we have said before, the object of a statute of limitation in keeping “stale litigation out of the courts,” id., at 72, would be distorted if the statute were applied to bar an otherwise legitimate defense to a timely lawsuit, for limitation statutes “are aimed at lawsuits, not at the consideration of particular issues in lawsuits,” ibid.
The Beaches come up short, however, on the question whether this is a case for the general rule at all. The issue here is not whether limitation statutes affect recoupment rights, but whether § 1635(f) is a statute of limitation, that is, “whether [it] operates, with the lapse of time, to extinguish the right which is the foundation for the claim” or “merely to bar the remedy for its enforcement.” Midstate Horticultural Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 320 U. S. 356, 358-359, and n. 4 (1943). The “ultimate question” is whether Congress intended that “the right shall be enforceable in any event after the prescribed time,” id., at 360; accord, Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424 (1965), and in this instance, the answer is apparent from the plain language of § 1635(f). See Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402, 409 (1993).
The terms of a typical statute of limitation provide that a cause of action may or must be brought within a certain period of time. So, in Reiter v. Cooper, supra, at 263-264, we concluded that 49 U. S. C. § 11706(c)(2), providing that a shipper “‘must begin a civil action to recover damages under [§ 11705(b)(3)] within two years after the claim accrues,’” was a statute of limitation raising no bar to a claim made in recoupment. See Note, Developments in the Law: Statutes of Limitations, 63 Harv. L. Rev, 1177, 1179 (1950) (most statutes of limitation provide either that “all actions . . . shall be brought within” or “no action ... shall be brought more than” so many years after “the cause thereof accrued” (internal quotation marks omitted)); H. Wood, 1 Limitation of Actions § 1, pp. 2-3 (4th ed. 1916) (“[Statutes which provide that no action shall be brought, or right enforced, unless brought or enforced within a certain time, are . . . statutes of limitation”).
To be sure, a limitation provision may be held to be nothing more than a bar to bringing suit, even though its terms are ostensibly more ambitious than the language of the classic formulations cited above. Thus, for example, in Distribution Servs., Ltd. v. Eddie Parker Interests, Inc., 897 F. 2d 811 (1990), the Fifth Circuit concluded that §3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is a statute of limitation permitting counterclaim brought by way of recoupment, despite its fierce-sounding provision that “the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods,” 46 U. S. C. App. § 1303(6).
Section 1635(f), however, takes us beyond any question whether it limits more than the time for bringing a suit, by governing the life of the underlying right as well. The subsection says nothing in terms of bringing an action but instead provides that the “right of rescission [under the Act] shall expire” at the end of the time period. It talks not of a suit’s commencement but of a right’s duration, which it addresses in terms so straightforward as to render any limitation on the time for seeking a remedy superfluous. There is no reason, then, even to resort to the canons of construction that we use to resolve doubtful cases, such as the rule that the creation of a right in the same statute that provides a limitation is some evidence that the right was meant to be limited, not just the remedy. See Midstate Horticultural Co., supra, at 360; Burnett, supra, at 427, n. 2; Davis v. Mills, 194 U. S. 451, 454 (1904).
The Act, however, has left even less to chance (if that is possible) than its “expire” provision would allow, standing alone. It is useful to look ahead to § 1640 with its provisions for recovery of damages. Subsection (e) reads that the 1-year limit on actions for damages “does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off in such action, except as otherwise provided by State law.” 15 U. S. C. § 1640(e). Thus the effect of the 1-year limitation provision on damages actions is expressly deflected from recoupment claims. The quite different treatment of rescission stands in stark contrast to this, however, there being no provision for rescission as a defense that would mitigate the uncompromising provision of § 1635(f) that the borrower’s right “shall expire” with the running of the time. Indeed, when Congress amended the Act in 1995 to soften certain restrictions on rescission as a defense in §8, 109 Stat. 275-276, 15 U. S. C. §§1635(i)(1) and (2) (1994 ed., Supp. I), it took care to provide that any such liberality was “subject to the [three year] time period provided in subsection (f),” ibid., and it left a borrower’s only hope for further recoupment in the slim promise of § 1635(i)(3), that “[n]othing in this subsection affects a consumer’s right of rescission in recoupment under State law.” § 8,109 Stat. 276. Thus, recoupment of damages and rescission-in the nature of recoupment receive unmistakably different treatments, which under the normal rule of construction are understood to reflect a deliberate intent on the part of Congress. See Bates v. United States, 522 U. S. 23, 29-30 (1997) (““‘[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion” ’ ”) (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983), in turn quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972)). And the distinction thus indicated makes -perfectly good sense. Since a statutory right of rescission could cloud a bank’s title on foreclosure, Congress may well have chosen to circumscribe that risk, while permitting recoupment damages regardless of the date a collection action may be brought. See Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, Annual Report to Congress on Truth in Lending for the Year 1971, p. 19 (Jan. 3, 1972); National Commission on Consumer Finance, Consumer Credit in the United States 189-190 (Dee. 1972).
We respect Congress’s manifest intent by concluding that the Act permits no federal right to rescind, defensively or otherwise, after the 3-year period of § 1635(f) has run. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida.
It is so ordered.
The Act provides a limited extension of this 3-year time period when "(1) any agency empowered to enforce the provisions of this subchapter institutes a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this section within three years after the date of consummation of the transaction, (2) such agency finds a violation of this section, and (3) the obligor’s right to rescind is based in whole or in part on any matter involved in such proceeding.” 15 U. S. C. § 1635(f). Under such circumstances, “the obligor’s right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the earlier sale of the property, or upon the expiration of one year following the conclusion of the proceeding, or any judicial review or period for judicial review thereof, whichever is later.” Ibid.
Ocwen Federal Bank was substituted as the plaintiff while this case was pending in the trial court.
Specifically, the Beaches claimed that the bank had failed to disclose properly and accurately (1) the amount financed, in violation of § 1638(a)(3); (2) the finance charge, in violation of § 1638(a)(3); (3) the annual percentage rate, in violation of § 1638(a)(4); (4) the number, amounts, and timing of payments scheduled to repay the obligation, in violation of § 1638(a)(6); and (5) the total of payments, in violation of § 1638(a)(5).
Although the per curiam opinion posed the question as one “[u]nder Florida law," 692 So. 2d, at 147, it distinguished cases based on state law as inapposite and held that a defense of rescission was unavailable under the Act after three years.
See, e. g., In re Barsky, 210 B. R. 683 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ED Pa. 1997); In re Botelho, 195 B. R. 558 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Mass. 1996); In re Shaw, 178 B. R. 380 (Bkrtcy. Ct. NJ 1994); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Ablin, 177 Ill. App. 3d 390, 532 N. E. 2d 379 (1988); Community Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of N. Y. v. McClammy, 525 N. Y. S. 2d 629, 138 App. Div. 2d 339 (1988); Dawe v. Merchants Mortgage and Trust Corp., 683 P. 2d 796 (Colo. 1984) (en bane).
Since there is no claim before us that Florida law purports to provide any right to rescind defensively on the grounds relevant under the Act, we have no occasion to explore how state recoupment law might work when raised in a foreclosure proceeding outside the 8-year period.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
The Court’s Special Master having filed a Report recommending the entry of a supplemental decree for the purpose of defining with greater particularity the boundary line between the submerged lands of the United States and the submerged lands of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as contemplated by the Court’s Decree of October 6, 1975, 423 U. S. 1, and the Court’s Order of June 29, 1977, 433 U. S. 917, appointing the Honorable Walter E. Hoffman as Special Master in this cause, and the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts having stated their acquiescence in the recommendations of the said Report:
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed As Follows:
1. The coastline of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as that term is used in the Court’s Decree herein dated October 6, 1975, shall be, in the area hereafter specified:
(a) A straight line running southwesterly from a point on the mean low water line at Eastern Point on Cape Ann (approximately 42°34'45" N, 70°39'43" W on NOS Chart 13267, 18th Ed.) to a point on the mean low water line seaward of Strawberry Point (approximately 42°15'31" N, 70°46'05" W on the same NOS Chart), thence southeasterly along the line of ordinary mean low water (including closing lines across Scituate Harbor and the North River) to Brant Rock (approximately 42°05'29" N, 70°38/15" W on the same NOS Chart), thence a straight line running easterly to a point on the mean low water line at Race Point on Cape Cod (approximately 42°03'46" N, 70°14,51// W on the same NOS Chart);
(b) A straight line running southeasterly from a point on the mean low water line at Gooseberry Neck (approximately 41°28'43" N, 71o02'05" W on NOS Chart 13218, 21st Ed.) to a point on the mean low water line on the southwestern extremity of Cuttyhunk Island (approximately 41°24'44" N, 70°57'07" W on the same NOS Chart).
3. 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 this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
2. The reference to the Special Master appointed by the Court on June 29, 1977, is continued in effect, under the terms of the Court’s Order of that date, and he is directed to proceed with the cause, holding such further proceedings as may seem advisable until all remaining issues referred to him are ready for submission to the Court by his further report.
Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a patent infringement suit brought by respondent. The charge of infringement is limited to certain product claims of Patent No. 2,200,532 issued to Bond on May 14, 1940. Petitioner filed a counterclaim asking for a declaratory judgment that the entire patent be adjudged invalid. The District Court held the product claims invalid for want of invention and dismissed the complaint. It also dismissed the counterclaim. Both parties appealed. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the product claims were valid and infringed and that the counterclaim should not have been dismissed. 161 F. 2d 981. The question of validity is the only question presented by this petition for certiorari.
Through some mysterious process leguminous plants are able to take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the plant for conversion to organic nitrogenous compounds. The ability of these plants to fix nitrogen from the air depends on the presence of bacteria of the genus Rhizo-bium which infect the roots of the plant and form nodules on them. These root-nodule bacteria of the genus Rhizobium fall into at least six species. No one species will infect the roots of all species of leguminous plants. But each will infect well-defined groups of those plants. Each species of root-nodule bacteria is made up of distinct strains which vary in efficiency. Methods of selecting the strong strains and of producing a bacterial culture from them. have long been known. The bacteria produced by the laboratory methods of culture are placed in a powder or liquid base and packaged for sale to and use by agriculturists in the inoculation of the seeds of leguminous plants. This also has long been well known.
It was the general practice, prior to the Bond patent, to manufacture and sell inoculants containing only one species of root-nodule bacteria. The inoculant could therefore be used successfully only in plants of the particular cross-inoculation group corresponding to this species. Thus if a farmer had crops of clover, alfalfa, and soy beans he would have to use three separate inocu-lants. There had been a few mixed cultures for field legumes. But they had proved generally unsatisfactory because the different species of the Rhizobia bacteria produced an inhibitory effect on each other when mixed in a common base, with the result that their efficiency was reduced. Hence it had been assumed that the different species were mutually inhibitive. Bond discovered that there are strains of each species of root-nodule bacteria which do not exert a mutually inhibitive effect on each other. He also ascertained that those mutually non-inhibitive strains can, by certain methods of selection and testing, be isolated and used in mixed cultures. Thus he provided a mixed culture of Rhizobia capable of inoculating the seeds of plants belonging to several cross-inoculation groups. It is the product claims which disclose that mixed culture that the Circuit Court of Appeals has held valid.
We do not have presented the question whether the methods of selecting and testing the non-inhibitive strains are patentable. We have here only product claims. Bond does not create a state of inhibition or of non-inhibition in the bacteria. Their qualities are the work of nature. Those qualities are of course not patentable. For patents cannot issue for the discovery of the phenomena of nature. See Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175. The qualities of these bacteria, like the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none. He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end. See Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1, 532-533; DeForest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U. S. 664, 684-685; Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp., 306 U. S. 86, 94; Cameron Septic Tank Co. v. Saratoga Springs, 159 F. 453, 462-463. The Circuit Court of Appeals thought that Bond did much more than discover a law of nature, since he made a new and different composition of non-inhibitive strains which contributed utility and economy to the manufacture and distribution of commercial inocu-lants. But we think that that aggregation of species fell short of invention within the meaning of the patent statutes.
Discovery of the fact that certain strains of each species of these bacteria can be mixed without harmful effect to the properties of either is a discovery of their qualities of non-inhibition. It is no more than the discovery of some of the handiwork of nature and hence is not patentable. The aggregation of select strains of the several species into one product is an application of that newly-discovered natural principle. But however ingenious the discovery of that natural principle may have been, the application of it is hardly more than an advance in the packaging of the inoculants. Each of the species of root-nodule bacteria contained in the package infects the same group of leguminous plants which it always infected. No species acquires a different use. The combination of species produces no new bacteria, no change in the six species of bacteria, and no enlargement of the range of their utility. Each species has the same effect it always had. The bacteria perform in their natural way. Their use in combination does not improve in any way their natural functioning. They serve the ends nature originally provided and act quite independently of any effort of the patentee.
There is, of course, an advantage in the combination. The farmer need not buy six different packages for six different crops. He can buy one package and use it for any or all of his crops of leguminous plants. And, as respondent says, the packages of mixed inoculants also hold advantages for the dealers and manufacturers by reducing inventory problems and the like. But a product must be more than new and useful to be patented; it must also satisfy the requirements of invention or discovery. Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U. S. 84, 90, 91, and cases cited; 35 U. S. C. § 31, R. S. § 4886. The application of this newly-discovered natural principle to the problem of packaging of inocu-lants may well have been an important commercial advance. But once nature’s secret of the non-inhibitive quality of certain strains of the species of Rhizobium was discovered, the state of the art made the production of a mixed inoculant a simple step. Even though it may have been the product of skill, it certainly was not the product of invention. There is no way in which we could call it such unless we borrowed invention from the discovery of the natural principle itself. That is to say, there is no invention here unless the discovery that certain strains of the several species of these bacteria are non-inhibitive and may thus be safely mixed is invention. But we cannot so hold without allowing a patent to issue on one of the ancient secrets of nature now disclosed. All that remains, therefore, are advantages of the mixed inoculants themselves. They are not enough.
Since we conclude that the product claims do not disclose an invention or discovery within the meaning of the patent statutes, we do not consider whether the other statutory requirements contained in 35 U. S. C. § 31, R. S. § 4886, are satisfied.
Reversed.
The product claims in suit are 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 14. Claim 4 is illustrative of the invention which is challenged. It reads as follows:
“An inoculant for leguminous plants comprising a plurality of selected mutually non-inhibitive strains of different species of bacteria of the genus Rhizobium, said strains being unaffected by each other in respect to their ability to fix nitrogen in the leguminous plant for which they are specific.’'
The patent also contains process claims.
The six well-recognized species of bacteria and the corresponding groups (cross-inoculation groups) of leguminous plants are:
Rhizobium trifolii Red clover, crimson clover, mammoth clover, alsike clover
Rhizobium meliloti Alfalfa, white or yellow sweet clovers
Rhizobium phaseoli Garden beans
Rhizobium leguminosarum Garden peas and vetch
Rhizobium lupini Lupines
Rhizobium japonicum Soy beans
See note 3, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether respondent Falcon, who complained that petitioner did not promote him because he is a Mexican-American, was properly permitted to maintain a class action on behalf of Mexican-American applicants for employment whom petitioner did not hire.
t — <
In 1969 petitioner initiated a special recruitment and training program for minorities. Through that program, respondent Falcon was hired in July 1969 as a groundman, and within a year he was twice promoted, first to lineman and then to lineman-in-charge. He subsequently refused a promotion to installer-repairman. In October 1972 he applied for the job of field inspector; his application was denied even though the promotion was granted several white employees with less seniority.
Falcon thereupon filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stating his belief that he had been passed over for promotion because of his national origin and that petitioner’s promotion policy operated against Mexican-Americans as a class. Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest, 626 F. 2d 369, 372, n. 2 (CA5 1980). In due course he received a right-to-sue letter from the Commission and, in April 1975, he commenced this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. His complaint alleged that petitioner maintained “a policy, practice, custom, or usage of: (a) discriminating against [Mexican-Americans] because of national origin and with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, and (b) ... subjecting [Mexican-Americans] to continuous employment discrimination.” Respondent claimed that as a result of this policy whites with less qualification and experience and lower evaluation scores than respondent had been promoted more rapidly. The complaint contained no factual allegations concerning petitioner’s hiring practices.
Respondent brought the action “on his own behalf and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The class identified in the complaint was “composed of Mexican-American persons who are employed, or who might be employed, by GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY at its place of business located in Irving, Texas, who have been and who continue to be or might be adversely affected by the practices complained of herein.”
After responding to petitioner’s written interrogatories, respondent filed a memorandum in favor of certification of “the class of all hourly Mexican American employees who have been employed, are employed, or may in the future be employed and all those Mexican Americans who have applied or would have applied for employment had the Defendant not practiced racial discrimination in its employment practices.” App. 46-47. His position was supported by the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F. 2d 1122 (1969), that any victim of racial discrimination in employment may maintain an “across the board” attack on all unequal employment practices alleged to have been committed by the employer pursuant to a policy of racial discrimination. Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the District Court certified a class including Mexican-American employees and Mexican-American applicants for employment who had not been hired.
Following trial of the liability issues, the District Court entered separate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect first to respondent and then to the class. The District Court found that petitioner had not discriminated against respondent in hiring, but that it did discriminate against him in its promotion practices. App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a, 37a. The court reached converse conclusions about the class, finding no discrimination in promotion practices, but concluding that petitioner had discriminated against Mexican-Americans at its Irving facility in its hiring practices. Id., at 39a-40a.
After various post-trial proceedings, the District Court ordered petitioner to furnish respondent with a list of all Mexican-Americans who had applied for employment at the Irving facility during the period between January 1,1973, and October 18,1976. Respondent was then ordered to give notice to those persons advising them that they might be entitled to some form of recovery. Evidence was taken concerning the applicants who responded to the notice, and backpay was ultimately awarded to 13 persons, in addition to respondent Falcon. The total recovery by respondent and the entire class amounted to $67,925.49, plus costs and interest.
Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals rejected respondent’s contention that the class should have encompassed all of petitioner’s operations in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. On the other hand, the court also rejected petitioner’s argument that the class had been defined too broadly. For, under the Fifth Circuit’s across-the-board rule, it is permissible for “an employee complaining of one employment practice to represent another complaining of another practice, if the plaintiff and the members of the class suffer from essentially the same injury. In this case, all of the claims are based on discrimination because of national origin.” 626 F. 2d, at 375. The court relied on Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 565 F. 2d 895 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 835, in which the Fifth Circuit stated:
“Plaintiffs’ action is an ‘across the board’ attack on unequal employment practices alleged to have been committed by Travenol pursuant to- a policy of racial discrimination. As parties who have allegedly been aggrieved by some of those discriminatory practices, plaintiffs have demonstrated a sufficient nexus to enable them to represent other class members suffering from different practices motivated by the same policies.” 565 F. 2d, at 900, quoted in 626 F. 2d, at 375.
On the merits, the Court of Appeals upheld respondent’s claim of disparate treatment in promotion, but held that the District Court’s findings relating to disparate impact in hiring were insufficient to support recovery on behalf of the class. After this Court decided Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, we vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and directed further consideration in the light of that opinion. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 450 U. S. 1036. The Fifth Circuit thereupon vacated the portion of its opinion addressing respondent’s promotion claim but reinstated the portions of its opinion approving the District Court’s class certification. 647 F. 2d 633 (1981). With the merits of both respondent’s promotion claim and the class hiring claims remaining open for reconsideration in the District Court on remand, we granted certiorari to decide whether the class action was properly maintained on behalf of both employees who were denied promotion and applicants who were denied employment.
M
The class-action device was designed as “an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 700-701. Class relief is “peculiarly appropriate” when the “issues involved are common to the class as a whole” and when they “turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class.” Id., at 701. For in such cases, “the class-action device saves the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every [class member] to be litigated in an economical fashion under Rule 23.” Ibid.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to sue in its own name to secure relief for individuals aggrieved by discriminatory practices forbidden by the Act. See 42 U. S. C. §2000e-5(f)(l). In exercising this enforcement power, the Commission may seek relief for groups of employees or applicants for employment without complying with the strictures of Rule 23. General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318. Title VII, however, contains no special authorization for class suits maintained by private parties. An individual litigant seeking to maintain a class action under Title VII must meet “the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation” specified in Rule 23(a). Id., at 330. These requirements effectively “limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff’s claims.” Ibid.
We have repeatedly held that “a class representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U. S. 395, 403 (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 216). In East Texas Motor Freight, a Title VII action brought by three Mexican-American city drivers, the Fifth Circuit certified a class consisting of the trucking company’s black and Mexican-American city drivers allegedly denied on racial or ethnic grounds transfers to more desirable line-driver jobs. We held that the Court of Appeals had “plainly erred in declaring a class action.” 431 U. S., at 403. Because at the time the class was certified it was clear that the named plaintiffs were not qualified for line-driver positions, “they could have suffered no injury as a result of the allegedly discriminatory practices, and they were, therefore, simply not eligible to represent a class of persons who did allegedly suffer injury.” Id., at 403-404.
Our holding in East Texas Motor Freight was limited; we noted that “a different case would be presented if the District Court had certified a class and only later had it appeared that the named plaintiffs were not class members or were otherwise inappropriate class representatives.” Id., at 406, n. 12. We also recognized the theory behind the Fifth Circuit’s across-the-board rule, noting our awareness “that suits alleging racial or ethnic discrimination are often by their very nature class suits, involving classwide wrongs,” and that “[cjommon questions of law or fact are typically present.” Id., at 405. In the same breath, however, we reiterated that “careful attention to the requirements of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 remains nonetheless indispensable” and that the “mere fact that a complaint alleges racial or ethnic discrimination does not in itself ensure that the party who has brought the lawsuit will be an adequate representative of those who may have been the real victims of that discrimination.” Id., at 405-406.
We cannot disagree with the proposition underlying the across-the-board rule — that racial discrimination is by definition class discrimination. But the allegation that such discrimination has occurred neither determines whether a class action may be maintained in accordance with Rule 23 nor defines the class that may be certified. Conceptually, there is a wide gap between (a) an individual’s claim that he has been denied a promotion on discriminatory grounds, and his otherwise unsupported allegation that the company has a policy of discrimination, and (b) the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury as that individual, such that the individual’s claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual’s claim will be typical of the class claims. For respondent to bridge that gap, he must prove much more than the validity of his own claim. Even though evidence that he was passed over for promotion when several less deserving whites were advanced may support the conclusion that respondent was denied the promotion because of his national origin, such evidence would not necessarily justify the additional inferences (1) that this discriminatory treatment is typical of petitioner’s promotion practices, (2) that petitioner’s promotion practices are motivated by a policy of ethnic discrimination that pervades petitioner’s Irving division, or (3) that this policy of ethnic discrimination is reflected in petitioner’s other employment practices, such as hiring, in the same way it is manifested in the promotion practices. These additional inferences demonstrate the tenuous character of any presumption that the class claims are “fairly encompassed” within respondent’s claim.
Respondent’s complaint provided an insufficient basis for concluding that the adjudication of his claim of discrimination in promotion would require the decision of any common question concerning the failure of petitioner to hire more Mexican-Americans. Without any specific presentation identifying the questions of law or fact that were common to the claims of respondent and of the members of the class he sought to represent, it was error for the District Court to presume that respondent’s claim was typical of other claims against petitioner by Mexican-American employees and applicants. If one allegation of specific discriminatory treatment were sufficient to support an across-the-board attack, every Title VII case would be a potential companywide class action. We find nothing in the statute to indicate that Congress intended to authorize such a wholesale expansion of class-action litigation.
The trial of this class action followed a predictable course. Instead of raising common questions of law or fact, respondent’s evidentiary approaches to the individual and class claims were entirely different. He attempted to sustain his individual claim by proving intentional discrimination. He tried to prove the class claims through statistical evidence of disparate impact. Ironically, the District Court rejected the class claim of promotion discrimination, which conceptually might have borne a closer typicality and commonality relationship with respondent’s individual claim, but sustained the class claim of hiring discrimination. As the District Court’s bifurcated findings on liability demonstrate, the individual and class claims might as well have been tried separately. It is clear that the maintenance of respondent’s action as a class action did not advance “the efficiency and economy of litigation which is a principal purpose of the procedure.” American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538, 553.
We do not, of course, judge the propriety of a class certification by hindsight. The District Court’s error in this case, and the error inherent in the across-the-board rule, is the failure to evaluate carefully the legitimacy of the named plaintiff’s plea that he is a proper class representative under Rule 23(a). As we noted in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, “the class determination generally involves considerations that are ‘enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff’s cause of action.’” Id., at 469 (quoting Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555, 558). Sometimes the issues are plain enough from the pleadings to determine whether the interests of the absent parties are fairly encompassed within the named plaintiff’s claim, and sometimes it may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question. Even after a certification order is entered, the judge remains free to modify it in the light of subsequent developments in the litigation. For such an order, particularly during the period before any notice is sent to members of the class, “is inherently tentative.” 437 U. S., at 469, n. 11. This flexibility enhances the usefulness of the class-action device; actual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) remains, however, indispensable.
HH b-H b-H
The need to carefully apply the requirements of Rule 23(a) to Title VII class actions was noticed by a member of the Fifth Circuit panel that announced the across-the-board rule. In a specially concurring opinion in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F. 2d, at 1125-1127, Judge Godbold emphasized the need for “more precise pleadings,” id., at 1125, for “without reasonable specificity the court cannot define the class, cannot determine whether the representation is adequate, and the employer does not know how to defend,” id., at 1126. He termed as “most significant” the potential unfairness to the class members bound by the judgment if the framing of the class is overbroad. Ibid. And he pointed out the error of the “tacit assumption” underlying the across-the-board rule that “all will be well for surely the plaintiff will win and manna will fall on all members of the class.” Id., at 1127. With the same concerns in mind, we reiterate today that a Title VII class action, like any other class action, may only be certified if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the certification order is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
App. 14. In paragraph VI of the complaint, respondent alleged:
“The Defendant has established an employment, transfer, promotional, and seniority system, the design, intent, and purpose of which is to continue and preserve, and which has the effect of continuing and preserving, the Defendant’s policy, practice, custom and usage of limiting the employment, transfer, and promotional opportunities of Mexican-American employees of the company because of national origin.” Id., at 15.
Id., at 13. Rule 23 provides, in part:
“(a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
“(b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
“(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunc-tive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole . . . .”
App. 13-14. The paragraph of the complaint in which respondent alleged conformance with the requirements of Rule 23 continued:
“There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of the members of this class who are, and who continue to be, limited, classified, and discriminated against in ways which deprive and/or tend to deprive them of equal employment opportunities and which otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of national origin. These persons are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. A common relief is sought. The interests of said class are adequately represented by Plaintiff. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff.” Id., at 14.
Petitioner’s Interrogatory No. 8 stated:
“Identify the common questions of law and fac[t] which affect the rights of the members of the purported class.” Id., at 26.
Respondent answered that interrogatory as follows:
“The facts which affect the rights of the members of the class are the facts of their employment, the ways in which evaluations are made, the subjective rather than objective manner in which recommendations for raises and transfers and promotions are handled, and all of the facts surrounding the employment of Mexiean-Ameriean persons by General Telephone Company. The questions of law specified in Interrogatory No. 8 call for a conclusion on the part of the Plaintiff.” Id., at 34.
The District Court’s pretrial order of February 2, 1976, provided, in part:
“The case is to proceed as a class action and the Plaintiff is to represent the class. The class is to be made up of those employees who are employed and employees who have applied for employment in the Irving Division of the Defendant company, and no other division.
“Plaintiff and Defendant are to hold further negotiations to see if there is a possibility of granting individual relief to the Plaintiff, MARIANO S. FALCON.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a-49a.
The District Court denied subsequent motions to decertify the class both before and after the trial.
The District Court ordered petitioner to accelerate its affirmative-action plan by taking specified steps to more actively recruit and promote Mexican-Americans at its Irving facility. See id,., at 41a-45a.
Respondent’s individual recovery amounted to $1,040.33. A large share of the class award, $28,827.50, represented attorney’s fees. Most of the remainder resulted from petitioner’s practice of keeping all applications active for only 90 days; the District Court found that most of the applications had been properly rejected at the time they were considered, but that petitioner could not justify the refusal to extend employment to disappointed applicants after an interval of 90 days. See 463 F. Supp. 315 (1978).
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had not abused its discretion since each of petitioner’s divisions conducted its own hiring and since management of the broader class would be much more difficult. Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest, 626 F. 2d 369, 376 (CA5 1980).
The court continued:
“While similarities of sex, race or national origin claims are not dispositive in favor of finding that the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been met, they are an extremely important factor in the determination, that can outweigh the fact that the members of the plaintiff class may be complaining about somewhat different specific discriminatory practices. In addition here, the plaintiff showed more than an alliance based simply on the same type of discriminatory claim. He also showed a similarity of interests based on job location, job function and other considerations.” Id., at 375-376 (citations omitted).
The court did not explain how job location, job function, and the unidentified other considerations were relevant to the Rule 23(a) determination.
The District Court found that petitioner’s proffered reasons for promoting the whites, rather than respondent, were insufficient and subjective. The Court of Appeals held that respondent had made out a prima facie case under the test set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802, and that the District Court’s conclusion that petitioner had not rebutted that prima facie case was not clearly erroneous. In so holding, the Court of Appeals relied on its earlier opinion in Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs, 608 F. 2d 563 (1979). Our opinion in Burdine had not yet been announced.
The Court of Appeals disposed of a number of other contentions raised by both parties, and reserved others pending the further proceedings before the District Court on remand. Among the latter issues was petitioner’s objection to the District Court’s theory for computing the class backpay awards. See n. 7, supra.
The District Court’s finding was based on statistical evidence comparing the number of Mexican-Americans in the company’s employ, and the number hired in 1972 and 1973, with the percentage of Mexican-Americans in the Dallas-Fort Worth labor force. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a. Since recovery had been allowed for the years 1973 through 1976 based on statistical evidence pertaining to only a portion of that period, and since petitioner’s evidence concerning the entire period suggested that there was no disparate impact, the Court of Appeals ordered further proceedings on the class hiring claims. 626 F. 2d, at 380-382.
See Hall v. Werthan Bag Corp., 251 F. Supp. 184, 186 (MD Tenn. 1966).
The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge. Both serve as guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiffs claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence. Those requirements therefore also tend to merge with the adequacy-of-representation requirement, although the latter requirement also raises concerns about the competency of class counsel and conflicts of interest. In this case, we need not address petitioner’s argument that there is a conflict of interest between respondent and the class of rejected applicants because an enlargement of the pool of Mexican-American employees will decrease respondent’s chances for promotion. See General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318, 331 (“In employment discrimination litigation, conflicts might arise, for example, between employees and applicants who were denied employment and who will, if granted relief, compete with employees for fringe benefits or seniority. Under Rule 23, the same plaintiff could not represent these classes”); see also East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U. S. 395, 404-405.
See n. 4, supra.
If petitioner used a biased testing procedure to evaluate both applicants for employment and incumbent employees, a class action on behalf of every applicant or employee who might have been prejudiced by the test clearly would satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a). Significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination conceivably could justify a class of both applicants and employees if the discrimination manifested itself in hiring and promotion practices in the same general fashion, such as through entirely subjective decisionmaking processes. In this regard it is noteworthy that Title VII prohibits discriminatory employment practices, not an abstract policy of discrimination. The mere fact that an aggrieved private plaintiff is a member of an identifiable class of persons of the same race or national origin is insufficient to establish his standing to litigate on their behalf all possible claims of discrimination against a common employer.
“As soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained. An order under this subdivision may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(c)(1).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
California’s determinate sentencing law (DSL) assigns to the trial judge, not. to the jury, authority to find the facts that expose a defendant to an elevated “upper term” sentence. The facts so found are neither inherent in the jury’s verdict nor embraced by the defendant’s plea, and they need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The question presented is whether the DSL, by placing sentence-elevating factfinding within the judge’s province, violates a defendant’s right to trial by jury safeguarded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. We hold that it does.
As this Court’s decisions instruct, the Federal Constitution’s jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005). “[T]he relevant'statutory maximum,’ ” this Court has clarified, “is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings.” Blakely, 542 U. S., at 303-304 (emphasis in original). In petitioner’s case, the jury’s verdict alone limited the permissible sentence to 12 years. Additional factfinding by the trial judge, however, yielded an upper term sentence of 16 years. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the harsher sentence. We granted certiorari, 546 U. S. 1169 (2006), and now reverse that disposition because the four-year elevation based on judicial factfinding denied petitioner his right to a jury trial.
I
A
Petitioner John Cunningham was tried and convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14. Under the DSL, that offense is punishable by imprisonment for a lower term sentence of 6 years, a middle term sentence of 12 years, or an upper term sentence of 16 years. Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 288.5(a) (West 1999) (hereinafter Penal Code). As further explained below, see infra, at 277-281, the DSL obliged the trial judge to sentence Cunningham to the 12-year middle term unless the judge found one or more additional facts in aggravation. Based on a post-trial sentencing hearing, the trial judge found by a preponderance of the evidence six aggravating circumstances, among them, the particular vulnerability of Cunningham’s victim, and Cunningham’s violent conduct, which indicated a serious danger to the community. Tr. of Sentencing (Aug. 1, 2003), App. 22. In mitigation, the judge found one fact: Cunningham had no record of prior criminal conduct. Ibid. Concluding that the aggravators outweighed the sole mitigator, the judge sentenced Cunningham to the upper term of 16 years. Id., at 23.
A panel of the California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence; one judge dissented in part, urging that this Court’s precedent precluded the judge-determined four-year increase in Cunningham's sentence. No. A103501 (Apr. 18, 2005), App. 43-48; id., at 48-50 (Jones, J., concurring and dissenting). The California Supreme Court denied review. No. S133971 (June 29, 2005), id., at 52. In a reasoned decision published nine days earlier, that court considered the question here presented and held that the DSL survived Sixth Amendment inspection. People v. Black, 35 Cal. 4th 1238, 113 P. 3d 534 (June 20, 2005).
B
Enacted in 1977, the DSL replaced an indeterminate sentencing regime in force in California for some 60 years. See id., at 1246, 113 P. 3d, at 537; Cassou & Taugher, Determinate Sentencing in California: The New Numbers Game, 9 Pac. L. J. 5, 6-22 (1978) (hereinafter Cassou & Taugher). Under the prior regime, courts imposed open-ended prison terms (often one year to life), and the parole board — the Adult Authority — determined the amount of time a felon would ultimately spend in prison. Black, 35 Cal. 4th, at 1246, 1256, 113 P. 3d, at 537, 544; In re Roberts, 36 Cal. 4th 575, 588, n. 6, 115 P. 3d 1121, 1129, n. 6 (2005); Cassou & Taugher 5-9. In contrast, the DSL fixed the terms of imprisonment for most offenses, and eliminated the possibility of early release on parole. See Penal Code §3000 et seq. (West Supp. 2006); 3 B. Witkin & N. Epstein, California Criminal Law §610, p. 809 (3d ed. 2000); Brief for Respondent 7. Through the DSL, California’s lawmakers aimed to promote uniform and proportionate punishment. Penal Code § 1170(a)(1); Black, 35 Cal. 4th, at 1246, 113 P. 3d, at 537.
For most offenses, including Cunningham’s, the DSL regime is implemented in the following manner. The statute defining the offense prescribes three precise terms of imprisonment — a lower, middle, and upper term sentence. E. g., Penal Code § 288.5(a) (West 1999) (a person convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child “shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 6,12, or 16 years”). See also Black, 35 Cal. 4th, at 1247,113 P. 3d, at 538. Penal Code § 1170(b) (West Supp. 2006) controls the trial judge’s choice; it provides that “the court shall order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime.” “[Circumstances in aggravation or mitigation” are to be determined by the court after consideration of several items: the trial record; the probation officer’s report; statements in aggravation or mitigation submitted by the parties, the victim, or the victim’s family; “and any further evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing.” Ibid.
The DSL directed the State’s Judicial Council to adopt Rules guiding the sentencing judge’s decision whether to “[i]mpose the lower or upper prison term.” Penal Code § 1170.3(a)(2) (West 2004). Restating § 1170(b), the Council’s Rules provide that “[t]he middle term shall be selected unless imposition of the upper or lower term is justified by circumstances in aggravation or mitigation.” Rule 4.420(a). “Circumstances in aggravation,” as crisply defined by the Judicial Council, means “facts which justify the imposition of the upper prison term.” Rule 4.405(d) (emphasis added). Facts aggravating an offense, the Rules instruct, “shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence,” Rule 4.420(b), and must be “stated orally on the record,” Rule 4.420(e).
The Rules provide a nonexhaustive list of aggravating circumstances, including “[f]acts relating to the crime,” Rule 4.421(a), “[fjacts relating to the defendant,” Rule 4.421(b), and “[a]ny other facts statutorily declared to be circumstances in aggravation,” Rule 4.421(c). Beyond the enumerated circumstances, “the judge is free to consider any ‘additional criteria reasonably related to the decision being made.’ ” Black, 35 Cal. 4th, at 1247,113 P. 3d, at 538 (quoting Rule 4.408(a)). “A fact that is an element of the crime,” however, “shall not be used to impose the upper term.” Rule 4.420(d). In sum, California’s DSL, and the Rules governing its application, direct the sentencing court to start with the middle term, and to move from that term only when the court itself finds and places on the record facts — whether related to the offense or the offender — beyond the elements of the charged offense.
Justice Alito maintains, however, that a circumstance in aggravation need not be a fact at all. In his view, a policy judgment, or even a judge’s “subjective belief” regarding the appropriate sentence, qualifies as an aggravating circumstance. Post, at 307-308 (dissenting opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). California’s Rules, however, constantly refer to “facts.” As just noted, the Rules define “circumstances in aggravation” as “facts which justify the imposition of the upper prison term.” Rule 4.405(d) (emphasis added). And “circumstances in aggravation,” the Rules unambiguously declare, “shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence,” Rule 4.420(b), a clear factfinding directive to which there is no exception. See People v. Hall, 8 Cal. 4th 950, 957, 883 P. 2d 974, 978 (1994) (“Selection of the upper term is justified only if circumstances in aggravation are established by a preponderance of evidence____” (emphasis added)).
While the Rules list “[g]eneral objectives of sentencing,” Rule 4.410(a), nowhere are these objectives cast as “circumstances in aggravation” that alone authorize an upper term sentence. The Rules also state that “[t]he enumeration... of some criteria for the making of discretionary sentencing decisions does not prohibit the application of additional criteria reasonably related to the decision being made.” Rule 4.408(a). California courts have not read this language to unmoor "circumstances in aggravation” from any factfinding anchor.
In line with the Rules, the California Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to circumstances in aggravation as facts. See, e. g., Black, 35 Cal. 4th, at 1256, 113 P. 3d, at 544 ("The Legislature did not identify all of the particular facts that could justify the upper term.” (emphasis added)); People v. Wiley, 9 Cal. 4th 580, 587, 889 P. 2d 541, 545 (1995) (“[Tjrial courts are assigned the task of deciding whether to impose an upper or lower term of imprisonment based upon their determination whether there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime, a determination that invariably requires numerous factual findings.” (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted)).
It is unsurprising, then, that State’s counsel, at oral argument, acknowledged that he knew of no case in which a California trial judge had gone beyond the middle term based not on any fact the judge found, but solely on the basis of a policy judgment or subjective belief. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 49-50.
Notably, the Penal Code permits elevation of a sentence above the upper term based on specified statutory enhancements relating to the defendant’s criminal history or circumstances of the crime. See, e.g., Penal Code §667 et seq. (West 1999); § 12022 et seq. (West 2000 and Supp. 2006). See also Black, 35 Cal. 4th, at 1257, 113 P. 3d, at 545, Unlike aggravating circumstances, statutory enhancements must be charged in the indictment, and the underlying facts must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Penal Code § 1170.1(e) (West 2004); Black, 35 Cal. 4th, at 1257,113 P. 3d, at 545. A fact underlying an enhancement cannot do double duty; it cannot be used to impose an upper term sentence and, on top of that, an enhanced term. Penal Code § 1170(b). Where permitted by statute, however, a judge may use a fact qualifying as an enhancer to impose an upper term rather than an enhanced sentence. Ibid.; Rule 4.420(c).
II
This Court has repeatedly held that, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence. While this rule is rooted in longstanding common-law practice, its explicit statement in our decisions is recent. In Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227 (1999), we examined the Sixth Amendment’s historical and doctrinal foundations, and recognized that judicial fact-finding operating to increase a defendant’s otherwise maximum punishment posed a grave constitutional question. Id., at 239-252. While the Court construed the statute at issue to avoid the question, the Jones opinion presaged our decision, some 15 months later, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000).
Charles Apprendi was convicted of possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, a second-degree offense under New Jersey law punishable by five to ten years’ imprisonment. Id., at 468. A separate “hate crime” statute authorized an “extended term” of imprisonment: Ten to twenty years could be imposed if the trial judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “ ‘[t]he defendant in committing the crime acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity.’” Id., at 468-469 (quoting N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:44-3(e) (West Supp. 1999-2000)). The judge in Apprendi’s case so found, and therefore sentenced the defendant to 12 years’ imprisonment. This Court held that the Sixth Amendment proscribed the enhanced sentence. 530 U. S., at 471. Other than a prior conviction, see Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 239-247 (1998), we held in Apprendi, “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U. S., at 490. See also Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545, 557-566 (2002) (plurality opinion) (“Apprendi said that any fact extending the defendant’s sentence beyond the maximum authorized by the jury’s verdict would have been considered an element of an aggravated crime~~and thus the domain of the jury — by those who framed the Bill of Rights.”).
We have since reaffirmed the rule of Apprendi, applying it to facts subjecting a defendant to the death penalty, Ring, 536 U. S., at 602, 609., facts permitting a sentence in excess of the “standard range” under Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act, Blakely, 542 U. S., at 304-305, and facts triggering a sentence range elevation under the then-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Booker, 543 U. S., at 243-244. Blakely and Booker bear most closely on the question presented in this case.
Ralph Howard Blakely was convicted of second-degree kidnaping with a firearm, a class B felony under Washington law. Blakely, 542 U. S., at 298-299. While the overall statutory maximum for a class B felony was ten years, the State’s Sentencing Reform Act (Reform Act) added an important qualification: If no facts beyond those reflected in the jury’s verdict were found by the trial judge, a defendant could not receive a sentence above a “standard range” of 49 to 53 months. Id., at 299-300. The Reform Act permitted but did not require a judge to exceed that standard range if she found “'substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.’” Ibid, (quoting Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §9.94A. 120(2) (2000)). The Reform Act set out a non-exhaustive list of aggravating facts on which such a sentence elevation could be based. It also clarified that a fact taken into account in fixing the standard range — i. e., any fact found by the jury — could under no circumstances count in the determination whether to impose an exceptional sentence. 542 U. S., at 299-300. Blakely was sentenced to 90 months’ imprisonment, more than three years above the standard range, based on the trial judge’s finding that he had acted with deliberate cruelty. Id., at 300.
Applying the rule of Apprendi, this Court held Blakely’s sentence unconstitutional. The State in Blakely had endeavored to distinguish Apprendi on the ground that “[u]nder the Washington guidelines, an exceptional sentence is within the court’s discretion as a result of a guilty verdict.” Brief for Respondent in Blakely v. Washington, O. T. 2003, No. 02-1632, p. 15. We rejected that argument. The judge could not have sentenced Blakely above the standard range without finding the additional fact of deliberate cruelty. Consequently, that fact was subject to the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee. 542 U. S., at 304-314. It did not matter, we explained, that Blakely’s sentence, though outside the standard range, was within the 10-year maximum for class B felonies:
“Our precedents make clear... that the ‘statutory maximum ’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.... In other words, the relevant ‘statutory maximum’ is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings. When a judge inflicts punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’... and the judge exceeds his proper authority.” Id., at 303-304 (quoting 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure §87, p. 55 (2d ed. 1872); emphasis in original).
Because the judge in Blakely’s case could not have imposed a sentence outside the standard range without finding an additional fact, the top of that range — 53 months, and not 10 years — was the relevant statutory maximum. 542 U. S., at 304.
The State had additionally argued in Blakely that Apprendi’s rule was satisfied because Washington’s Reform Act did not specify an exclusive catalog of potential facts on which a judge might base a departure from the standard range. This Court rejected that argument as well. “Whether the judge’s authority to impose an enhanced sentence depends on finding a specified fact..., one of several specified facts..., or any aggravating fact (as here),” we observed, “it remains the case that the jury’s verdict alone does not authorize the sentence.” 542 U. S., at 305 (emphasis in original). Further, we held it irrelevant that the Reform Act ultimately left the decision whether or not to depart to the judge’s discretion: “Whether the judicially determined facts require a sentence enhancement or merely allow it,” we noted, “the verdict alone does not authorize the sentence.” Ibid., n. 8 (emphasis in original).
Freddie Booker was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The facts found by Booker’s jury yielded a base Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment, a range the judge could not exceed without undertaking additional factfinding. Booker, 543 U. S., at 227, 233-234. The judge did so, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Booker possessed an amount of drugs in excess of the amount determined by the jury’s verdict. That finding boosted Booker into a higher Guidelines range. Booker was sentenced at the bottom of the higher range, to 360 months in prison. Id., at 227.
In an opinion written by Justice Stevens for a five-Member majority, the Court held Booker’s sentence impermissible under the Sixth Amendment. In the majority’s judgment, there was “no distinction of constitutional significance between the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Washington procedures at issue in [Blakely].” Id., at 238. Both systems were “mandatory and impose[d] binding requirements on all sentencing judges.” Ibid. Justice Stevens’ opinion for the Court, it bears emphasis, next expressed a view on which there was no disagreement among the Justices. He acknowledged that the Federal Guidelines would not implicate the Sixth Amendment were they advisory:
“If the Guidelines as currently written could be read as merely advisory provisions that recommended, rather than required, the selection of particular sentences in response to differing sets of facts, their use would not implicate the Sixth Amendment. We have never doubted the authority of a judge to exercise broad discretion in imposing a sentence within a statutory range. Indeed, everyone agrees that the constitutional issues presented by [this case] would have been avoided entirely if Congress had omitted from the [federal Sentencing Reform Act] the provisions that make the Guidelines binding on district judges.... For when a trial judge exercises his discretion to select a specific sentence within a defined range, the defendant has no right to a jury determination of the facts that the judge deems relevant.
“The Guidelines as written, however, are not advisory; they are mandatory and binding on all judges.” Ibid. (citations omitted).
In an opinion written by Justice Breyer, also garnering a five-Member majority, the Court faced the remedial question, which turned on an assessment of legislative intent: What alteration would Congress have intended had it known that the Guidelines were vulnerable to a Sixth Amendment challenge? Three choices were apparent: The Court could invalidate in its entirety the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA), the law comprehensively delineating the federal sentencing system; or it could preserve the SRA, and the mandatory Guidelines regime the SRA established, by attaching a jury-trial requirement to any fact increasing a defendant’s base Guidelines range; finally, the Court could render the Guidelines advisory by severing two provisions of the SRA, 18 U. S. C. §§ 3553(b)(1) and 3742(e) (2000 ed. and Supp. IV). 543 U. S., at 246-249. Recognizing that “reasonable minds can, and do, differ” on the remedial question, the majority concluded that the advisory Guidelines solution came closest to the congressional mark. Id., at 248-258.
Under the system described in Justice Breyer’s opinion for the Court in Booker, judges would no longer be tied to the sentencing range indicated in the Guidelines. But they would be obliged to “take account of” that range along with the sentencing goals Congress enumerated in the SRA at 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a). 543 U. S., at 259, 264. Having severed § 3742(e), the provision of the SRA governing appellate review of sentences under the mandatory Guidelines scheme, see supra, at 286, and n. 11, the Court installed, as consistent with the SRA and the sound administration of justice, a “reasonableness” standard of review. 543 U. S., at 261. Without attempting an elaborate discussion of that standard, Justice Breyer’s remedial opinion for the Court observed: “Section 3553(a) remains in effect, and sets forth numerous factors that guide sentencing. Those factors in turn will guide appellate courts, as they have in the past, in determining whether a sentence is reasonable.” Ibid. The Court emphasized the provisional character of the Booker remedy. Recognizing that authority to speak “the last word” resides in Congress, the Court said:
“The ball now lies in Congress’ court. The National Legislature is equipped to devise and install, long term, the sentencing system, compatible with the Constitution, that Congress judges best for the federal system of justice.” Id., at 265.
We turn now to the instant case in light of both parts of the Court’s Booker opinion, and our earlier decisions in point.
Ill
Under California’s DSL, an upper term sentence may be imposed only when the trial judge finds an aggravating circumstance. See supra, at 277-278. An element of the charged offense, essential to a jury’s determination of guilt, or admitted in a defendant’s guilty plea, does not qualify as such a circumstance. See supra, at 278-279. Instead, aggravating circumstances depend on facts found discretely and solely by the judge. In accord with Blakely, therefore, the middle term prescribed in California’s statutes, not the upper term, is the relevant statutory maximum. 542 U. S., at 303 (“[T]he ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” (emphasis in original)). Because circumstances in aggravation are found by the judge, not the jury, and need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, see supra, at 278, the DSL violates Apprendi’s bright-line rule: Except for a prior conviction, “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” 530 U. S., at 490.
While “[t]hat should be the end of the matter,” Blakely, 542 U. S., at 313, in People v. Black, the California Supreme Court held otherwise. In that court’s view, the DSL survived examination under our precedent intact. See 35 Cal. 4th, at 1254-1261, 113 P. 3d, at 543-548. The Black court acknowledged that California’s system appears on surface inspection to be in tension with the rule of Apprendi. But in “operation and effect,” the court said, the DSL “simply authorize^] a sentencing court to engage in the type of fact-finding that traditionally has been incident to the judge’s selection of an appropriate sentence within a statutorily prescribed sentencing range.” 35 Cal. 4th, at 1254, 113 P. 3d, at 543. Therefore, the court concluded, “the upper term is the ‘statutory maximum’ and a trial court’s imposition of an upper term sentence does not violate a defendant’s right to a jury trial under the principles set forth in Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker.” Ibid. But see id., at 1270,113 P. 3d, at 554 (Kennard, J., concurring and dissenting) (“Nothing in the high court’s majority opinions in Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker suggests that the constitutionality of a state’s sentencing scheme turns on whether, in the words of the majority here, it involves the type of factfinding ‘that traditionally has been performed by a judge.’” (quoting id., at 1253, 113 P. 3d, at 542)).
The Black court’s conclusion that the upper term, and not the middle term, qualifies as the relevant statutory maximum, rested on several considerations. First, the court reasoned that, given the ample discretion afforded trial judges to identify aggravating facts warranting an upper term sentence, the DSL
“does not represent a legislative effort to shift the proof of particular facts from elements of a crime (to be proved to a jury) to sentencing factors (to be decided by a judge).... Instead, it afforded the sentencing judge the discretion to decide, with the guidance of rules and statutes, whether the facts of the case and the history of the defendant justify the higher sentence. Such a system does not diminish the traditional power of the jury.” Id., at 1256, 113 P. 3d, at 544 (footnote omitted).
We cautioned in Blakely, however, that broad discretion to decide what facts may support an enhanced sentence, or to determine whether an enhanced sentence is warranted in any particular case, does not shield a sentencing system from the force of our decisions. If the jury’s verdict alone does not authorize the sentence, if, instead, the judge must find an additional fact to impose the longer term, the Sixth Amendment requirement is not satisfied. 542 U. S., at 305, and n. 8.
The Black court also urged that the DSL is not cause for concern because it reduced the penalties for most crimes over the prior indeterminate sentencing regime. 35 Cal. 4th, at 1256-1258, 113 P. 3d, at 544-545. But see id., at 1271-1272,113 P. 3d, at 555 (Kennard, J., concurring and dissenting) (“This aspect of our sentencing law does not differ significantly from the Washington sentencing scheme [the high court invalidated in Blakely.]”); supra, at 283-284. Furthermore, California’s system is not unfair to defendants, for they “cannot reasonably expect a guarantee that the upper term will not be imposed” given judges’ broad discretion to impose an upper term sentence or to keep their punishment at the middle term. 35 Cal. 4th, at 1258-1259, 113 P. 3d, at 545-546. The Black court additionally noted that the DSL requires statutory enhancements (as distinguished from aggravators) — e. g., the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, infliction of great bodily injury, Penal Code §§12022, 12022.7-.8 (West 2000 and Supp. 2006) — to be charged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 35 Cal. 4th, at 1257, 113 P. 3d, at 545.
The Black court’s examination of the DSL, in short, satisfied it that California’s sentencing system does not implicate significantly the concerns underlying the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee. Our decisions, however, leave no room for such an examination. Asking whether a defendant’s basic jury-trial right is preserved, though some facts essential to punishment are reserved for determination by the judge, we have said, is the very inquiry Apprendi’s “bright-line rule” was designed to exclude. See Blakely, 542 U. S., at 307-308. But see Black, 35 Cal. 4th, at 1260, 113 P. 3d, at 547 (stating, remarkably, that “[t]he high court precedents do not draw a bright line”).
Ultimately, the Black court relied on an equation of California’s DSL system to the post-Booker federal system. “The level of discretion available to a California judge in selecting which of the three available terms to impose,” the court said, “appears comparable to the level of discretion that the high court has chosen to permit federal judges in post-Booker sentencing.” 35 Cal. 4th, at 1261, 113 P. 3d, at 548. The same equation drives Justice Alito’s dissent. See post, at 297 (“The California sentencing law... is indistinguishable in any constitutionally significant respect from the advisory Guidelines scheme that the Court approved in [Booker].”).
The attempted comparison is unavailing. As earlier explained, see supra, at 284-286, this Court in Booker held the Federal Sentencing Guidelines incompatible with the Sixth Amendment because the Guidelines were “mandatory and impose[d] binding requirements on all sentencing judges.” 543 U. S., at 233. “[Mjerely advisory provisions,” recommending but not requiring “the selection of particular sentences in response to differing sets of facts,” all Members of the Court agreed, “would not implicate the Sixth Amendment.” Ibid. To remedy the constitutional infirmity found in Booker, the Court’s majority excised provisions that rendered the system mandatory, leaving the Guidelines in place as advisory only. Id., at 245-246. See also supra, at 286-287.
California’s DSL does not resemble the advisory system the Booker Court had in view. Under California’s system, judges are not free to exercise their “discretion to select a specific sentence within a defined range.” Booker, 543 U. S., at 233. California’s Legislature has adopted sentencing triads, three fixed sentences with no ranges between them. Cunningham’s sentencing judge had no discretion to select a sentence within a range of 6 to 16 years. Her instruction was to select 12 years, nothing less and nothing more, unless she found facts allowing the imposition of a sentence of 6 or 16 years. Factfinding to elevate a sentence from 12 to 16 years, our decisions make plain, falls within the province of the jury employing a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, not the bailiwick of a judge determining where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Nevertheless, the Black court attempted to rescue the DSL’s judicial factfinding authority by typing it simply a reasonableness constraint, equivalent to the constraint operative in the federal system post-Booker. See 35 Cal. 4th, at 1261,113 P. 3d, at 548 (“Because an aggravating factor under California law may include any factor that the judge reasonably deems relevant, the [DSL’s] requirement that an upper term sentence be imposed only if an aggravating factor exists is comparable to Booker’s requirement that a federal judge’s sentencing decision not be unreasonable.”). Reasonableness, however, is not, as the Black court would have it, the touchstone of Sixth Amendment analysis. The reasonableness requirement Booker anticipated for the federal system operates within the Sixth Amendment constraints delineated in our precedent, not as a substitute for those constraints. Because the DSL allocates to judges sole authority to find facts permitting the imposition of an upper term sentence, the system violates the Sixth Amendment. It is comforting, but beside the point, that California’s system requires judge-determined DSL sentences to be reasonable. Booker’s remedy for the Federal Guidelines, in short, is not a recipe for rendering our Sixth Amendment case law toothless.
To summarize: Contrary to the Black court’s holding, our decisions from Apprendi to Booker point to the middle term specified in California’s statutes, not the upper term, as the relevant statutory maximum. Because the DSL authorizes the judge, not the jury, to find the facts permitting an upper term sentence, the system cannot withstand measurement against our Sixth Amendment precedent.
IV
As to the adjustment of California’s sentencing system in light of our decision, “[tjhe ball... lies in [California’s] court.” Booker, 543 U. S., at 265; cf. supra, at 288. We note that several States have modified their systems in the wake of Apprendi and Blakely to retain determinate sentencing. They have done so by calling upon the jury — either at trial or in a separate sentencing proceeding — to find any fact necessary to the imposition of an elevated sentence. As earlier noted, California already employs juries in this manner to determine statutory sentencing enhancements. See supra, at 280, 290. Other States have chosen to permit judges genuinely “to exercise broad discretion... within a statutory range
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to determine whether these cases have become moot.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625 (1986), the Court established a prophylactic rule that once a criminal defendant invokes his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a subsequent waiver of that right — even if voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under traditional standards — is presumed invalid if secured pursuant to police-initiated conversation. We held that statements obtained in violation of that rule may not be admitted as substantive evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief. The question presented in this case is whether the prosecution may use a statement taken in violation of the Jackson prophylactic rule to impeach a defendant’s false or inconsistent testimony. We hold that it may do so.
Respondent Tyris Lemont Harvey was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in connection with the rape of Audrey Sharp on June 11, 1986. Harvey was taken into custody on July 2, 1986, and on that date, he made a statement to an investigating officer. He was arraigned later on July 2, and counsel was appointed for him. More than two months later, Harvey told another police officer that he wanted to make a second statement, but did not know whether he should talk to his lawyer. Although the entire context of the discussion is not clear from the record, the officer told respondent that he did not need to speak with his attorney, because “his lawyer was going to get a copy of the statement anyway.” App. 32-33 (stipulation of prosecution). Respondent then signed a constitutional rights waiver form, on which he initialed the portions advising him of his right to remain silent, his right to have a lawyer present before and during questioning, and his right to have a lawyer appointed for him prior to any questioning. App. to Pet. for Cert. 3a-4a. Asked whether he understood his constitutional rights, respondent answered affirmatively. He then gave a statement detailing his version of the events of June 11.
At a bench trial, Sharp testified that Harvey visited her home at 2:30 a.m. on the date in question and asked to use the telephone. After placing a call, Harvey confronted Sharp with a barbecue fork, and a struggle ensued. According to Sharp, respondent struck her in the face, threatened her with the fork and a pair of garden shears, and eventually threw her to the floor of her kitchen. When she ran to the living room to escape, Harvey pursued her with the weapons, demanded that she take off her clothes, and forced her to engage in sexual acts.
Harvey testified in his own defense and presented a conflicting account of the night’s events. He claimed that he had gone to Sharp’s home at 9 p.m. and invited her to smoke some crack cocaine, which he offered to supply in return for sexual favors. She agreed, but after smoking the cocaine, she refused to perform the favors. When respondent would not leave her house, Sharp allegedly grabbed the barbecue fork and threatened him, triggering a brief fight during which he grabbed the fork and threw it to the floor. The two then moved to the living room, where, according to Harvey, Sharp voluntarily removed her clothes. He testified, however, that the two never engaged in sexual intercourse and that he left shortly thereafter.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor used Harvey’s second statement to the police to impeach his testimony. Before doing so, the prosecutor stipulated that the statement “was not subject to proper Miranda,” App. 32, and therefore could not have been used in the case in chief. But because the statement was voluntary, the prosecutor argued that it could be used for impeachment under our decision in Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). Defense counsel did not object, App. 34; App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a, and the trial court permitted the questioning. The prosecutor then impeached certain of Harvey’s statements, including his claim that he had thrown the barbecue fork to the floor, by showing that he had omitted that information from his statement to the police. App. 36-45. The trial judge believed the victim’s testimony and found respondent guilty as charged.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. The court noted that if the second statement had been taken only in violation of the rules announced in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), it could have been used to impeach Harvey’s testimony. It held, however, that the statement was inadmissible even for impeachment purposes, because it was taken “in violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See e. g., Michigan v. Jackson, 475 US 625.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a-7a. Because the trial “involved a credibility contest between defendant and the victim,” the court concluded that the impeachment was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 7a. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, three justices dissenting, and we granted certiorari. 489 U. S. 1010 (1989). We now reverse.
To understand this case, it is necessary first to review briefly the Court’s jurisprudence surrounding the Sixth Amendment. The text of the Amendment provides in pertinent part that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The essence of this right, we recognized in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), is the opportunity for a defendant to consult with an attorney and to have him investigate the case and prepare a defense for trial. Id., at 58, 71. More recently, in a line of cases beginning with Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964), and extending through Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159 (1985), the Court has held that once formal criminal proceedings begin, the Sixth Amendment renders inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief statements “deliberately elicited” from a defendant without an express waiver of the right to counsel. See also United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264 (1980); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977). For the fruits of postindictment interrogations to be admissible in a prosecution’s case in chief, the State must prove a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent relinquishment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U. S. 285, 292, and n. 4 (1988); Brewer, supra, at 404. We have recently held that when a suspect waives his right to counsel after receiving warnings equivalent to those prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, supra, that will generally suffice to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for purposes of postindictment questioning. Patterson v. Illinois, supra.
In Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625 (1986), the Court created a bright-line rule for deciding whether an accused who has “asserted” his Sixth Amendment right to counsel has subsequently waived that right. Transposing the reasoning of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 (1981), which had announced an identical “prophylactic rule” in the Fifth Amendment context, see Solem v. Stumes, 465 U. S. 638, 644 (1984), we decided that after a defendant requests assistance of counsel, any waiver of Sixth Amendment rights given in a discussion initiated by police is presumed invalid, and evidence obtained pursuant to such a waiver is inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief. Jackson, supra, at 636. Thus, to help guarantee that waivers are truly voluntary, Jackson established a presumption which renders invalid some waivers that would be considered voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under the traditional case-by-case inquiry called for by Brewer v. Williams.
There is no dispute in this case that respondent had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the time he gave the statement at issue. The State further concedes that the police transgressed the Jackson rule, because the colloquy between respondent and the investigating officer “cannot be viewed as defendant-initiated interrogation.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 52. The question, then, is whether a statement to police taken in violation of Jackson can be admitted to impeach a defendant’s inconsistent trial testimony.
Michigan v. Jackson is based on the Sixth Amendment, but its roots lie in this Court’s decisions in Miranda v. Ari zona, supra, and succeeding cases. Miranda, of course, required police interrogators to advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and set forth a now-familiar set of suggested instructions for that purpose. Although recognizing that the Miranda rules would result in the exclusion of some voluntary and reliable statements, the Court imposed these “prophylactic standards” on the States, see Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 446 (1974), to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Edwards v. Arizona added a second layer of protection to the Miranda rules, holding that “when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights.” 451 U. S., at 484. Edwards thus established another prophylactic rule designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights. See Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U. S. 1039, 1044 (1983) (plurality opinion).
Jackson simply superimposed the Fifth Amendment analysis of Edwards onto the Sixth Amendment. Reasoning that “the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a postarraignment interrogation requires at least as much protection as the Fifth Amendment right to counsel at any custodial interrogation,” Jackson, supra, at 632, the Court in Jackson concluded that the Edwards protections should apply when a suspect charged with a crime requests counsel outside the context of interrogation. This rule, like Edwards, is based on the supposition that suspects who assert their right to counsel are unlikely to waive that right voluntarily in subsequent interrogations.
We have already decided that although statements taken in violation of only the prophylactic Miranda rules may not be used in the prosecution’s case in chief, they are admissible to impeach conflicting testimony by the defendant. Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971); Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714 (1975). The prosecution must not be allowed to build its case against a criminal defendant with evidence acquired in contravention of constitutional guarantees and their corresponding judicially created protections. But use of statements so obtained for impeachment purposes is a different matter. If a defendant exercises his right to testify on his own behalf, he assumes a reciprocal “obligation to speak truthfully and accurately,” Harris, 401 U. S., at 225, and we have consistently rejected arguments that would allow a defendant to “ ‘turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government’s possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths.’” Id., at 224 (quoting Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62, 65 (1954)). See also Hass, supra, at 722; United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620, 626 (1980).
There is no reason for a different result in a Jackson case, where the prophylactic rule is designed to ensure voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waivers of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel rather than the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or “right to counsel.” We have mandated the exclusion of reliable and probative evidence for all purposes only when it is derived from involuntary statements. New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 459 (1979) (compelled incriminating statements inadmissible for. impeachment purposes); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 398 (1978) (same). We have never prevented use by the prosecution of relevant voluntary statements by a defendant, particularly when the violations alleged by a defendant relate only to procedural safeguards that are “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution,” Tucker, supra, at 444 CMiranda rules), but are instead measures designed to ensure that constitutional rights are protected. In such cases, we have decided that the “search for truth in a criminal case” outweighs the “speculative possibility” that exclusion of evidence might deter future violations of rules not compelled directly by the Constitution in the first place. Hass, supra, at 722-723; Havens, supra, at 627 (reaffirming Hass). Hass was decided 15 years ago, and no new information has come to our attention which should lead us to think otherwise now.
Respondent argues that there should be a different exclusionary rule for Jackson violations than for transgressions of Edwards and Miranda. The distinction, he suggests, is that the adversarial process has commenced at the time of a Jackson violation, and the postarraignment interrogations thus implicate the constitutional guarantee of the Sixth Amendment itself. But nothing in the Sixth Amendment prevents a suspect charged with a crime and represented by counsel from voluntarily choosing, on his own, to speak with police in the absence of an attorney. We have already held that a defendant whose Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached by virtue of an indictment may execute a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right in the course of a police-initiated interrogation. Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U. S. 285 (1988). To be sure, once a defendant obtains or even requests counsel as respondent had here, analysis of the waiver issue changes. But that change is due to the protective rule we created in Jackson based on the apparent inconsistency between a request fob counsel and a later voluntary decision to proceed without assistance. See 487 U. S., at 290, n. 3.; cf. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96, 110, n. 2 (1975) (White, J., concurring in result).
In other cases, we have explicitly declined to hold that a defendant who has obtained counsel cannot himself waive his right to counsel. See Brewer, 430 U. S., at 405-406 (“The Court of Appeals did not hold, nor do we, that under the circumstances of this case Williams could not, without notice to counsel, have waived his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. It only held, as do we, that he did not”) (emphasis in original); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U. S. 454, 471-472, n. 16 (1981) (“We do not hold that respondent was precluded from waiving this constitutional right [to counsel]. ... No such waiver has been shown, or even alleged, here”). A defendant’s right to rely on counsel as a “medium” between the defendant and the State attaches upon the initiation of formal charges, Moulton, 474 U. S., at 176, and respondent’s contention that a defendant cannot execute a valid waiver of the right to counsel without first speaking to an attorney is foreclosed by our decision in Patterson. Moreover, respondent’s view would render the prophylactic rule adopted in Jackson wholly unnecessary, because even waivers given during defendant-initiated conversations would be per se involuntary or otherwise invalid, unless counsel were first notified.
Although a defendant may sometimes later regret his decision to speak with police, the Sixth Amendment does not disable a criminal defendant from exercising his free will. To hold that a defendant is inherently incapable of relinquishing his right to counsel once it is invoked would be “to imprison a man in his privileges and call it the Constitution.” Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 280 (1942). This we decline to do. Both Jackson and Edwards establish prophylactic rules that render some otherwise valid waivers of constitutional rights invalid when they result from police-initiated interrogation, and in neither case should “the shield provided by [the prophylactic rule] be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances.” Harris, 401 U. S., at 226.
Respondent and amici assert, alternatively, that the conduct of the police officer who took Harvey’s second statement violated the “core value” of the Sixth Amendment’s constitutional guarantee, and under those circumstances, the second statement may not be used even for impeachment purposes. They contend that respondent was affirmatively misled as to his need for counsel, and his purported waiver is therefore invalid. But on the record before us, it is not possible to determine whether Harvey’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. The state courts developed no record on that issue, and the Michigan Court of Appeals did not rest its holding on any such determination. There was no testimony on this point before the trial court. The only statement in the trial record concerning the issue of waiver is the prosecutor’s concession that the second statement was taken in violation of respondent’s Miranda rights. But that concession is consistent with the Michigan Court of Appeals’ finding that the police violated Jackson, which is, after all, only a Sixth Amendment analogue to the Miranda and Edwards decisions. The Michigan court made no independent inquiry into whether there had been an otherwise valid waiver .of the right to counsel, and respondent’s counsel himself conceded that, putting aside the prosecutor’s concession, the record is insufficient to determine whether there was a voluntary waiver of Sixth Amendment rights. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31-32. In short, the issue was never litigated in this case.
Because respondent’s counsel did not object at trial to the use of his second statement for impeachment purposes, the State had no occasion to offer evidence to establish that Harvey gave a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel under traditional standards. On remand, the Michigan courts are free to conduct a hearing on that question. It is the State’s burden to show that a waiver is knowing and voluntary, Brewer v. Williams, supra, at 404, and if all the circumstances in a particular case show that the police have engaged in a course of conduct which would render the waiver involuntary, the burden will not be satisfied. Those facts are not before us, however, and we need not consider the admissibility for impeachment purposes of a voluntary statement obtained in the absence of a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel.
The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Harvey declined to initial portions of the waiver form explaining that anything he said could be used against him in court, and that he could decide at any time to exercise his rights and not answer any questions or make any statement. App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a.
Respondent also told police that another man and woman had been present in Sharp’s house on the night of the incident and that he thought the man’s name was “Michael. ” At trial, however, respondent said that he did not know the man’s name. App. 36-37. Respondent further testified that “Michael” had brought some cocaine to Sharp’s home, but his statement to police only mentioned cocaine that respondent had provided. Id., at 39.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
An investigation of appellant’s alleged bookmaking activities led to the issuance of a search warrant for appellant’s home. Under authority of this warrant, federal and state agents secured entrance. They found very little evidence of bookmaking activity, but while looking through a desk drawer in an upstairs bedroom, one of the federal agents, accompanied by a state officer, found three reels of eight-millimeter film. Using a projector and screen found in an upstairs living room, they viewed the films. The state officer concluded that they were obscene and seized them. Since a further examination of the bedroom indicated that appellant occupied it, he was charged with possession of obscene matter and placed under arrest. He was later indicted for “knowingly hav[ing] possession of . . . obscene matter” in violation of Georgia law. Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Stanley v. State, 224 Ga. 259, 161 S. E. 2d 309 (1968). We noted probable jurisdiction of an appeal brought under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). 393 U. S. 819 (1968).
Appellant raises several challenges to the validity of his conviction. We find it necessary to consider only one. Appellant argues here, and argued below, that the Georgia obscenity statute, insofar as it punishes mere private possession of obscene matter, violates the First Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons set forth below, we agree that the mere private possession of obscene matter cannot constitutionally be made a crime.
The court below saw no valid constitutional objection to the Georgia statute, even though it extends further than the typical statute forbidding commercial sales of obscene material. It held that “[i]t is not essential to an indictment charging one with possession of obscene matter that it be alleged that such possession was 'with intent to sell, expose or circulate the same.’ ” Stanley v. State, supra, at 261, 161 S. E. 2d, at 311. The State and appellant both agree that the question here before us is whether “a statute imposing criminal sanctions upon the mere [knowing] possession of obscene matter” is constitutional. In this context, Georgia concedes that the present case appears to be one of “first impression ... on this exact point,” but contends that since “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press,” Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 485 (1957), the States are free, subject to the limits of other provisions of the Constitution, see, e. g., Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 637-645 (1968), to deal with it any way deemed necessary, just as they may deal with possession of other things thought to be detrimental to the welfare of their citizens. If the State can protect the body of a citizen, may it not, argues Georgia, protect his mind?
It is true that Roth does declare, seemingly without qualification, that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. That statement has been repeated in various forms in subsequent cases. See, e. g., Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 152 (1959); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 186-187 (1964) (opinion of Brennan, J.) ; Ginsberg v. New York, supra, at 635. However, neither Roth nor any subsequent decision of this Court dealt with the precise problem involved in the present case. Roth was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and advertising, and an obscene book, in violation of a federal obscenity statute. The defendant in a companion case, Alberts v. California, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), was convicted of “lewdly keeping for sale obscene and indecent books, and [of] writing, composing and publishing an obscene advertisement of them . . . .” Id., at 481. None of the statements cited by the Court in Both for the proposition that “this Court has always assumed that obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press” were made in the context of a statute punishing mere private possession of obscene material; the eases cited deal for the most part with use of the mails to distribute objectionable material or with some form of public distribution or dissemination. Moreover, none of this Court’s decisions subsequent to Roth involved prosecution for private possession of obscene materials. Those cases dealt with the power of the State and Federal Governments to prohibit or regulate certain public actions taken or intended to be taken with respect to obscene matter. Indeed, with one exception, we have been unable to discover any case in which the issue in the present case has been fully considered.
In this context, we do not believe that this case can be decided simply by citing Roth. Roth and its progeny certainly do mean that the First and Fourteenth Amendments recognize a valid governmental interest in dealing with the problem of obscenity. But the assertion of that interest cannot, in every context, be insulated from all constitutional protections. Neither Roth nor any other decision of this Court reaches that far. As the Court said in Roth itself, “[c] easeless vigilance is the watchword to prevent . . . erosion [of First Amendment rights] by Congress or by the States. The door barring federal and state intrusion into this area cannot be left ajar ; it must be kept tightly closed and opened only the slightest crack necessary to prevent encroachment upon more important interests.” 354 U. S., at 488. Roth and the cases following it discerned such an “important interest” in the regulation of commercial distribution of obscene material. That holding cannot foreclose an examination of the constitutional implications of a statute forbidding mere private possession of such material.
It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. “This freedom [of speech and press] . . . necessarily protects the right to receive . . . Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 143 (1943); see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 482 (1965); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, 307-308 (1965) (Brennan, J., concurring) ; cf. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925). This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, see Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948), is fundamental to our free society. Moreover, in the context of this case — a prosecution for mere possession of printed or filmed matter in the privacy of a person’s own home — that right takes on an added dimension. For also fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one’s privacy.
“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
See Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; cf. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 462 (1958).
These are the rights that appellant is asserting in the case before us. He is asserting the right to read or observe what he pleases — the right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy of his own home. He is asserting the right to be free from state inquiry into the contents of his library. Georgia contends that appellant does not have these rights, that there are certain types of materials that the individual may not read or even possess. Georgia justifies this assertion by arguing that the films in the present case are obscene. But we think that mere categorization of these films as “obscene” is insufficient justification for such a drastic invasion of personal liberties guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one’s own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds.
And yet, in the face of these traditional notions of individual liberty, Georgia asserts the right to protect the individual’s mind from the effects of obscenity. We are not certain that this argument amounts to anything more than the assertion that the State has the right to control the moral content of a person’s thoughts. To some, this may be a noble purpose, but it is wholly inconsistent with the philosophy of the First Amendment. As the Court said in Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684, 688-689 (1959), “[t]his argument misconceives what it is that the Constitution protects. Its guarantee is not confined to the expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority.... And in the realm of ideas it protects expression which is eloquent no less than that which is unconvincing.” Cf. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952). Nor is it relevant that obscene materials in general, or the particular films before the Court, are arguably devoid of any ideological content. The line between the transmission of ideas and mere entertainment is much too elusive for this Court to draw, if indeed such a line can be drawn at all. See Winters v. New York, supra, at 510. Whatever the power of the state to control public dissemination of ideas inimical to the public morality, it cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts.
Perhaps recognizing this, Georgia asserts that exposure to obscene materials may lead to deviant sexual behavior or crimes of sexual violence. There appears to be little empirical basis for that assertion. But more important, if the State is only concerned about printed or filmed materials inducing antisocial conduct, we believe that in the context of private consumption of ideas and information we should adhere to the view that “[a]mong free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law . . . Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 378 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). See Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72 Yale L. J. 877, 938 (1963). Given the present state of knowledge, the State may no more prohibit mere possession of obscene matter on the ground that it may lead to antisocial conduct than it may prohibit possession of chemistry books on the ground that they may lead to the manufacture of homemade spirits.
It is true that in Roth this Court rejected the necessity of proving that exposure to' obscene material would create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct or would probably induce its recipients to such conduct. 354 U. S., at 486-487. But that case dealt with public distribution of obscene materials and such distribution is subject to different objections. For example, there is always the danger that obscene material might fall into the hands of children, see Ginsberg v. New York, supra, or that it might intrude upon the sensibilities or privacy of the general public. See Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 769 (1967). No such dangers are present in this case.
Finally, we are faced with the argument that prohibition of possession of obscene materials is a necessary incident to statutory schemes prohibiting distribution. That argument is based on alleged difficulties of proving an intent to distribute or in producing evidence of actual distribution. We are not convinced that such difficulties exist, but even if they did we do not think that they would justify infringement of the individual’s right to read or observe what he pleases. Because that right is so fundamental to our scheme of individual liberty, its restriction may not be justified by the need to ease the administration of otherwise valid criminal laws. See Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 (1959).
We hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime. Roth and the cases following that decision are not impaired by today’s holding. As we have said, the States retain broad power to regulate obscenity; that power simply does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
“Any person who shall knowingly bring or cause to be brought into this State for sale or exhibition, or who shall knowingly sell or offer to sell, or who shall knowingly lend or give away or offer to lend or give away, or who shall knowingly have possession of, or who shall knowingly exhibit or transmit to another, any obscene matter, or who shall knowingly advertise for sale by any form of notice, printed, written, or verbal, any obscene matter, or who shall knowingly manufacture, draw, duplicate or print any obscene matter with intent to sell, expose or circulate the same, shall, if such person has knowledge or reasonably should know of the obscene nature of such matter, be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than five years: Provided, however, in the event the jury so recommends, such person may be punished as for a misdemeanor. As used herein, a matter is obscene if, considered as a whole, applying contemporary community standards, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, L e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion.” Ga. Code Ann. § 26-6301 (Supp. 1968).
Appellant does not argue that the films are not obscene. For the purpose of this opinion, we assume that they are obscene under any of the tests advanced by members of this Court. See Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967).
The issue was before the Court in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), but that case was decided on other grounds. Mr. Justice Stewart, although disagreeing with the majority opinion in Mapp, would have reversed the judgment in that case on the ground that the Ohio statute proscribing mere possession of obscene material was “not ‘consistent with the rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.’ ” Id., at 672.
18 U. S. C. § 1461.
Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 736-737 (1878) (use of the mails); United States v. Chase, 135 U. S. 255, 261 (1890) (use of the mails); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897) (publication) ; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497, 508 (1904) (use of the mails); Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 322 (1913) (use of interstate facilities); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 716 (1931) (publication); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942) (utterances); Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U. S. 146, 158 (1946) (use of the mails); Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948) (possession with intent to sell); Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 266 (1952) (libel).
Many of the cases involved, prosecutions for sale or distribution of obscene materials or possession with intent to sell or distribute. See Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967); Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 (1966); Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 (1966); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184.(1964); Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 (1959). Our most recent decision involved a prosecution for sale of obscene material to children. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968); cf. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U. S. 676 (1968). Other cases involved federal or state statutory procedures for preventing the distribution or mailing of obscene material, or procedures for predistribution approval. See Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965); Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58 (1963); Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478 (1962). Still another case dealt with an attempt to seize obscene material “kept for the purpose of being sold, published, exhibited ... or otherwise distributed or circulated . . . .” Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717, 719 (1961); see also A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205 (1964). Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 (1966), was a proceeding in equity against a book. However, possession of a book determined to be obscene in such a proceeding was made criminal only when “for the purpose of sale, loan or distribution.” Id,., at 422.
The Supreme Court of Ohio considered the issue in State v. Mapp, 170 Ohio St. 427, 166 N. E. 2d 387 (1960). Four of the seven judges of that court felt that criminal prosecution for mere private possession of obscene materials was prohibited by the Constitution. However, Ohio law required the concurrence of “all but one of the judges” to declare a state law unconstitutional. The view of the “dissenting” judges was expressed by Judge Herbert:
“I cannot agree that mere private possession of . . . [obscene] literature by an adult should constitute a crime. The right of the individual to read, to believe or disbelieve, and to think without governmental supervision is one of our basic liberties, but to dictate to the mature adult what books he may have in his own private library seems to the writer to be a clear infringement of his constitutional rights as an individual.” 170 Ohio St., at 437, 166 N. E. 2d, at 393.
Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court of Ohio interpreted the Ohio statute to require proof of “possession and control for the purpose of circulation or exhibition.” State v. Jacobellis, 173 Ohio St. 22, 27-28, 179 N. E. 2d 777, 781 (1962), rev’d on other grounds, 378 U. S. 184 (1964). The interpretation was designed to avoid the constitutional problem posed by the “dissenters” in Mapp. See State v. Boss, 12 Ohio St. 2d 37, 231 N. E. 2d 299 (1967).
Other cases dealing with nonpublic distribution of obscene material or with legitimate uses of obscene material have expressed similar reluctance to make such activity criminal, albeit largely on statutory grounds. In United States v. Chase, 135 U. S. 255 (1890), the Court held that federal law did not make criminal the mailing of a private sealed obscene letter on the ground that the law’s purpose was to purge the mails of obscene matter “as far as was consistent with the rights reserved to the people, and with a due regard to the security of private correspondence ...” 135 U. S., at 261. The law was later amended to include letters and was sustained in that form. Andrews v. United States, 162 U. S. 420 (1896). In United States v. 31 Photographs, 156 F. Supp. 350 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1957), the court denied an attempt by the Government to confiscate certain materials sought to be imported into the United States by the Institute for Sex Research, Inc., at Indiana University. The court found, applying the Roth formulation, that the materials would not appeal to the “prurient interest” of those seeking to import and utilize the materials. Thus, the statute permitting seizure of “obscene” materials was not applicable. The court found it unnecessary to reach the constitutional questions presented by the claimant, but did note its belief that “the statement ... [in Roth] concerning the rejection of obscenity must be interpreted in the light of the widespread distribution of the material in Roth.” 156 F. Supp., at 360, n. 40. See also Redmond v. United States, 384 U. S. 264 (1966), where this Court granted the Solicitor General’s motion to vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss an information charging a violation of a federal obscenity statute in a case where a husband and wife mailed undeveloped films of each other posing in the nude to an out-of-state firm for developing. But see Ackerman v. United States, 293 F. 2d 449 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1961).
“Communities believe, and act on the belief, that obscenity is immoral, is wrong for the individual, and has no place in a decent society. They believe, too, that adults as well as children are corruptible in morals and character, and that obscenity is a source of corruption that should be eliminated. Obscenity is not suppressed primarily for the protection of others. Much of it is suppressed for the purity of the community and for the salvation and welfare of the ‘consumer.’ Obscenity, at bottom, is not crime. Obscenity is sin.” Henkin, Morals and the Constitution: The Sin of Obscenity. 63 Col. L. Rev. 391, 395 (1963).
See, e. g., Cairns, Paul, & Wishner, Sex Censorship: The Assumptions of Anti-Obscenity Laws and the Empirical Evidence, 46 Minn. L. Rev. 1009 (1962); see also M. Jahoda, The Impact of Literature: A Psychological Discussion of Some Assumptions in the Censorship Debate (1954), summarized in the concurring opinion of Judge Frank in United States v. Roth, 237 F. 2d 796, 814-816 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1956).
The Model Penal Code provisions dealing with obscene materials are limited to cases of commercial dissemination. Model Penal Code §251.4 (Prop. Official Draft 1962); see also Model Penal Code § 207.10 and comment 4 (Tent. Draft No. 6, 1957); H. Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction 316-328 (1968); Schwartz, Morals Offenses and the Model Penal Code, 63 Col. L. Rev. 669 (1963).
What we have said in no way infringes upon the power of the State or Federal Government to make possession of other items, such as narcotics, firearms, or stolen goods, a crime. Our holding in the present case turns upon the Georgia statute's infringement of fundamental liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No First Amendment rights are involved in most statutes making mere possession criminal.
Nor do we mean to express any opinion on statutes making criminal possession of other types of printed, filmed, or recorded materials. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 793 (d), which makes criminal the otherwise lawful possession of materials which “the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . .” In such cases, compelling reasons may exist for overriding the right of the individual to possess those 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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court in Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299, first stated the rule of pre-emption which is the critical issue in the present case. Speaking through Mr. Justice Curtis, it said:
“Now the power to regulate commerce, embraces a vast field, containing not only many, but exceedingly various subjects, quite unlike in their nature; some imperatively demanding a single uniform rule, operating equally on the commerce of the United States in every port; and some, like the subject now in question, as imperatively demanding that diversity, which alone can meet the local necessities of navigation.
“. . . Whatever subjects of this power are in their nature national, or admit only of one uniform system, or plan of regulation, may justly be said to be of such a nature as to require exclusive legislation by Congress.” Id., at 319.
This suit brought by appellees asked for an injunction against the enforcement of an ordinance adopted by the City Council of Burbank, California, which made it unlawful for a so-called pure jet aircraft to take off from the Hollywood-Burbank Airport between 11 p. m. of one day and 7 a. m. the next day, and making'it unlawful for the operator of that airport to allow any such aircraft to take off from that airport during such periods. The only regularly scheduled flight affected by the ordinance was an intrastate flight of Pacific Southwest Airlines originating in Oakland, California, and departing from Hollywood-Burbank Airport for San Diego every Sunday night at 11:30.
The District Court found the ordinance to be unconstitutional on both Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause grounds. 318 F. Supp. 914. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the grounds of the Supremacy Clause both as respects pre-emption and as respects conflict. 457 F. 2d 667. The case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (2). We noted probable jurisdiction. 409 U. S. .840. We affirm the Court of Appeals.
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 731, 49 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., as amended by the Noise Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 1234, and the regulations under it, 14 CFR pts. 71, 73, 75, 77, 91, 93, 95, 97, are central to the question of pre-emption.
Section 1108 (a) of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1508 (a), provides in part, “The United States of America is declared to possess and exercise complete and exclusive national sovereignty in the airspace of the United States . . . .” By §§ 307 (a), (c) of the Act, 49 U. S. C. §§ 1348 (a), (c), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been given broad authority to regulate the use of the navigable airspace, “in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace . . and “for the protection of persons and property on the ground .
The Solicitor General, though arguing against preemption, concedes that as respects “airspace management” there is pre-emption. That, however, is a fatal concession, for as the District Court found: “The imposition of curfew ordinances on a nationwide basis would result in a bunching of flights in those hours immediately preceding the curfew. This bunching of flights during these hours would have the twofold effect of increasing an already serious congestion problem and actually increasing, rather than relieving, the noise problem by increasing flights in the period of greatest annoyance to surrounding communities. Such a result is totally inconsistent with the objectives of the federal statutory and regulatory scheme.” It also found “[t]he imposition of curfew ordinances on a nationwide basis would cause a serious loss of efficiency in the use of the navigable airspace.”
Curfews such as Burbank has imposed would, according to the testimony at the trial and the District Court’s findings, increase congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. FAA has occasionally enforced curfews. See Virginians for Dulles v. Volpe, 344 F. Supp. 573. But the record shows that FAA has consistently opposed curfews, unless managed by it, in the interests of its management of the “navigable airspace.”
As stated by Judge Dooling in American Airlines v. Hempstead, 272 F. Supp. 226, 230, aff’d, 398 F. 2d 369:
“The aircraft and its noise are indivisible; the noise of the aircraft extends outward from it with the same inseparability as its wings and tail assembly; to exclude the aircraft noise from the Town is to exclude the aircraft; to set a ground level decibel limit for the aircraft is directly to exclude it from the lower air that it cannot use without exceeding the decibel limit.”
The Noise Control Act of 1972, which was approved October 27, 1972, provides that the Administrator “after consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and interested persons” shall conduct a study of various facets of the aircraft noise problems and report to the Congress within nine months, i. e., by July 1973. The 1972 Act, by amending § 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, also involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the comprehensive scheme of federal control of the aircraft noise problem. Under the amended § 611 (b)(1), 86 Stat. 1239, 49 U. S. C. § 1431 (b) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. II), FAA, after consulting with EPA, shall provide “for the control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the application of such standards and regulations in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of any certificate authorized by this title.”' Section 611 (b)(2), as amended, 86 Stat. 1239, 49 U. S. C. § 1431 (b) (2) (1970 ed., Supp. II), provides that future certificates for aircraft operations shall not issue unless the new aircraft noise requirements are met. Section 611 (c)(1), as amended, provides that not later than July 1973 EPA shall submit to FAA proposed regulations to provide such “control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom” as EPA determines is “necessary to protect the public health and welfare.” FAA is directed within 30 days to publish the proposed regulations in a notice of proposed rulemaking. Within 60 days after that publication, FAA is directed to commence a public hearing on the proposed rules. Section 611 (c)(1). That subsection goes on to provide that within “a reasonable time after the conclusion of such hearing and after consultation with EPA,” FAA is directed either to prescribe the regulations substantially as submitted by EPA, or prescribe them in modified form, or publish in the Federal Register a notice that it is not prescribing any regulation in response to EPA's submission together with its reasons therefor.
Section 611 (c)(2), as amended, also provides that if EPA believes that FAA’s action with respect to a regulation proposed by EPA “does not protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise or sonic boom,” EPA shall consult with FAA and may request FAA to review and report to EPA on the advisability of prescribing the regulation originally proposed by EPA. That request shall be published in the Federal Register; FAA shall complete the review requested and report to EPA in the time specified together with a detailed statement of FAA’s findings and the reasons for its conclusion and shall identify any impact statement filed under § 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 853, 42 U. S. C. § 4332 (2) (c), with respect to FAA’s action. FAA’s action, if adverse to EPA’s proposal, shall be published in the Federal Register.
Congress did not leave FA A to act at large but provided in § 611 (d), as amended, particularized standards:
“In prescribing and amending standards and regulations under this section, the FA A shall'—
“(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the results of research, development, testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act and the Department of Transportation Act;
“(2) consult with such Federal, State, and interstate agencies as he deems appropriate;
“(3) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce or air transportation in the public interest;
“(4) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate to which it will apply; and
“(5) consider the extent to which such standard or regulation will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this section.”
The original complaint was filed on May 14, 1970; the District Court entered its judgment November 30, 1970; and the Court of Appeals announced its judgment and opinion March 22, 1972 — all before the Noise Control Act of 1972 was approved by the President on October 27, 1972. That Act reaffirms and reinforces the conclusion that FA A, now in conjunction with EPA, has full control over aircraft noise, pre-empting state and local control.
There is, to be sure, no express provision of pre-emption in the 1972 Act. That, however, is not decisive. As we stated in Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230:
“Congress legislated here in a field which the States have traditionally occupied. . . .' So we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. . . . Such a purpose may be evidenced in several ways. The scheme of federal regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it. . . . Or the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. . . . Likewise, the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it may reveal the same purpose. ... Or the state policy may produce a result inconsistent with the objective of the federal statute.”
It is the pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft noise that leads us to conclude that there is pre-emption. As Mr. Justice Jackson stated, concurring in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U. S. 292, 303:
“Federal control is intensive and exclusive. Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal commands. The moment a ship taxis onto a runway it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls.”
Both the Senate and House Committees included in their Reports clear statements that the bills would not change the existing pre-emption rule. The House Report stated: “No provision of the bill is intended to alter in any way the relationship between the authority of the Federal Government and that of the State and local governments that existed with respect to matters covered by section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 prior to the enactment of the bill.” The Senate Report stated: “States and local governments are preempted from establishing or enforcing noise emission standards for aircraft unless such standards are identical to standards prescribed under this bill. This does not address responsibilities or powers of airport operators, and no provision of the bill is intended to alter in any way the relationship between the authority of the Federal government and that of State and local governments that existed with respect to matters covered by section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 prior to the enactment of the bill.”
These statements do not avail appellants. Prior to the 1972 Act, § 611 (a) provided that the Administrator “shall prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as he may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom.” 82 Stat. 395. Under §611 (b)(3) the Administrator was required to “consider whether any proposed standard, rule, or regulation is consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce or air transportation in the public interest.” 82 Stat. 395. When the legislation which added this section to the Federal Aviation Act was considered at Senate hearings, Senator Monroney (the author of the 1958 Act) asked Secretary of Transportation Boyd whether the proposed legislation would “to any degree preempt State and local government regulation of aircraft noise and sonic boom.” The Secretary requested leave to submit a written opinion, and in a letter dated June 22, 1968, he stated:
“The courts have held that the Federal Government presently preempts the field of noise regulation insofar as it involves controlling the flight of aircraft. ... H. R. 3400 would merely expand the Federal Government's role in a field already preempted. It would not change this preemption. State and local governments will remain unable to use their police powers to control aircraft noise by regulating the flight of aircraft.”
According to the Senate Report, it was “not the intent of the committee in recommending this legislation to effect any change in the existing apportionment of powers between the Federal and State and local governments,” and the Report concurred in the views set forth by the Secretary in his letter.
The Senate version of the 1972 Act as it passed the Senate contained an express pre-emption section. But the Senate version never was presented to the House. Instead, the Senate passed, with amendments, the House version; the House, also with amendments, then concurred in the Senate amendments. The Act as passed combined provisions of both the House and Senate bills on the subject that each had earlier approved. When the blended provisions of the present Act were before the House, Congressman Staggers, Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, in urging the House to accept the amended version, said:
“I cannot say what industry’s intention may be, but I can say to the gentleman what my intention is in trying to get this bill passed. We have evidence that across America some cities and States are trying to pass noise regulations. Certainly we do not want that to happen. It would harass industry and progress in America. That is the reason why I want to get this bill passed during this session.”
When the House approved the blended provisions of the bill, Senator Tunney moved that the Senate concur. He made clear that the regulations to be considered by EPA for recommendation to FAA would include:
“proposed means of reducing noise in airport environments through the application of emission controls on aircraft, the regulation of flight patterns and aircraft and airport operations, and modifications in the number, frequency, or scheduling of flights [as well as] . . . the imposition of curfews on noisy airports, the imposition of flight path alterations in areas where noise was a problem, the imposition of noise emission standards on new and existing aircraft — with the expectation of a retrofit schedule to abate noise emissions from existing aircraft — the imposition of controls to increase the load factor on commercial flights, or other reductions in the joint use of airports, and such other procedures as may be determined useful and necessary to protect public health and welfare.” (Emphasis added.)
The statements by Congressman Staggers and Senator Tunney are weighty ones. For Congressman Staggers was Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce which submitted the Noise Control Act and Report; and Senator Tunney was a member of the Senate Committee on Public Works, which submitted the Act and Report.
When the President signed the bill he stated that “many of the most significant sources of noise move in interstate commerce and can be effectively regulated only at the federal level.”
Our prior cases on pre-emption are not precise guidelines in the present controversy, for each case turns on the peculiarities and special features of the federal regulatory scheme in question. Cf. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52; Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440. Control of noise is of course deep-seated in the police power of the States. Yet the pervasive control vested in EPA and in FAA under the 1972 Act seems to us to leave no room for local curfews or other local controls. What the ultimate remedy may be for aircraft noise which plagues many communities and tens of thousands of people is not known. The procedures under the 1972 Act are under way. In addition, the Administrator has imposed a variety of regulations relating to takeoff and landing procedures and runway preferences. The Federal Aviation Act requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency, 49 U. S. C. § 1348 (a), and the protection of persons on the ground. 49 U. S. C. § 1348 (c). Any regulations adopted by the Administrator to control noise pollution must be consistent with the “highest degree of safety.” 49 U. S. C. § 1431 (d)(3). The interdependence of these factors requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation if the congressional objectives underlying the Federal Aviation Act are to be fulfilled.
If we were to uphold the Burbank ordinance and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, it is obvious that fractionalized control of the timing of takeoffs and landings would severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling air traffic flow. The difficulties of scheduling flights to avoid congestion and the concomitant decrease in safety would be compounded. In 1960 FAA rejected a proposed restriction on jet operations at the Los Angeles airport between 10 p. m. and 7 a. m. because such restrictions could “create critically serious problems to all air transportation patterns.” 25 Fed. Reg. 1764-1765. The complete FAA statement said:
“The proposed restriction on the use of the airport by jet aircraft between the hours of 10 p. m. and 7 a. m. under certain surface wind conditions has also been reevaluated and this provision has been omitted from the rule. The practice of prohibiting the use of various airports during certain specific hours could create critically serious problems to all air transportation patterns. The network of airports throughout the United States and the constant availability of these airports are essential to the maintenance of a sound air transportation system. The continuing growth of public acceptance of aviation as a major force in passenger transportation and the increasingly significant role of commercial aviation in the nation’s economy are accomplishments which cannot be inhibited if the best interest of the public is to be served. It was concluded therefore that the extent of relief from the noise problem which this provision might have achieved would not have compensated the degree of restriction it would have imposed on domestic and foreign Air Commerce.”
This decision, announced in 1960, remains peculiarly within the competence of FAA, supplemented now by the input of EPA. We are not at liberty to diffuse the powers given by Congress to FAA and EPA by letting the States or municipalities in on the planning. If that change is to be made, Congress alone must do it.
Affirmed.
Burbank Municipal Code § 20-32.1. The ordinance provides an exception for “emergency” flights approved by the City Police Department.
The Court of Appeals held that the Burbank ordinance conflicted with the runway preference order, BUR 7100.5B, issued by the EAA Chief of the Airport Traffic Control Tower at the Hollywood-Burbank Airport. The order stated that “[procedures established for the Hollywood-Burbank airport are designed to reduce community exposure to noise to the lowest practicable minimum. . . The Court of Appeals concluded that the ordinance “interferes with the balance set by the FAA among the interests with which it is empowered to deal, and frustrates the full accomplishment of the goals of Congress.” 457 F. 2d 667, 676. In view of our disposition of this appeal under the doctrine of pre-emption, we need not reach this question.
Section 307 provides in relevant part as follows:
“(a) The Administrator is authorized and directed to develop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the navigable airspace; and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions, and limitations as he may deem necessary in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace. . . .
“(c) The Administrator is further authorized and directed to prescribe air traffic rules and regulations governing the flight of aircraft, for the navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft, for the protection of persons and property on the ground, and for the efficient utilization of the navigable airspace, including rules as to safe altitudes of flight and rules for the prevention of collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.”
Section 7 (a) provides:
“The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and interested persons, shall conduct a study of the (1) adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration flight and operational noise controls; (2) adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing aircraft, together with recommendations on the retrofitting and phaseout of existing aircraft; (3) implications of identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around airports; and (4) additional measures available to airport operators and local governments to control aircraft noise. He shall report on such study to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce and Public Works of the Senate within nine months after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1431, was added in July 1968. Act of July 21, 1968, Pub. L. 90-411, 82 Stat. 395. Prior to amendment by the 1972 Act, it provided in part that the Administrator, “[i]n order to afford present and future relief and protection to the public from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom, . . . shall prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as he may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom.” 49 U. S. C. § 1431 (a).
Section 611 (b) (1), as amended, reads:
“In order to afford present and future relief and protection to the public health and welfare from aircraft noise and sonic boom, the FAA, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and with EPA, shall prescribe and amend standards for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such regulations as the FAA may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the application of such standards and regulations in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of any certificate authorized by this title. No exemption with respect to any standard or regulation under this section may be granted under any provision of this Act unless the FAA shall have consulted with EPA before such exemption is granted, except that if the FAA determines that safety in air commerce or air transportation requires that such an exemption be granted before EPA can be consulted, the FAA shall consult with EPA as soon as practicable after the exemption is granted.”
Subsection (b)(2) provides:
“The FAA shall not issue an original type certificate under section 603 (a) of this Act for any aircraft for which substantial noise abatement can be achieved by prescribing standards and regulations in accordance with this section, unless he shall have prescribed standards and regulations in accordance with this section which apply to such aircraft and which protect the public from aircraft noise and sonic boom, consistent with the considerations listed in subsection (d).”
Section 102 reads in part as follows:
“The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall— . . . (C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on— (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should 'the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section 552 of Title 5, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes.”
Section 611 (c) (3) of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended, provides that if FAA files no statement under § 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act “then EPA may request the FAA to file a supplemental report, which shall be published in the Federal Register within such a period as EPA may specify (but such time specified shall not be less than ninety days from the date the request was made), and which shall contain a comparison of (A) the environmental effects (including those which cannot be avoided) of the action actually taken by the FAA in response to EPA’s proposed regulations, and (B) EPA’s proposed regulations.”
H. R. Rep. No. 92-842, p. 10.
S. Rep. No. 92-1160, pp. 10-11.
See n. 5, supra.
Hearing before the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce on S. 707 and H. R. 3400, Aircraft Noise Abatement Regulation, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 29.
S. Rep. No. 1353, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 6.
The letter from the Secretary of Transportation also expressed the view that “the proposed legislation will not affect the rights of a State or local public agency, as the proprietor of an airport, from issuing regulations or establishing requirements as to the permissible level of noise which can be created by aircraft using the airport. Airport owners acting as proprietors can presently deny the use of their airports to aircraft on the basis of noise considerations so long as such exclusion is nondiscriniinatory.” (Emphasis added.) This portion as well was quoted with approval in the Senate Report. Ibid.
Appellants and the Solicitor General submit that this indicates that a municipality with jurisdiction over an airport has the power to impose a curfew on the airport, notwithstanding federal responsibility in the area. But, we are concerned here not with an ordinance imposed by the City of Burbank as “proprietor” of the airport, but with the exercise of police power. While the Hollywood-Burbank Airport may be the only major airport which is privately owned, many airports are owned by one municipality yet physically located in another. For example, the principal airport serving Cincinnati is located in Kentucky. Thus, authority that a municipality may have as a landlord is not necessarily congruent with its police power. We do not consider here what limits, if any, apply to a municipality as a proprietor.
118 Cong. Rec. 35868.
Id., at 35886.
Id., at 37075.
Id., at 37083.
Id., at 37317.
8 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs. 1582, 1583 (Oct. 28, 1972).
The Administrator has adopted regulations prescribing noise standards which must be met as a condition to type certification for all new subsonic turbojet-powered aircraft. 14 CFR pt. 36. On January 30, 1973, FAA gave advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the control of fleet noise levels (FNL) of airplanes operating in interstate commerce. 38 Fed. Reg. 2769. (The regulations would not pertain to carriers also operating in foreign commerce). The proposed rules are designed to limit FNL prior to July 1, 1978, when the covered aircraft become subject to the requirements of 14 CFR pt. 36.
The FNL would be determined as a function of the takeoff and approach noise levels of each airplane in the fleet and the number of takeoffs and landings of the fleet. Until July 1, 1976, the cumulative noise level of any fleet subject to regulation could not exceed the FNL during the previous 90-day base period. In 1976 each fleet would be required to reduce its FNL by 50% of the difference between the original base-period level and the level ultimately required by 14 CFR pt. 36.
In order to insure efficient and safe use of the navigable airspace, FAA uses centralized “flow control,” regulating the number of aircraft that will be accepted in a given area and restricting altitudes and routes that may be flown. Flow control has resulted in the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center holding aircraft on the ground at the Hollywood-Burbank Airport.
Prior to April 1970, 21 regional Air Route Traffic Control Centers exercised independent control over traffic flow in their areas. In April 1970 FAA established a Central Flow Facility to coordinate flow control throughout the Air Traffic Control system. This change was necessitated because no regional center “had enough information to make a judgment based on the overall condition of the ATC system. . . .” Fourth Annual Report of the Secretary of Transportation for Fiscal Year 1970.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Constitution's Appointments Clause says that the President
"shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...." Art. II, § 2, cl. 2 (emphasis added).
In 2016, Congress enacted the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). 130 Stat. 549, 48 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. That Act created a Financial Oversight and Management Board, and it provided, as relevant here, that the President could appoint its seven members without "the advice and consent of the Senate," i.e., without Senate confirmation.
The question before us is whether this method of appointment violates the Constitution's Senate confirmation requirement. In our view, the Appointments Clause governs the appointments of all officers of the United States, including those located in Puerto Rico. Yet two provisions of the Constitution empower Congress to create local offices for the District of Columbia and for Puerto Rico and the Territories. See Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 ; Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. And the Clause's term "Officers of the United States" has never been understood to cover those whose powers and duties are primarily local in nature and derive from these two constitutional provisions. The Board's statutory responsibilities consist of primarily local duties, namely, representing Puerto Rico in bankruptcy proceedings and supervising aspects of Puerto Rico's fiscal and budgetary policies. We therefore find that the Board members are not "Officers of the United States." For that reason, the Appointments Clause does not dictate how the Board's members must be selected.
I
A
In 2006, tax advantages that had previously led major businesses to invest in Puerto Rico expired. See Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, § 1601, 110 Stat. 1827. Many industries left the island. Emigration increased. And the public debt of Puerto Rico's government and its instrumentalities soared, rising from $39.2 billion in 2005 to $71 billion in 2016. See Dept. of Treasury, Puerto Rico's Economic and Fiscal Crisis 1, 3, https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/Puerto_Ricos_fiscal_challenges.pdf; GAO, U.S. Territories: Public Debt Outlook 12 (GAO-18-160, 2017).
Puerto Rico found that it could not service that debt. Yet Puerto Rico could not easily restructure it. The Federal Bankruptcy Code's municipality-related Chapter 9 did not apply to Puerto Rico (or to the District of Columbia). See 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(c), 101(52). But at the same time, federal bankruptcy law invalidated Puerto Rico's own local "debt-restructuring" statutes. Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust, 579 U.S. ---- (2016). In 2016, in response to Puerto Rico's fiscal crisis, Congress enacted PROMESA. 130 Stat. 549, 48 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.
PROMESA allows Puerto Rico and its entities to file for federal bankruptcy protection. See §§ 301, 302, 130 Stat. 577, 579; cf. 11 U.S.C. § 901 (related to bankruptcies of local governments). The filing and subsequent proceedings are to take place in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, before a federal judge selected by the Chief Justice of the United States. PROMESA §§ 307-308, 130 Stat. 582. PROMESA also created the Financial Oversight and Management Board-with seven members appointed by the President and with the Governor serving as an ex officio member. §§ 101(b), (e), id., at 553, 554-555. PROMESA gives the Board authority to file for bankruptcy on behalf of Puerto Rico or its instrumentalities. § 304(a), id., at 579. The Board can supervise and modify Puerto Rico's laws (and budget) to "achieve fiscal responsibility and access to the capital markets." § 201(b), id., at 564; see §§ 201-207, id., at 563-575. And it can gather evidence and conduct investigations in support of these efforts. § 104, id., at 558-561.
As we have just said, PROMESA gives the President of the United States the power to appoint the Board's seven members without Senate confirmation, so long as he selects six from lists prepared by congressional leaders. § 101(e)(2)(A), id., at 554-555.
B
On August 31, 2016, President Obama selected the Board's seven members in the manner just described. The Board established offices in Puerto Rico and New York, and soon filed bankruptcy petitions on behalf of the Commonwealth and (eventually) five Commonwealth entities. Title III Petition in No. 17-BK-3283 (PR); see Order Pursuant to PROMESA Section 304(g), No. 17-BK-3283 (PR, Oct. 9, 2019), Doc. 8829 (consolidating petitions filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation, the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority, the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, and the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority). And the Chief Justice then selected a federal judge to serve as bankruptcy judge for Puerto Rico. Designation of Presiding District Judge, No. 17-BK-3283 (PR, May 5, 2017), Doc. 4.
After both court and Board had decided a number of matters, several creditors moved to dismiss all proceedings on the ground that the Board members' selection violated the Appointments Clause. The court denied the motions. See In re Financial Oversight and Management Bd. of Puerto Rico, 318 F.Supp.3d 537, 556-557 (PR 2018). The creditors appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That court reversed. It held that the selection of the Board's members violated the Appointments Clause. 915 F.3d 838, 861 (2019). But it concluded that those Board actions taken prior to its decision remained valid under the "de facto officer" doctrine. Id., at 862-863 ; see, e.g., McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596, 601, 16 S.Ct. 111, 40 L.Ed. 271 (1895) (judicial decisions could not later be attacked on ground that an unlawfully sitting judge presided); Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118, 128-129, 11 S.Ct. 761, 35 L.Ed. 377 (1891) (same).
The Board, the United States, and various creditors then filed petitions for certiorari in this Court, some arguing that the appointments were constitutionally valid, others that the de facto officer doctrine did not apply. Compare Pets. for Cert. in Nos. 18-1334, 18-1496, 18-1514 with Pets. for Cert. in Nos. 18-1475, 18-1521. In light of the importance of the questions, we granted certiorari in all the petitions and consolidated them for argument. 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2738, 204 L.Ed.2d 1126 (2019).
II
Congress created the Board pursuant to its power under Article IV of the Constitution to "make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory... belonging to the United States." § 3, cl. 2 ; see PROMESA § 101(b)(2), 130 Stat. 553. Some have argued in these cases that the Appointments Clause simply does not apply in the context of Puerto Rico. But, like the Court of Appeals, we believe the Appointments Clause restricts the appointment of all officers of the United States, including those who carry out their powers and duties in or in relation to Puerto Rico.
The Constitution's structure provides strong reason to believe that is so. The Constitution separates the three basic powers of Government-legislative, executive, and judicial-with each branch serving different functions. But the Constitution requires cooperation among the three branches in specified areas. Thus, to become law, proposed legislation requires the agreement of both Congress and the President (or, a supermajority in Congress). See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 955, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983) (noting that the Constitution prescribes only four specific actions that Congress can take without bicameralism and presentment). At the same time, legislation must be consistent with constitutional constraints, and we usually look to the Judiciary as the ultimate interpreter of those constraints.
The Appointments Clause reflects a similar allocation of responsibility, between President and Senate, in cases involving appointment to high federal office. That Clause reflects the Founders' reaction to "one of [their] generation's greatest grievances against [pre-Revolutionary] executive power," the manipulation of appointments. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 883, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991) ; see also The Federalist No. 76, p. 455 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (the Appointments Clause helps to preserve democratic accountability). The Founders addressed their concerns with the appointment power by both concentrating it and distributing it. On the one hand, they ensured that primary responsibility for nominations would fall on the President, whom they deemed "less vulnerable to interest-group pressure and personal favoritism" than a collective body. Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 659, 117 S.Ct. 1573, 137 L.Ed.2d 917 (1997). See also The Federalist No. 76, at 455 ("The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation"). On the other hand, they ensured that the Senate's advice and consent power would provide "an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President and a guard against the appointment of unfit characters." NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 929, 935, 197 L.Ed.2d 263 (2017) (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omitted). By "limiting the appointment power" in this fashion, the Clause helps to "ensure that those who wielded [the appointments power] were accountable to political force and the will of the people." Freytag, supra, at 884, 111 S.Ct. 2631 ; see also Edmond, 520 U.S. at 659, 117 S.Ct. 1573. "The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the president singly and absolutely," while "[t]he censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the senate." Id., at 660, 117 S.Ct. 1573 (internal quotation marks omitted).
These other structural constraints, designed in part to ensure political accountability, apply to all exercises of federal power, including those related to Article IV entities. Cf., e.g., Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252, 270-271, 111 S.Ct. 2298, 115 L.Ed.2d 236 (1991) (MWAA ) (separation-of-powers principles apply when Congress acts under its Article IV power to legislate "respecting... other Property"). See also, e.g., Act of Aug. 7, 1789, ch. 8, 1 Stat. 50 (the First Congress using bicameralism and presentment to make rules and regulations for the Northwest Territory). The objectives advanced by the Appointments Clause counsel strongly in favor of that Clause applying to the appointment of all "Officers of the United States." Why should it be different when such an officer's duties relate to Puerto Rico or other Article IV entities?
Indeed, the Appointments Clause has no Article IV exception. The Clause says in part that the President
"shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments... shall be established by Law...." Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
That text firmly indicates that it applies to the appointment of all "Officers of the United States." And history confirms this reading. Before the writing of the Constitution, Congress had enacted an ordinance that allowed Congress to appoint officers to govern the Northwest Territory. As soon as the Constitution became law, the First Congress "adapt[ed]" that ordinance "to the present Constitution of the United States," Act of Aug. 7, 1789, 1 Stat. 51, in large part by providing for an appointment process consistent with the constraints of the Appointments Clause. In particular, it provided for a Presidential-appointment, Senate-confirmation process for high-level territorial appointees who assumed federal, as well as local, duties. See id., at 52, n. (a ); § 1, id., at 53 (appointment by President, and confirmation by Senate, of Governor, secretary, and members of the upper house); Act of Sept. 11, 1789, ch. 13, § 1, 1 Stat. 68 (Governor "discharg[ed]" the federal "duties of superintendent of Indian affairs"). Later Congresses took a similar approach to later territorial Governors with federal duties. See Act of June 6, 1900, § 10, 31 Stat. 325 (appointment of Governor of Territory of Alaska by President with confirmation by Senate); § 2, id., at 322 (federal duties of Alaska territorial Governor include entering into contracts in name of the United States and granting reprieves for federal offenses); Act of Mar. 2, 1819, §§ 3, 10, 3 Stat. 494, 495 (similar for Governor of Arkansas). We do not mean to suggest that every time Congress chooses to require advice and consent procedures it does so because they are constitutionally required. At times, Congress may wish to require Senate confirmation for policy reasons. Even so, Congress' practice of requiring advice and consent for these Governors with important federal duties supports the inference that Congress expected the Appointments Clause to apply to at least some officials with supervisory authority over the Territories.
Given the Constitution's structure, this history, roughly analogous case law, and the absence of any conflicting authority, we conclude that the Appointments Clause constrains the appointments power as to all "Officers of the United States," even when those officers exercise power in or related to Puerto Rico.
III
A
The more difficult question before us is whether the Board members are officers of the United States such that the Appointments Clause requires Senate confirmation. If they are not officers of the United States, but instead are some other type of officer, the Appointments Clause says nothing about them. (No one suggests that they are "Ambassadors," "other public Ministers and Consuls," or "Judges of the supreme Court.") And as we shall see, the answer to this question turns on whether the Board members have primarily local powers and duties.
The language at issue does not offer us much guidance for understanding the key term "of the United States." The text suggests a distinction between federal officers-officers exercising power of the National Government-and nonfederal officers-officers exercising power of some other government. The Constitution envisions a federalist structure, with the National Government exercising limited federal power and other, local governments-usually state governments-exercising more expansive power. But the Constitution recognizes that for certain localities, there will be no state government capable of exercising local power. Thus, two provisions of the Constitution, Article I, § 8, cl. 17, and Article IV, § 3, cl. 2, give Congress the power to legislate for those localities in ways "that would exceed its powers, or at least would be very unusual" in other contexts. Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 398, 93 S.Ct. 1670, 36 L.Ed.2d 342 (1973). Using these powers, Congress has long legislated for entities that are not States-the District of Columbia and the Territories. See District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 104-106, 73 S.Ct. 1007, 97 L.Ed. 1480 (1953). And, in doing so, Congress has both made local law directly and also created structures of local government, staffed by local officials, who themselves have made and enforced local law. Compare, e.g., Act of Mar. 2, 1962, § 401, 76 Stat. 17 (changing D. C. liquor tax from $1.25 per gallon to $1.50 per gallon), with District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, 87 Stat. 774 (giving local D. C. government primary legislative control over local matters). This structure suggests that when Congress creates local offices using these two unique powers, the officers exercise power of the local government, not the Federal Government. Cf. American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 546, 26 U.S. 511, 7 L.Ed. 242 (1828) (Marshall, C. J.) (territorial courts may exercise the judicial power of the Territories without the life tenure and salary protections mandated by Article III for federal judges); Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 323, 57 S.Ct. 764, 81 L.Ed. 1122 (1937) (territorial legislators may exercise the legislative power of the Territories without violating the nondelegation doctrine).
History confirms what the Constitution's text and structure suggest. See NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 524, 134 S.Ct. 2550, 189 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014) (relying on history and structure in interpreting the Recess Appointments Clause). See also M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) (emphasizing the utility of historical practice in interpreting constitutional provisions). Longstanding practice indicates that a federal law's creation of an office in this context does not automatically make its holder an "Officer of the United States." Rather, Congress has often used these two provisions to create local offices filled in ways other than those specified in the Appointments Clause. When the First Congress legislated for the Northwest Territories, for example, it created a House of Representatives for the Territory with members selected by election. It also created an upper house of the territorial legislature, whose members were appointed by the President (without Senate confirmation) from lists provided by the elected, lower house. And it created magistrates appointed by the Governor. See Act of Aug. 7, 1789, 1 Stat. 51, n. (a ).
The practice of creating by federal law local offices for the Territories and District of Columbia that are filled through election or local executive appointment has continued unabated for more than two centuries. See, e.g., ibid. (Northwest Territories local offices filled by election); Act of Apr. 7, 1798, § 3, 1 Stat. 550 (Mississippi, same); Act of May 7, 1800, § 2, 2 Stat. 59 (Indiana, same); Act of May 15, 1820, § 3, 3 Stat. 584 (District of Columbia, same); Act of Apr. 30, 1900, § 13, 31 Stat. 144 (Hawaii, same); Act of Aug. 24, 1912, § 4, 37 Stat. 513 (Alaska, same); Act of Aug. 23, 1968, § 4, 82 Stat. 837 (Virgin Islands, same); Act of Sept. 11, 1968, Pub. L. 90-497, § 1, 82 Stat. 842 (Guam, same); Act of May 4, 1812, § 3, 2 Stat. 723 (D. C. mayor appoints "all offices"); Act of June 4, 1812, § 2, 2 Stat. 744 (Missouri Governor, similar); Act of Mar. 2, 1819, § 3, 3 Stat. 494 (Arkansas, similar); Act of June 6, 1900, § 2, 31 Stat. 322 (Alaska, similar); Act of Sept. 11, 1968, § 1, 82 Stat. 843 (Guam, similar). Like Justice THOMAS, post, at 1668 (opinion concurring in judgment), we think the practice of the First Congress is strong evidence of the original meaning of the Constitution. We find this subsequent history similarly illuminates the text's meaning.
Puerto Rico's history is no different. It reveals a longstanding practice of selecting public officials with important local responsibilities in ways that the Appointments Clause does not describe. In 1898, at the end of the Spanish-American War, the United States took responsibility for determining the civil rights of Puerto Ricans as well as Puerto Rico's political status. Treaty of Paris, Art. 9, Dec. 10, 1898, 30 Stat. 1759. In 1900, the Foraker Act provided for Presidential appointment (with Senate confirmation) of Puerto Rico's Governor, the heads of six departments, the legislature's upper house, and the justices of its high court. Organic Act of 1900, §§ 17, 18, 33, 31 Stat. 81, 84. But it also provided for the selection, through popular election, of a lower legislative house with the power (subject to upper house concurrence) to "alter, amend, modify, and repeal any and all laws... of every character." §§ 27, 32, id., at 82, 84. There is no indication that anyone thought members of the lower house, wielding important local responsibilities, were "Officers of the United States."
Congress replaced the Foraker Act with the Jones Act in 1917. Organic Act of Puerto Rico, ch. 145, 39 Stat. 951. Under the Jones Act the Puerto Rican Senate was elected and consequently no longer satisfied the Appointments Clause criteria. See § 26, id., at 958. Similarly, the Governor of Puerto Rico nominated four cabinet members, confirmed by the Senate of Puerto Rico. § 13, id., at 955-956. The elected legislature retained "all local legislative powers," including the power to appropriate funds. §§ 25, 34, 37, id., at 958, 962, 964.
Congress amended the Jones Act in 1947 to provide for an elected Governor of Puerto Rico, and granted that Governor the power to appoint all cabinet officials. See Act of Aug. 5, 1947, ch. 490, §§ 1, 3, 61 Stat. 770, 771. The President retained the power to appoint (with Federal Senate confirmation) judges, an auditor, and the new office of Coordinator of Federal Agencies, who was to supervise federal functions in Puerto Rico and recommend to higher federal officials ways to improve the quality of federal services. § 6, id., at 772.
In 1950, Congress enacted Public Law 600, "in the nature of a compact" with Puerto Rico and subject to approval by the voters of Puerto Rico. Act of July 3, 1950, ch. 446, §§ 1, 2, 64 Stat. 319. The Act adopted the Jones Act, as amended, as the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, and provided for the Jones Act's substantial (but not complete) repeal upon the effective adoption of a contemplated Puerto Rican constitution. §§ 4, 5, id., at 319-320. Among the provisions of the Jones Act that Public Law 600 retained were several related to Puerto Rico's public debt. Congress retained, for example, the triple-tax-exempt nature of Puerto Rican bonds. Jones Act, § 3, 39 Stat. 953. It also retained a (later repealed) cap on the amount of public debt Puerto Rico or its subdivisions could accumulate. Ibid. In a public referendum, the citizens of Puerto Rico approved Public Law 600-including the limits on debt in § 3 of the Federal Relations Act-and then began the constitution-making process. Pub. L. 600, §§ 2, 3, 64 Stat. 319; see Act of July 3, 1952, 66 Stat. 327; A. Fernós-Isern, Original Intent in the Constitution of Puerto Rico 13 (2d ed. 2002).
Puerto Rico's popularly ratified Constitution, which Congress accepted with a few fairly minor changes, does not involve the President or the Senate in the appointment process for local officials. That Constitution provides for the election of Puerto Rico's Governor and legislators. Art. III, § 1; Art. IV, § 1. And it provides for gubernatorial appointment (and Puerto Rican Senate confirmation) of cabinet officers. Art. IV, § 5.
The upshot is that Puerto Rico's history reflects long-standing use of various methods for selecting officials with primarily local responsibilities. This history is consistent with the history of other entities that fall within the scope of Article IV and with the history of the District of Columbia. See supra, at 1658 - 1660. And it comports with our precedents, which have long acknowledged that Congress may structure local governments under Article IV and Article I in ways that do not precisely mirror the constitutional blueprint for the National Government. See, e.g., Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 242, 50 U.S. 235, 13 L.Ed. 119 (1850). Cf. Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 546, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962) (plurality opinion) (recognizing that local governments created by Congress could, like governments of the States, "dispense with protections deemed inherent in a separation of governmental powers"). Sometimes Congress has specified the use of methods that would satisfy the Appointments Clause, other times it has specified methods that would not satisfy the Appointments Clause, including elections and appointment by local officials. Officials with primarily local duties have often fallen into the latter categories. We know of no case endorsing an Appointments Clause based challenge to such selection methods. Indeed, to read Appointments Clause constraints as binding Puerto Rican officials with primarily local duties would work havoc with Puerto Rico's (federally ratified) democratic methods for selecting many of its officials.
We thus conclude that while the Appointments Clause does restrict the appointment of "Officers of the United States" with duties in or related to the District of Columbia or an Article IV entity, it does not restrict the appointment of local officers that Congress vests with primarily local duties under Article IV, § 3, or Article I, § 8, cl. 17.
B
The question remains whether the Board members have primarily local powers and duties. We note that the Clause qualifies the phrase "Officers of the United States" with the words "whose Appointments... shall be established by Law." And we also note that PROMESA says that the Board is "an entity within the territorial government" and "shall not be considered a department, agency, establishment, or instrumentality of the Federal Government." § 101(c), 130 Stat. 553. But the most these words show is that Congress did not intend to make the Board members "Officers of the United States." It does not prove that, insofar as the Constitution is concerned, they succeeded.
But we think they have. Congress did not simply state that the Board is part of the local Puerto Rican government. Rather, Congress also gave the Board a structure, a set of duties, and related powers all of which are consistent with this statement.
The government of Puerto Rico pays the Board's expenses, including the salaries of its employees (the members serve without pay). § 107, id., at 562; see § 101(g), id., at 556. The Board possesses investigatory powers. It can hold hearings. § 104(a), id., at 558. It can issue subpoenas, subject to Puerto Rico's limits on personal jurisdiction and enforceable under Puerto Rico's laws. § 104(f), id., at 559. And it can enforce those subpoenas in (and only in) Puerto Rico's courts. §§ 104(f)(2), 106(a), id., at 559, 562.
From its own offices in or outside of Puerto Rico, the Board works with the elected government of Puerto Rico to develop a fiscal plan that provides "a method to achieve fiscal responsibility and access to the capital markets." § 201(b), id., at 564. If it finds it necessary, the Board can develop its own budget for Puerto Rico which is "deemed... approved" and becomes the operative budget. § 202(e)(3), id., at 568. It can ensure compliance with the plan and budget by reviewing the Puerto Rico government's laws and spending and by "direct[ing]" corrections or taking "such [other] actions as it considers necessary," including preventing a law from taking effect. §§ 203(d), 204(a), id., at 569, 571. The Board controls the issuance of new debt for Puerto Rico. § 207, id., at 575.
The Board also may initiate bankruptcy proceedings for Puerto Rico or its instrumentalities. § 304(a), id., at 579. It may take any related "action necessary on behalf of," and it serves as "the representative of," Puerto Rico or its instrumentalities. § 315, id., at 584. These proceedings take place in the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico. § 307, id., at 582.
To repeat: The Board has broad investigatory powers: It can administer oaths, issue subpoenas, take evidence and demand data from governments and creditors alike. But these powers are backed by Puerto Rican, not federal, law: Subpoenas are governed by Puerto Rico's personal jurisdiction statute; false testimony is punishable under the law of Puerto Rico; the Board must seek enforcement of its subpoenas by filing in the courts of Puerto Rico. See § 104, id., at 558-561. These powers are primarily local in nature.
The Board also oversees the development of Puerto Rico's fiscal and budgetary plans. It receives and evaluates proposals from the elected Governor and legislature. It can create a budget "deemed" to be that of Puerto Rico. It can intervene when budgetary constraints are violated. And it has authority over the issuance of new debt. §§ 201-207, id., at 563-575. These powers, too, are quintessentially local. Each concerns the finances of the Commonwealth, not of the United States. The Board members in this respect discharge duties ordinarily held by local officials.
Last, the Board has the power to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. But in doing so, it acts not on behalf of the United States, but on behalf of, and in the interests of, Puerto Rico. The proceedings take place in federal court; but the same is true of all persons or entities who seek bankruptcy protection. The Board here acts as a local government that might take precisely the same actions. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(c), 921 (related to bankruptcies of local governments).
Some Board actions, of course, may have nationwide consequences. But the same can be said of many actions taken by many Governors or other local officials. Taking actions with nationwide consequences does not automatically transform a local official into an "Officer of the United States." The challengers rely most heavily on the nationwide effects of the bankruptcy proceedings. E.g., Brief for Aurelius et al. 31; Brief for Petitioner Unión de Trabajadores de la Industria Eléctrica y Riego, Inc. (UTIER) 49. But the same might be said of any major municipal, or even corporate, bankruptcy. E.g., In re Detroit, 504 B.R. 97 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ED Mich. 2013) (restructuring $18 billion in municipal debt).
In short, the Board possesses considerable power-including the authority to substitute its own judgment for the considered judgment of the Governor and other elected officials. But this power primarily concerns local matters. Congress' law thus substitutes a different process for determining certain local policies (related to local fiscal responsibility) in respect to local matters. And that is the critical point for current purposes. The local nature of the legislation's expressed purposes, the representation of local interests in bankruptcy proceedings, the focus of the Board's powers upon local expenditures, the local logistical support, the reliance on local laws in aid of the Board's procedural powers-all these features when taken together and judged in the light of Puerto Rico's history (and that of the Territories and the District of Columbia)-make clear that the Board's members have primarily local duties, such that their selection is not subject to the constraints of the Appointments Clause.
IV
The Court of Appeals, pointing to three of this Court's cases, reached the opposite conclusion. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam ), Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 115 L.Ed.2d 764, and Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2044, 201 L.Ed.2d 464 (2018). It pointed out that the Court, in those cases, discussed the term "Officer of the United States," and it concluded that, for Appointments Clause purposes, an appointee is such an "officer" if "(1) the appointee occupies a 'continuing' position established by federal law; (2) the appointee 'exercis[es] significant authority'; and (3) the significant authority is exercised 'pursuant to the laws of the United States.' " 915 F.3d at 856. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Board members satisfied this test. See id., at 856-857.
We do not believe these three cases set forth the critical legal test relevant here, however, and we do not apply any test they might enunciate. Each of the cases considered an Appointments Clause problem concerning the importance or significance of duties that were indisputably federal or national in nature. In Buckley, the question was whether members of the Federal Election Commission-appointees carrying out federal-election related duties-were "officers"
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent operates three meat markets in the vicinity of Akron, Ohio. All of its sales are intrastate, but of its purchases in one year totaling not quite $900,000, slightly more than $100,000 worth came from outside Ohio directly and as much or more indirectly. Petitioner union, after an unsuccessful attempt to organize respondent’s employees, asked respondent for recognition as their bargaining agent and for a union shop contract. When respondent refused to enter into such a contract, the union picketed respondent’s stores and put some secondary pressure on its suppliers. Upon respondent’s complaint, the Court of Common Pleas enjoined the union from picketing respondent, from trespassing upon respondent’s premises and from exerting secondary pressure on the suppliers. Petitioners objected throughout that the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board was exclusive. On appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals found that respondent’s business was “purely of a local character” and interstate commerce, therefore, was not burdened or obstructed. The Court of Appeals held that the union’s picketing was unlawful according to Ohio policy, and it continued in effect the injunction granted by the Court of Common Pleas. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed an appeal “for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.” We granted certiorari. 351 U. S. 922.
We do not agree that respondent’s interstate purchases were so negligible that its business cannot be said to affect interstate commerce within the meaning of § 2 (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. Cf. Labor Board v. Den ver Building & Construction Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675, 683-685. In this case, unlike No. 280, ante, p. 1, and No. 50, post, p. 26, no effort was made to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Although the extent of respondent’s interstate activity seems greater even than that in Building Trades Council v. Kinard Construction Co., 346 U. S. 933, we will assume that this is a case where it was obvious that the Board would decline jurisdiction.
On this view of the case, our decision in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, ante, p. 1, controls. If the proviso to § 10 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act operates to exclude state labor boards from disputes within the National Board’s jurisdiction in the absence of a cession agreement, it must also exclude state courts. See Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 491. The conduct here restrained — an effort by a union not representing a majority of his employees to compel an employer to agree to a union shop contract — is conduct of which the National Act has taken hold. §8 (b)(2), 61 Stat. 141, 29 U. S. C. §158 (b)(2). Garner v. Teamsters Union, supra, teaches that in such circumstances a State cannot afford a remedy parallel to that provided by the Act.
It is urged in this case and its companions, however, that state action should be permitted within the area of commerce which the National Board has elected not to enter when such action is consistent with the policy of the National Act. We stated our belief in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, ante, at pp. 10-11, that “Congress has expressed its judgment in favor of uniformity.” We add that Congress did not leave it to state labor agencies, to state courts or to this Court to decide how consistent with federal policy state law must be. The power to make that decision in the first instance was given to the National Labor Relations Board, guided by the language of the proviso to § 10 (a). This case is an excellent example of one of the reasons why, it may be, Congress was specific in its requirement of uniformity. Petitioners here contend that respondent was guilty of what would be unfair labor practices under the National Act and that the outcome of proceedings before the National Board would, for that reason, have been entirely different from the outcome of the proceedings in the state courts. Without expressing any opinion as to whether the record bears out its factual contention, we note that the opinion of the Ohio Court of Appeals takes no account of the alleged unfair labor practice activity of the employer. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty whether the state court’s decree is consistent with the National Act.
One final point remains to be considered. At two of respondent’s stores, located in suburban shopping centers, the picketing occurred on land owned by or leased to respondent though open to the public for access to the stores. As one of the reasons for finding the picketing unlawful, the Court of Appeals recited this fact, and “trespassing upon plaintiff’s property” is one of the activities specifically enjoined. Whether a State may frame and enforce an injunction aimed narrowly at a trespass of this sort is a question that is not here. Here the unitary judgment of the Ohio court was based on the erroneous premise that it had power to reach the union’s conduct in its entirety. Whether its conclusion as to the mere act of trespass would have been the same outside of the context of petitioner’s other conduct we cannot know. The judgment therefore is vacated and the case remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Burton, joined by Mr. Justice Clark, see ante, p. 12.]
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
99 Ohio App. 517, 135 N. E. 2d 689.
164 Ohio St. 285, 130 N. E. 2d 237.
61 Stat. 138, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (7).
The Board’s current standards for asserting jurisdiction over retail stores call for annual direct imports from out of state of $1,000,000 or indirect imports of $2,000,000. Hogue & Knott Supermarkets, 110 N. L. R. B. 543. We leave aside the question whether the presence of secondary pressure on respondent’s suppliers would have affected the Board’s decision whether to take jurisdiction.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Medicare program, health care providers are reimbursed by the Government for expenses incurred in providing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries. See Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 291, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq. (the Medicare Act). Congress has authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations setting limits on the levels of Medicare costs that will be reimbursed. The question presented here is whether the Secretary may exercise this rulemaking authority to promulgate cost limits that are retroactive.
I
The Secretary’s authority to adopt cost-limit rules is established by § 223(b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 1393, amending 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(l)(A). This authority was first implemented in 1974 by promulgation of a cost-limit schedule for hospital services; new cost-limit schedules were issued on an annual basis thereafter.
On June 30, 1981, the Secretary issued a cost-limit schedule that included technical changes in the methods for calculating cost limits. One of these changes affected the method for calculating the “wage index,” a factor used to reflect the salary levels for hospital employees in different parts of the country. Under the prior rule, the wage index for a given geographic area was calculated by using the average salary levels for all hospitals in the area; the 1981 rule provided that wages paid by Federal Government hospitals would be excluded from that computation. 46 Fed. Reg. 33637, 33638-33639 (1981).
Various hospitals in the District of Columbia area brought suit in United States District Court seeking to have the 1981 schedule invalidated. On April 29, 1983, the District Court struck down the 1981 wage-index rule, concluding that the Secretary had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §551 et seq., by failing to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before issuing the rule. See District of Columbia Hospital Assn. v. Heckler, No. 82-2520, App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a (hereinafter DCHA). The court did not enjoin enforcement of the rule, however, finding it lacked jurisdiction to do so because the hospitals had not yet exhausted their administrative reimbursement remedies. The court’s order stated:
“If the Secretary wishes to put in place a valid prospective wage index, she should begin proper notice and comment proceedings; any wage index currently in place that has been promulgated without notice and comment is invalid as was the 1981 schedule.” DOHA, App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a.
The Secretary did not pursue an appeal. Instead, after recognizing the invalidity of the rule, see 48 Fed. Reg. 39998 (1983), the Secretary settled the hospitals’ cost reimbursement reports by applying the pre-1981 wage-index method.
In February 1984, the Secretary published a notice seeking public comment on a proposal to reissue the 1981 wage-index rule, retroactive to July 1, 1981. 49 Fed. Reg. 6175 (1984). Because Congress had subsequently amended the Medicare Act to require significantly different cost reimbursement procedures, the readoption of the modified wage-index method was to apply exclusively to a 15-month period commencing July 1, 1981. After considering the comments received, the Secretary reissued the 1981 schedule in final form on November 26, 1984, and proceeded to recoup sums previously paid as a result of the District Court’s ruling in DCHA. 49 Fed. Reg. 46495 (1984). In effect, the Secretary had promulgated a rule retroactively, and the net result was as if the original rule had never been set aside.
Respondents, a group of seven hospitals who had benefited from the invalidation of the 1981 schedule, were required to return over $2 million in reimbursement payments. After exhausting administrative remedies, they sought judicial review under the applicable provisions of the APA, claiming that the retroactive schedule was invalid under both the APA and the Medicare Act.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment for respondents. Applying the balancing test enunciated in Retail, Wholesale and De partment Store Union, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 151 U. S. App. D. C. 209, 466 F. 2d 380 (1972), the court held that retroactive application was not justified under the circumstances of the case.
The Secretary appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which affirmed. 261 U. S. App. D. C. 262, 821 F. 2d 750 (1987). The court based its holding on the alternative grounds that the APA, as a general matter, forbids retroactive rulemaking, and that the Medicare Act, by specific terms, bars retroactive cost-limit rules. We granted certiorari, 485 U. S. 903 (1988), and we now affirm.
II
It is axiomatic that an administrative agency’s power to promulgate legislative regulations is limited to the authority delegated by Congress. In determining the validity of the Secretary’s retroactive cost-limit rule, the threshold question is whether the Medicare Act authorizes retroactive rulemaking.
Retroactivity is not favored in the law. Thus, congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result. E. g., Greene v. United States, 376 U. S. 149, 160 (1964); Claridge Apartments Co. v. Commissioner, 323 U. S. 141, 164 (1944); Miller v. United States, 294 U. S. 435, 439 (1935); United States v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 276 U. S. 160, 162-163 (1928). By the same principle, a statutory grant of legislative rulemaking authority will not, as a general matter, be understood to encompass the power to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is conveyed by Congress in express terms. See Brimstone R. Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 104, 122 (1928) (“The power to require readjustments for the past is drastic. It. . . ought not to be extended so as to permit unreasonably harsh action without very plain words”). Even where some substantial justification for retroactive rulemaking is presented, courts should be reluctant to find such authority absent an express statutory grant.
The Secretary contends that the Medicare Act provides the necessary authority to promulgate retroactive cost-limit rules in the unusual circumstances of this case. He rests on alternative grounds: first, the specific grant of authority to promulgate regulations to “provide for the making of suitable retroactive corrective adjustments,” 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(l)(A)(ii); and second, the general grant of authority to promulgate cost limit rules, §§ 1395x(v)(l)(A), 1395hh, 1395Ü. We consider these alternatives in turn.
A
The authority to promulgate cost-reimbursement regulations is set forth in § 1395x(v)(l)(A). That subparagraph also provides that:
“Such regulations shall. . . (ii) provide for the making of suitable retroactive corrective adjustments where, for a provider of services for any fiscal period, the aggregate reimbursement produced by the methods of determining costs proves to be either inadequate or excessive. ” Ibid.
This provision on its face permits some form of retroactive action. We cannot accept the Secretary’s argument, however, that it provides authority for the retroactive promulgation of cost-limit rules. To the contrary, we agree with the Court of Appeals that clause (ii) directs the Secretary to establish a procedure for making case-by-case adjustments to reimbursement payments where the regulations prescribing computation methods do not reach the correct result in individual cases. The structure and language of the statute require the conclusion that the retroactivity provision applies only to case-by-case adjudication, not to rulemaking.
Section 1395x(v)(l)(A), of which clause (ii) is a part, directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations (including cost-limit rules) establishing the methods to be used in determining reasonable costs for “institutions” and “providers” that participate in the Medicare program. Clause (i) of § 1395x(v)(l)(A) requires these cost-method regulations to take into account both direct and indirect costs incurred by “providers.” Clause (ii) mandates that the cost-method regulations include a mechanism for making retroactive corrective adjustments. These adjustments are required when, for “a provider,” the “aggregate reimbursement produced by the methods of determining costs” is too low or too high. By its terms, then, clause (ii) contemplates a mechanism for adjusting the reimbursement received by a provider, while the remainder of § 1395x(v)(l)(A) speaks exclusively in the plural. The distinction suggests that clause (ii), rather than permitting modifications to the cost-method rules in their general formulation, is intended to authorize case-by-case inquiry into the accuracy of reimbursement determinations for individual providers. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a corrective adjustment could be made to the aggregate reimbursement paid “a provider” without performing an individual examination of the provider’s expenditures in retrospect.
Our conclusion is buttressed by the statute’s use of the term “adjustments.” Clause (ii) states that the cost-method regulations shall “provide for the making of . . . adjustments.” In order to derive from this language the authority to promulgate cost-limit rules, the “adjustments” that the cost-method regulations must “provide for the making of” would themselves be additional cost-method regulations. Had Congress intended the Secretary to promulgate regulations providing for the issuance of further amendatory regulations, we think this intent would have been made explicit.
It is also significant that clause (ii) speaks in terms of adjusting the aggregate reimbursement amount computed by one of the methods of determining costs. As the Secretary concedes, the cost-limit rules are one of the methods of determining costs, and the retroactive 1984 rule was therefore an attempt to change one of those methods. Yet nothing in clause (ii) suggests that it permits changes in the methods used to compute costs; rather, it expressly contemplates corrective adjustments to the aggregate amounts of reimbursement produced pursuant to those methods. We cannot find in the language of clause (ii) an independent grant of authority to promulgate regulations establishing the methods of determining costs.
Our interpretation of clause (ii) is consistent with the Secretary’s past implementation of that provision. The regulations promulgated immediately after enactment of the Medicare Act established a mechanism for making retroactive corrective adjustments that remained essentially unchanged throughout the periods relevant to this case. Compare 20 CFR §§405.451(b)(1), 405.454(a), (f) (1967), with 42 CFR §§405.451(b)(1), 405.454(a), (f) (1983). These regulations provide for adjusting the amount of interim payments received by a provider, to bring the aggregate reimbursement into line with the provider’s actual reasonable costs.
These are the only regulations that expressly contemplate the making of retroactive corrective adjustments. The 1984 reissuance of the 1981 wage-index rule did not purport to be such a provision; indeed, it is only in the context of this litigation that the Secretary has expressed any intent to characterize the rule as a retroactive corrective adjustment under clause (ii).
Despite the novelty of this interpretation, the Secretary contends that it is entitled to deference under Young v. Community Nutrition Institute, 476 U. S. 974, 980-981 (1986), Chemical Mfrs. Assn. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U. S. 116, 125 (1985), and Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-844 (1984). We have never applied the principle of those cases to agency litigating positions that are wholly unsupported by regulations, rulings, or administrative practice. To the contrary, we have declined to give deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question, on the ground that “Congress has delegated to the administrative official and not to appellate counsel the responsibility for elaborating and enforcing statutory commands.” Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617, 628 (1971); cf. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 168 (1962) (“The courts may not accept appellate counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency [orders]”). Even if we were to sanction departure from this principle in some cases, we would not do so here. Far from being a reasoned and consistent view of the scope of clause (ii), the Secretary’s current interpretation of clause (ii) is contrary to the narrow view of that provision advocated in past cases, where the Secretary has argued that clause (ii) “merely contemplates a year-end balancing of the monthly installments received by a provider with the aggregate due it for the year.” Regents of the University of California v. Heckler, 771 F. 2d 1182, 1189 (CA9 1985); see also Whitecliff Inc. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 53, 60, n. 11, 536 F. 2d 347, 352, n. 11 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 969 (1977). Deference to what appears to be nothing more than an agency’s convenient litigating position would be entirely inappropriate. Accordingly, the retroactive rule cannot be upheld as an exercise of the Secretary’s authority to make retroactive corrective adjustments.
B
The statutory provisions establishing the Secretary’s general rulemaking power contain no express authorization of retroactive rulemaking. Any light that might be shed on this matter by suggestions of legislative intent also indicates that no such authority was contemplated. In the first place, where Congress intended to grant the Secretary the authority to act retroactively, it made that intent explicit. As discussed above, § 1395x(v)(l)(A)(ii) directs the Secretary to establish procedures for making retroactive corrective adjustments; in view of this indication that Congress considered the need for retroactive agency action, the absence of any express authorization for retroactive cost-limit rules weighs heavily against the Secretary’s position.
The legislative history of the cost-limit provision directly addresses the issue of retroactivity. In discussing the authority granted by § 223(b) of the 1972 amendments, the House and Senate Committee Reports expressed a desire to forbid retroactive cost-limit rules: “The proposed new authority to set limits on costs . . . would be exercised on a prospective, rather than retrospective, basis so that the provider would know in advance the limits to Government recognition of incurred costs and have the opportunity to act to avoid having costs that are not reimbursable.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-231, p. 83 (1971); see S. Rep. No. 92-1230, p. 188 (1972).
The Secretary’s past administrative practice is consistent with this interpretation of the statute. The first regulations promulgated under § 223(b) provided that “[t]hese limits will be imposed prospectively. . . .” 20 CFR § 405.460(a) (1975). Although the language was dropped from subsection (a) of the regulation when it was revised in 1979, the revised regulation continued to refer to “the prospective periods to which limits are being applied,” and it required that notice of future cost limits be published in the Federal Register “[p]rior to the beginning of a cost period to which limits will be applied ____” 42 CFR §§405.460(b)(2), (3) (1980). Finally, when the regulations were amended again in 1982, the Secretary reinserted the requirement that the limits be applied with prospective effect, noting that the language had been “inadvertently omitted” in the previous amendment but that the reinsertion would “have no effect on the way we develop or apply the limits.” 47 Fed. Reg. 43282, 43286 (1982); see 42 CFR § 405.460(a)(2) (1983).
Other examples of similar statements by the agency abound. Every cost-limit schedule promulgated by the Secretary between 1974 and 1981, for example, included a statement that § 223 permits the Secretary to establish “prospective” limits on the costs that are reimbursed under Medicare. The Secretary’s administrative rulings have also expressed this understanding of § 223(b). See Beth Israel Hospital v. Blue Cross Assn./Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, CCH Medicare and Medicaid Guide ¶ 31, 645 (Nov. 7, 1981).
The Secretary nonetheless suggests that, whatever the limits on his power to promulgate retroactive regulations in the normal course of events, judicial invalidation of-a prospective rule is a unique occurrence that creates a heightened need, and thus a justification, for retroactive curative rule-making. The Secretary warns that congressional intent and important administrative goals may be frustrated unless an invalidated rule can be cured of its defect and made applicable to past time periods. The argument is further advanced that the countervailing reliance interests are less compelling than in the usual case of retroactive rulemaking, because the original, invalidated rule provided at least some notice to the individuals and entities subject to its provisions.
Whatever weight the Secretary’s contentions might have in other contexts, they need not be addressed here. The case before us is resolved by the particular statutory scheme in question. Our interpretation of the Medicare Act compels the conclusion that the Secretary has no authority to promulgate retroactive cost-limit rules.
The 1984 reinstatement of the 1981 cost-limit rule is invalid. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Courts of Appeals have not spoken in one voice in construing this provision. Some courts have held that clause (ii) permits the Secretary to promulgate retroactive regulations. E. g., Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Bowen, 815 F. 2d 1435, 1453-1454 (CA11 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 1020 (1988); Fairfax Nursing Center, Inc. v. Califano, 590 F. 2d 1297, 1300 (CA4 1979); Springdale Convalescent Center v. Mathews, 545 F. 2d 943, 954-955 (CA5 1977). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion, construing clause (ii) to provide for nothing more than a year-end balancing of individual providers’ cost-reimbursement accounts. Daughters of Miriam Center for the Aged v. Mathews, 590 F. 2d 1250, 1258, n. 23 (1978). Other courts, without deciding whether clause (ii) permits rulemaking, have held that it requires the Secretary to make case-by-case adjustments to reimbursement determinations. E. g., St. Paul-Ramsey Medical Center v. Bowen, 816 F. 2d 417, 419-420 (CA8 1987); Regents of the University of California v. Heckler, 771 F. 2d 1182, 1188-1189 (CA9 1985).
` It is clear from the language of these provisions that they are intended to implement the Secretary’s authority under clause (ii):
“These regulations also provide for the making of suitable retroactive adjustments after the provider has submitted fiscal and statistical reports. The retroactive adjustment will represent the difference between the amount received by the provider during the year for covered services from both [the Medicare program] and the beneficiaries and the amount determined in accordance with an accepted method of cost apportionment to be the actual cost of services rendered to beneficiaries during the year.” 20 CFR § 405.451(b)(1) (1967); 42 CFR § 405.451(b)(1) (1983).
Section 223(b) of the 1972 amendments amended the Medicare Act to state that the Secretary’s regulations for computing reasonable costs may “provide for the establishment of limits on the direct or indirect overall incurred costs or incurred costs of specific items or services or groups of items or services to be recognized as reasonable based on estimates of the costs necessary in the efficient delivery of needed health services to individuals covered by the insurance programs established under this sub-chapter . . . .” 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(l)(A).
Section 1395hh provides that “[t]he Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the insurance programs under this subchapter.” Finally, § 1395Ü incorporates 42 U. S. C. § 405(a), which provides that “[t]he Secretary shall have full power and authority to make rules and regulations . . . , not inconsistent with the provisions of this subchapter, which are necessary or appropriate to carry out such provisions . . . .”
See 46 Fed. Reg. 48010 (1981); id., at 33637; 45 Fed. Reg. 41868 (1980); 44 Fed. Reg. 31806 (1979); 43 Fed. Reg. 43558 (1978); 42 Fed. Reg. 53675 (1977); 41 Fed. Reg. 26992 (1976); 40 Fed. Reg. 23622 (1975); 39 Fed. Reg. 20168 (1974); see also 48 Fed. Reg. 39998 (1983) (notice of invalidation of 1981 cost-limit schedule). Even the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning reissuance of the 1981 schedule contained the statement that § 223 “authorizes the Secretary to set prospective limits on the costs that are reimbursed under Medicare.” 49 Fed. Reg. 6175, 6176 (1984). Interestingly, this statement does not appear in the final notice announcing the reissuance of the 1981 schedule. Id., at 46495.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, Congress amended 42 U. S. C. § 1988 to permit the award of a reasonable attorney’s fee to the “prevailing party” as part of the taxable costs in a suit brought under any of several specified civil rights statutes. The respondents brought suit under three of those statutes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by the petitioners, and seeking money damages from them. The District Court directed verdicts for the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial, 600 P. 2d 600. The Court of Appeals also awarded to the respondents their costs on appeal, including attorney’s fees which it believed to be authorized by § 1988. Id., at 643-644.
The final sentence of § 1988, as amended, provides as follows:
“In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs,” 42 U. S. C. § 1988.
The statute by its terms thus permits the award of attorney’s fees only to a “prevailing party.” Accordingly, in the present cases, the Court of Appeals was authorized to award to the respondents the attorney’s fees attributable to their appeal only if, by reason of obtaining a partial reversal of the trial court’s judgment, they “prevailed” within the meaning of § 1988. The Court of Appeals believed that they had prevailed with respect to the appeal in this case, resting its conclusion upon the following appellate rulings favorable to the respondents: (1) the reversal of the District Court’s judgment directing verdicts against them, save with respect to certain of the defendants; (2) the reversal of the District Court’s denial of their motion to discover the identity of an informant; and (3) the direction to the District Court on-remand to consider allowing further discovery, and to conduct a hearing on the respondents’ contention that the conduct of some of the petitioners in response to the trial court’s discovery orders warranted the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (b)(2). While the respondents did prevail on these matters in the sense that the Court of Appeals overturned several rulings against them by the District Court, they were not, we have concluded, “prevailing” parties in the sense intended by 42 U. S. C. § 1988, as amended.
The legislative history of the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 indicates that a person may in some circumstances be a “prevailing party” without having obtained a favorable “final judgment following a full trial on the merits,” H. R. Rep. No. 94H558, p. 7 (1976). See also S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 5 (1976). Thus, for example, “parties may be considered to have prevailed when they vindicate rights through a consent judgment or without formally obtaining relief,” ibid. See also H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 7, and cases cited; Dawson v. Pastrick, 600 F. 2d 70, 78 (CA7 1979); Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F. 2d 275, 279-281 (CA1 1978).
It is evident also that Congress contemplated the award of fees pendente lite in some cases. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5; H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 7-8. But it seems clearly to have been the intent of Congress to permit such an interlocutory award only to a party who has established his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims, either in the trial court or on appeal. The congressional Committee Reports described what were considered to be appropriate circumstances for such an award by reference to two cases — Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U. S. 696 (1974), and Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375 (1970). S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5; H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 8. In each of those cases the party to whom fees were awarded had established the liability of the opposing party, although final remedial orders had not been entered. The House Committee Report, moreover, approved the standard suggested by this Court in Bradley, that “ ‘the entry of any order that determines substantial rights of the parties may be an appropriate occasion upon which to consider the propriety of an award of counsel fees ...,’” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 8, quoting Bradley v. Richmond School Board, supra, at 723, n. 28. Similarly, the Senate Committee Report explained that the award of counsel fees pendente lite would be “especially appropriate where a party has prevailed on an important matter in the course of litigation, even when he ultimately does not prevail on all issues.” S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5 (emphasis added). It seems apparent from these passages that Congress intended to permit the interim award of counsel fees only when a party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims. For only in that event has there been a determination of the “substantial rights of the parties,” which Congress determined was a necessary foundation for departing from the usual rule in this country that each party is to bear the expense of his own attorney.
The respondents have of course not prevailed on the merits of any of their claims. The Court of Appeals held only that the respondents were entitled to a trial of their cause. As a practical matter they are in a position no different from that they would have occupied if they had simply defeated the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict in the trial court. The jury may or may not decide some or all of the issues in favor of the respondents. If the jury should not do so on remand in these cases, it could not seriously be contended that the respondents had prevailed. See Swietlowich v. Bucks County, 620 F. 2d 33, 34 (CA3 1980). Nor may they fairly be said to have “prevailed” by reason of the Court of Appeals’ other interlocutory dispositions, which affected only the extent of discovery. As is true of other procedural or evidentiary rulings, these determinations may affect the disposition on the merits, but were themselves not matters on which a party could “prevail” for purposes of shifting his counsel fees to the opposing party under § 1988. See Bly v. McLeod, 605 F. 2d 134, 137 (CA4 1979).
The motion of Fraternal Order of Police of the State of Illinois in ease No. 79-912 for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted.
The respondents’ motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the petitions for certiorari are granted, limited to the question of the propriety of the award of attorney’s fees by the Court of Appeals, and the judgment is reversed insofar as it awarded attorney’s fees to the respondents. In all other respects, the petitions for certiorari are denied.
It is so ordered.
Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The controversy arose from the execution in 1969 of a judicial warrant to search for and seize illegal weapons within an apartment in Chicago occupied by nine members of the Black Panther Party. In the course of the search two of the apartment’s occupants were killed by gunfire, and four others were wounded. The police seized various weapons and arrested the seven surviving occupants of the apartment. The survivors were indicted by a state grand jury on charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery, but the indictments ultimately were dismissed. Those seven persons and the legal representatives of the two persons killed are the respondents in these cases. Named as defendants in the respondents’ suits were Cook County, the city of Chicago, and various state and local oficiáis allegedly involved in the search or its aftermath. Those officials are the petitioners in No. 79-912. After proceedings in the District Court and the Court of Appeals resulted in the dismissal of the complaint against the city and the county, see Hampton v. Chicago, 339 F. Supp. 695 (ND Ill. 1972), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 484 F. 2d 602 (CA7 1973), the respondents filed an amended complaint naming as additional defendants the three Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and an informant who are the petitioners in No. 79-914.
The respondents based their claims on 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983, 1985 (3) (1976 ed., Supp. II), and 1986, and on provisions of the Constitution. They also alleged various causes of action under state law.
In an unpublished supplemental opinion issued on December 12, 1979 (as amended December 21, 1979), fixing the amount of the fee award, the Court of Appeals reiterated its conclusion that the respondents were “prevailing parties” within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. § 1988.
The Court of Appeals recognized that the respondents had not “prevailed” in the District Court, and for that reason limited the award of counsel fees to those incurred by the respondents in the course of the appeal. 600 F. 2d 600, 643-644.
The provision for counsel fees in § 1988 was patterned upon the attorney’s fees provisions contained in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000a-3 (b) and 2000e-5 (k), and § 402 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, 42 U. S. C. § 19731 (e). S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 2 (1976); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 5 (1976). Those provisions have been construed by the Courts of Appeals to permit the award of counsel fees only to a party who has prevailed on the merits of a claim. See Bly v. McLeod, 605 F. 2d 134, 137 (CA4 1979) (Voting Rights Act); Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Leguennec, 580 F. 2d 1006, 1009 (CA9 1978) (same); Grubbs v. Butz, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 18, 20-21, 548 F. 2d 973, 975-976 (1976) (Title VII); Sperling v. United States, 515 F. 2d 465, 485 (CA3 1975) (same). See also Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 418 (1978) (“[W]hen a district court awards counsel fees [under the Civil Rights Act of 1964] to a prevailing plaintiff, it is awarding them against a violator of federal law”). But cf. Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 503 F. 2d 1131, 1133 (CA9 1974).
In the cases cited by the Court of Appeals to justify the award of counsel fees in these cases, those to whom fees were awarded had prevailed on the merits of at least some of their claims. See Davis v. Murphy, 587 F. 2d 362, 363-364 (CA7 1978); Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F. 2d 275, 279-281 (CA1 1978); Wharton v. Knefel, 562 F. 2d 550, 556 (CA8 1977).
The Court of Appeals stated that, in reversing the directed verdicts, it was “not passing on the ultimate validity of [the respondents’] claims,” 600 F. 2d, at 621, n. 20. Indeed, Chief Judge Fairchild emphasized in his concurring opinion that the court’s use of the phrase “ ‘prima facie’ case” in referring to the evidence adduced by the respondents should not be taken to mean that at “any stage of this case . . . the evidence compelled a verdict for [the respondents] unless rebutted.” Id., at 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:
|
F
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the construction of a provision common to fixed-price government construction contracts that states that the private contractor “shall be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of his fault or negligence . . . .” The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the provision could not be construed to allow the Government to recover from the contractor damages suffered by the Government on account of its own negligence. 408 F. 2d 146 (1969). We granted certiorari because of the large amount of litigation that this contract clause has produced and because of the divergent results that the lower courts have reached in construing the same or similar provisions. 396 U. S. 815 (1969). We reverse.
I
The United States had entered into a contract with the Seckinger Company for the performance of certain plumbing work at a United States Marine base in South Carolina. While working on this project, one of Seck-inger’s employees was directed by his foreman to assist a fellow employee on a particular section of pipe that had been partially constructed above a street. About four or five feet above the place where the employee was working, there was an electric wire that carried 2,400 volts of electricity. The employee accidentally came into contact with the wire, was thrown to the ground 18 feet below, and was seriously injured.
The injured employee recovered benefits under South Carolina's workmen's compensation law, S. C. Code Ann. §§ 72-1 to 72-504 (1962), and then commenced a suit in the Eastern District of South Carolina against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2671-2680, on the theory that his injuries had been sustained as the proximate result of the Government’s negligence. The United States, relying on the contract clause, moved to implead Seckinger as a third-party defendant. This motion was denied on the ground that the addition of Seckinger would “unnecessarily and improperly complicate the issues.”
On the merits, the South Carolina District Court found that the United States had customarily de-ener-gized its electric wires whenever Seckinger employees were required to work dangerously near them. The court therefore held that the United States had been grossly negligent in failing to de-energize the wire in this particular case. Alternatively, the Government was held to have been negligent in failing to advise Seckinger’s employees that the electric wire had not been de-energized. Concluding also that the employee had in no way contributed to his injury, the District Judge ordered that he recover a judgment against the United States in the amount of $45,000 plus costs. No appeal was taken from this judgment of the District Court.
Thereafter, the United States proceeded to the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia and commenced the instant suit against Seckinger. The complaint alleged that Seckinger’s negligence was solely responsible for its employee’s injuries and that therefore the United States should be fully indemnified for the judgment which it had satisfied. In a second count, the Government alleged that Seckinger, having undertaken to perform its contract with the United States, was obligated “to perform the work properly and safely and to provide workmanlike service in the performance of said work.”
The District Court granted Seckinger’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the alternative grounds, first, that the suit was barred by the prior litigation in South Carolina and, second, that the contractual language was not sufficiently broad to permit the Government to recover indemnification for its own negligence. The Court of Appeals rejected the first ground of decision, but sustained the holding that any recovery on the contract was foreclosed to the United States because its negligence had contributed substantially to the injury. The Court of Appeals held that, under the “majority rule,” an indemnitee cannot recover for his own negligence in the absence of a contractual provision which unmistakably authorizes this result. Since the contract here did not unequivocally command that the Government be indemnified for its own negligence, and because the injuries in question were thought to have been caused by the “active direct negligence” of the Government with no more than a “slight dereliction” on the part of Seck-inger, no recovery whatsoever on the contract would be permitted to the United States.
In the Government's view, this construction of the clause renders it a nullity, for the United States can never be held liable in tort under the Tort Claims Act or otherwise in the absence, of negligence on the part of its agents. Thus, so the argument goes, the contractual provision in question can have meaning only in a context in which both the United States and the contractor are jointly negligent. In that circumstance, the contractor would be obligated to sustain the full burden of ultimate liability for the injuries produced. Alternatively, the Government suggests that it is entitled to indemnity on a comparative basis to the extent that the negligence of Seckinger contributed to its employee’s injuries.
II
In the posture in which this case reaches us, the historical background of the clause and evidence concerning the actual intention of these particular parties with respect to that provision are sparsely presented. We do know that the clause was required in government fixed-price construction contracts as early as 1938. This fact merely precipitates confusion, however, because it was not until the passage of the Tort Claims Act in 1946, §§ 401-424, 60 Stat. 842, as amended, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2671-2680, that the United States permitted recovery in tort against itself for the negligent acts of its agents. Viewed in the pre-Tort Claims Act context, the purpose of the clause is totally unclear except, perhaps, as an exercise in caution on the part of the government draftsmen, or, conceivably, as an attempt to insulate government agents from liability in their private capacities if their negligence arguably combined with that of the contractor to produce a given injury.
In American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446 (1947), we had before us a contractual provision that was similar to that involved here. There we noted that the clause was susceptible of several different constructions, 330 U. S., at 457-458, and remanded the case to the District Court to ascertain the intention of the parties with respect to the clause. It does not appear that a similar course of action would be fruitful in the instant case. In Porello there were clear indications from the parties that further evidentiary proceedings in the District Court would shed light on the actual intention of the parties. Here, by contrast, there is not only no representation that further proceedings would aid in clarifying the intentions of the parties, but there is at least tacit agreement that the background of the clause has been explored as thoroughly as possible. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to proceed directly to the contractual construction problem.
Ill
Preliminarily, we agree with the Court of Appeals that federal law controls the interpretation of the contract. See United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U. S. 174, 183 (1944); Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363 (1943). This conclusion results from the fact that the contract was entered into pursuant to authority conferred by federal statute and, ultimately, by the Constitution.
In fashioning a federal rule we are, of course, guided by the general principles that have evolved concerning the interpretation of contractual provisions such as that involved here. Among these principles is the general maxim that a contract should be construed most strongly against the drafter, which in this case was the United States. The Government seeks to circumvent this principle by arguing that it is inapplicable unless there is ambiguity in the contractual provisions in dispute and there exists an alternative interpretation that is, “under all the circumstances, a reasonable and practical one.” Gelco Builders & Burjay Const. Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 1025, 1035, 369 F. 2d 992, 999-1000 (1966). The Government itself, however, has proffered two mutually inconsistent interpretations of the contract clause. To be sure, one of them is pressed with considerably more enthusiasm than the other. The Government, nevertheless, must be taken implicitly to have conceded (a) that the clause is not without ambiguity and (b) that there is an alternative construction of the clause that is both “reasonable and practical.” Even in the Government’s view of the matter, therefore, there is necessarily room for the construction-against-drafter principle to operate.
More specifically, we agree with the Court of Appeals that a contractual provision should not be construed to permit an indemnitee to recover for his own negligence unless the court is firmly convinced that such an interpretation reflects the intention of the parties. This principle, though variously articulated, is accepted with virtual unanimity among American jurisdictions. The traditional reluctance of courts to cast the burden of negligent actions upon those who were not actually at fault is particularly applicable to a situation in which there is a vast disparity in bargaining power and economic resources between the parties, such as exists between the United States and particular government contractors. See United States v. Haskin, 395 F. 2d 503, 508 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1968).
In short, if the United States expects to shift the ultimate responsibility for its negligence to its various contractors, the mutual intention of the parties to this effect should appear with clarity from the face of the contract. We can hardly say that this intention is manifested by the formulation incorporated into the present contract. By its terms Seckinger is clearly liable for its negligence, but the contractual language cannot readily be stretched to encompass the Government’s negligence as well.
On the other hand, we must not fail to accord appropriate consideration to Seckinger’s clear liability under the contract for “all damages” that resulted from its “fault or negligence.” (Emphasis added.) The view adopted by the Court of Appeals, and now urged by Seckinger, would drain this clause of any significant meaning or protection for the Government, and, indeed, would tend to insulate Seckinger from potential liability in any circumstance in which any negligence is also attributable to the United States. Whatever may have been the actual intention of the parties with respect to the meaning of the clause, it is extremely difficult to believe that they sought to utilize this contractual provision to reduce Seckinger’s potential liability under common law or statutory rules of contribution or indemnity. Yet, that is arguably the result if the clause is interpreted to mean that Seckinger’s liability is limited to situations in which it, as opposed to the United States, is the sole negligent party.
Furthermore, in this latter situation, it is perfectly clear that, both before and after the passage of the Tort Claims Act, the United States could not, in any event, be charged with liability in the absence of negligence on its part. In short, the construction of the clause adopted by the Court of Appeals tends to narrow Seckinger’s potential liability and, also, limits its application to circumstances in which no doubt concerning Seckinger’s sole liability existed. In the process, considerable violence is done to the plain language of the contract that Seckinger be responsible for all damages resulting from its negligence.
A synthesis of all of the foregoing considerations leads to the conclusion that the most reasonable construction of the clause is the alternative suggestion of the Government, that is, that liability be premised on the basis of comparative negligence. In the first place, this interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the clause, for Seckinger will be required to indemnify the United States to the full extent that its negligence, if any, contributed to the injuries to the employee.
Secondly, the principle that indemnification for the indemnitee’s own negligence must be clearly and unequivocally indicated as the intention of the parties is preserved intact. In no event will Seckinger be required to indemnify the United States to the extent that the injuries were attributable to the negligence, if any, of the United States. In short, Seckinger will be responsible for the damages caused by its negligence; similarly, responsibility will fall upon the United States to the extent that it was negligent.
Finally, our interpretation adheres to the principle that, as between two reasonable and practical constructions of an ambiguous contractual provision, such as the two proffered by the Government, the provision should be construed less favorably to that party which selected the contractual language. This principle is appropriately accorded considerable emphasis in this case because of the Government’s vast economic resources and stronger bargaining position in contract negotiations.
For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mb. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In the petition for certiorari, the Solicitor General advised that there are presently pending 200 government suits involving the same or similar clauses.
Compare, e. g., Fisher v. United States, 299 F. Supp. 1 (D. C. E. D. Pa. 1969), and United States v. Accrocco, 297 F. Supp. 966 (D. C. D. C. 1969), with, e. g., the decision of the Court of Appeals in the instant case.
The third-party complaint was therefore dismissed “with leave to . . . the United States ... to take such further action at an appropriate time.” The order was not appealed, and we imply no view concerning the propriety of the District Court’s action.
The District Court concluded, inter alia, that the negligence of the United States was the “sole cause” of the employee’s injuries. We do not pause to consider what effect, if any, under all the circumstances of this case, the South Carolina judgment could properly have in the instant case. The effect of the prior judgment was not raised below except as a defense contention that it constituted an absolute bar to the instant proceedings.
Specifically, the United States alleged that Seckinger was negligent in that it (1) failed to request that the power distribution line be de-energized; (2) failed to request that the wires at the place where the accident occurred be insulated; (3) failed to provide safety insulation on the wires; (4) permitted, and in fact directed, the subsequently injured employee to work in close proximity to the wires; and (5) failed to prevent the employee from proceeding in a manner that was dangerous and that caused him to be injured.
The Court of Appeals held that the Government’s suit was not barred by principles of res judicata because the South Carolina District Court expressfy left open the option of the United States to pursue its claim against Seckinger at a later time. We agree with this conclusion of the Court of Appeals.
In the present state of the record, we neither accept nor reject this characterization of the relative degrees of fault of Seckinger and the United States.
The Government, therefore, does not take issue with those authorities that exhibit reluctance to permit a negligent indemnitee to recover from a faultless indemnitor unless this intention appeared with particular clarity from the contract. See, e. g., Associated Engineers, Inc. v. Job, 370 F. 2d 633, 651 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied sub nom. Troy Cannon Const. Co. v. Job, 389 U. S. 823 (1967).
In context, the clause in question appears as follows:
“11. PERMITS AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK, ETC.
“The Contractor shall, without additional expense to the Government, obtain all licenses and permits required for the prosecution of the work. He shall be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of his fault or negligence in connection with the prosecution of the work. He shall also be responsible for all materials delivered and work performed until completion and final acceptance, except for any completed unit thereof which theretofore may have been finally accepted.”
See, e. g., 41 CFR §§ 11.1, 11.3, 12.23, Art. 10 (1938).
The objective of the remand was frustrated when no additional evidence was presented to the District Court. That court merely adhered to the construction of the contract that had been adopted by the Court of Appeals, 153 F. 2d 605 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1946), namely, that the United States was entitled to full indemnity from a steve-doring contractor although both the United States and the contractor were found to have been negligent. Porello v. United States, 94 F. Supp. 952 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1950).
“The validity and construction of contracts through which the United States is exercising its constitutional functions, their consequences on the rights and obligations of the parties, the titles or liens which they create or permit, all present questions of federal law not controlled by the law of any State.” 322 U. S., at 183.
Congress has provided extensive arrangements for the procurement, management, and disposal of government property. See generally 40 U. S. C. §§ 471-535 (1964 ed. and Supp. IV). As part of this statutory scheme, the Administrator of General Services is authorized to issue regulations necessary to perform his various managerial functions. 40 U. S. C. § 486 (e). Pursuant to this authority, various form contracts, one of which includes the provision that is the subject of this suit, have been promulgated for official use. 41 CFR §§ 1-16.401 to 1-16.404, 1-16.901-23A, Art. 12 (1969). See generally State Bar of California, Committee on Continuing Education of the Bar, Government Contracts Practice § 13.93 (1964).
See, e. g., Sternberger v. United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 528, 543, 401 F. 2d 1012, 1021 (1968); Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. United States, 183 Ct. Cl. 358, 372, 393 F. 2d 807, 816 (1968); Jones v. United States, 304 F. Supp. 94, 103 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1969).
A number of courts take the view, frequently in a context in which the indemnitee was solely or principally responsible for the damages, that there can be indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence only if this intention is explicitly stated in the contract. See, e. g., Freed v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 401 F. 2d 266 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1968) (intention of parties must be “clear and unambiguous” necessitating a clause such as “including damage from indemnitee’s own negligence”); Brogdon v. Southern R. Co., 384 F. 2d 220 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1967) (same); City of Beaumont v. Graham, 441 S. W. 2d 829 (Tex. 1969) (indemnitor’s promise to indemnify for his negligent acts does not extend to indemnification for indemnitee’s negligence); Young v. Anaconda American Brass Co., 43 Wis. 2d 36, 168 N. W. 2d 112 (1969) (indemnitor not liable for such portion of total liability attributable to act of indemnitee unless indemnity contract by express provision and strict construction so provides); cases collected in Annot., 175 A. L. R. 8, 29-38 (1948).
Other cases do not require that indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence be specifically or expressly stated in the contract if this intention otherwise appears with clarity. See, e. g., Auto Owners Mut. Ins. Co. v. Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 414 F. 2d 192 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1969); Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates v. Midwest-Raleigh, Inc.. 374 F. 2d 451 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1967); Unitec Corp. v. Beatty Safway Scaffold Co., 358 F. 2d 470 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1966); Batson-Cook Co. v. Industrial Steel Erectors, 257 F. 2d 410 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1958).
Several earlier eases declared clauses that purported to indemnify for the indemnitee’s negligence void as contrary to public policy. See, e. g., Sternaman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 170 N. Y. 13, 62 N. E. 763 (1902); Johnson’s Administratrix v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 86 Va. 975, 11 S. E. 829 (1890). See also Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U. S. 85 (1955); Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Cos. Co., 95 Colo. 99, 33 P. 2d 974 (1934).
An example of an indemnification clause that makes specific reference to the effect of the negligence of the indemnitee is the following recommendation of the American Institute of Architects:
"4.18. INDEMNIFICATION
“4.18.1. The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner and the Architect and their agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys’ fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work, provided that any such claim, damage, loss or expense (a) is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than the Work itself) including the loss of use resulting therefrom, and (b) is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder." AIA Document A 201, Sept. 1967.
We specifically decline to hold that a clause that is intended to encompass indemnification for the indemnitee’s negligence must include an “indemnify and hold harmless” clause or that it must explicitly state that indemnification extends to injuries occasioned by the indemnitee’s negligence. Thus, contrary to the view apparently adopted in the dissenting opinion, we assign no talismanic significance to the absence of a “hold harmless” clause. Our approach is, in this respect, consistent with American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U. S., at 457-458. Contract interpretation is largely an individualized process, with the conclusion in a particular case turning on the particular language used against the background of other indicia of the parties’ intention. Consequently, we hold only that, in this case, the clause that provides that Seckinger will be responsible for all damages resulting from its negligence is insufficiently broad to encompass responsibility for injuries resulting from the negligence of the Government. And, of course, the Government is entitled to no recovery unless it establishes that Seckinger was negligent. Thus the dissenting opinion mischaracterizes the scope of our holding when it states that Seckinger must “reimburse the Government for losses it incurs resulting from its negligence.”
See, e. g., United States v. Haskin, 395 F. 2d 503 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1968); Brogdon v. Southern R. Co., 384 F. 2d 220 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1967); Shamrock Towing Co. v. City of New York, 16 F. 2d 199 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1926); Williams v. Midland Constructors, 221 F. Supp. 400 (D. C. E. D. Ark. 1963); City of Beaumont v. Graham, 441 S. W. 2d 829 (Tex. 1969); Young v. Anaconda American Brass Co., 43 Wis. 2d 36, 168 N. W. 2d 112 (1969).
An employer’s liability for injuries suffered by his employees to which his negligence partially contributed varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the absence of workmen's compensation statutes, the employer and the third-party tortfeasor would be jointly and severally liable, under traditional principles, for the injuries produced. In a majority of jurisdictions, contribution or indemnity is available either by statute or common law, as a device for the redistribution of the burden among the joint tortfeasors. See generally W. Prosser, Law of Torts §§ 47, 48 (3d ed. 1964). In 1956, when Seckinger’s employee was injured, South Carolina law was unclear in this respect, apparently permitting contribution or indemnity under some circumstances. See generally Comment, Indemnity Among Joint Tort-Feasors — As Affected by the Federal Employers Liability Act, 17 S. C. L. Rev. 423 (1965).
Workmen’s compensation provisions, now enacted in all States, have considerable effect on the employer’s potential liability to the third-party tortfeasor. However, these statutes vary greatly in the categories of employers and employees to which they apply, see generally, A. Reede, Adequacy of Workmen’s Compensation (1947), and even today about two-thirds of the statutes provide that coverage is voluntary as to both employers and employees. 2 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 67.10 (1969).
When a workmen’s compensation plan does cover particular employers and employees, a third-party suit against an employer who was also negligent is barred by the majority rule, although recovery is not infrequently permitted on implied or quasi-contractual theories. See, e. g., Associated Engineers, Inc. v. Job, 370 F. 2d 633, 651 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1966); 2 A. Larson, supra, §§ 76.00-76.53. Whether such a suit is permitted under South Carolina law apparently has not been authoritatively determined. See generally Burns v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 88 F. Supp. 769 (D. C. E. D. S. C. 1950).
A number of courts have reached comparable results. See, e. g., Brogdon v. Southern R. Co., 384 F. 2d 220 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1967); Williams v. Midland Constructors, 221 F. Supp. 400 (D. C. E. D. Ark. 1963); C & L Rural Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Kincaid, 221 Ark. 450, 256 S. W. 2d 337 (1953), after remand, 227 Ark. 321, 299 S. W. 2d 67 (1957); Young v. Anaconda American Brass Co., 43 Wis. 2d 36, 168 N. W. 2d 112 (1969). See also United States v. Raskin, 395 F. 2d 503 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1968); Shamrock Towing Co. v. City of New York, 16 F. 2d 199 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1926).
While it is true that the interpretation adopted by the Court of Appeals is even less favorable to the Government than that which we adopt, we have concluded, for reasons previously stated, that the Court of Appeals' view would drain the clause of any significant meaning and is decidedly contrary to its plain language.
A 1941 letter from the Comptroller General, 21 Comp. Gen. 149, relied upon in dissent, sheds no light whatever on the problem of contract construction before us. There the Comptroller General, in commenting upon a question that he said was “of first impression” suggested that, under some circumstances, a contractor under a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract may seek reimbursement from the Government, as an element of his actual costs, for damages that he sustained by reason of his negligence. Since the contract clause in question was introduced long before the 1941 letter, it obviously was not responsive to any issues raised by the Comptroller. Moreover, we deal in this case with a fixed-price construction contract, a type of contract with which the Comptroller General was in no way concerned. Thus, no support is provided for the facile assumption of the dissent that, merely because a cost-plus contractor may arguably seek reimbursement for additional costs produced by his own negligence, it follows that a contractor committed to complete a project for a fixed price also may seek reimbursement because of damage caused by his own negligent acts.
We agree with the dissenting opinion that the contract clause does mean exactly what it says. What it says is that Seckinger shall be “responsible for all damages” arising from its negligence, that is, that the burden of Seckinger’s negligence may not be shifted to the United States. To be sure, the clause bars any attempt by Seckinger to obtain reimbursement from the Government for Seck-inger’s negligence. But an interpretation that limited the operation of the clause to this narrow situation would constitute an impermissible frustration of the contractual scheme, for such a construction would shift the burden of Seckinger’s negligence to the United States through the medium of a recovery against the Government by the injured employee. The contractual objective — that liability for the contractor’s negligence not be shifted to the United States — can be achieved in cases of concurrent negligence when there has been a prior recovery against the Government only by resort to the comparative negligence analysis that we have adopted, which requires Seckinger to indemnify the Government, but only to the extent that the Government was called upon, in the first instance, to respond in damages as a result of Seckinger’s negligence. 22
Because we have taken the view that the rights and liabilities of Seckinger and the United States inter se are governed by contract, we need not reach the Government’s alternative theory, rejected by the Court of Appeals, that Seckinger breached an implied warranty of workmanlike service.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1928 petitioner pleaded guilty to an indictment for murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for 99 years. In 1945 he brought a petition for his release on writ of error in the Supreme Court of Illinois claiming that the conviction on which his confinement was based was vitiated by the denial of his right under the Fourteenth Amendment to the assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the original judgment of conviction. 391 Ill. 594, 63 N. E. 2d 763. In view of the importance of the claim, if valid, we brought the case here. 328 U. S. 827.
In a series of cases of which Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86, was the first, and Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 327 U. S. 274, the latest, we have sustained an appeal to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a fair ascertainment of guilt or innocence. Inherent in the notion of fairness is ample opportunity to meet an accusation. Under pertinent circumstances, the opportunity is ample only when an accused.has the assistance of counsel for his defense. And the need for such assistance may exist at every stage of the prosecution, from arraignment to sentencing. This does not, however, mean that the accused may not make his own defense; nor does it prevent him from acknowledging guilt when fully advised of all its implications and capable of understanding them. Neither the historic conception of Due Process nor the vitality it derives from progressive standards of justice denies a person the right to defend himself or to confess guilt. Under appropriate circumstances the Constitution requires that counsel be tendered; it does not require that under all circumstances counsel be forced upon a defendant. United States ex rel. McCann v. Adams, 320 U. S. 220.
The solicitude for securing justice thus embodied in the Due Process Clause is not satisfied by formal compliance or merely procedural regularity. It is not conclusive that the proceedings resulting in incarceration are unassailable on the face of the record. A State must give one whom it deprives of his freedom the opportunity to open an inquiry into the intrinsic fairness of a criminal process even though it appears proper on the surface. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103. Questions of fundamental justice protected by the Due Process Clause may be raised,,, to use lawyers’ language, dehors the record.
But the Due Process Clause has never been perverted so as to force upon the forty-eight States a uniform code of criminal procedure. Except for the limited scope of the federal criminal code, the prosecution of crime is a matter for the individual States. The Constitution commands the States to assure fair judgment. Procedural details for securing fairness it leaves to the States. It is for them, therefore, to choose the methods and practices by which crime is brought to book, so long as they observe those ultimate dignities of man which the United States Constitution assures. Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 175; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 31. Wide discretion must be left to the States for the manner of adjudicating a claim that a conviction is unconstitutional. States are free to devise their own systems of review in criminal cases. A State may decide whether to have direct appeals in such cases, and if so under what circumstances. McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684, 687. In respecting the duty laid upon them by Mooney v. Holohan, States have a wide choice of remedies. A State may provide that the protection of rights granted by the Federal Constitution be sought through the writ of habeas corpus or coram nobis. It may use each of these ancient writs in its common law scope, or it may put them to new uses; or it may afford remedy by a simple motion brought either in the court of original conviction or at the place of detention. See, e. g., New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson, 318 U. S. 688; Matter of Lyons v. Goldstein, 290 N. Y. 19, 25, 47 N. E. 2d 425 ; Matter of Morhous v. N. Y. Supreme Court, 293 N. Y. 131, 56 N. E. 2d 79; People v. Gersewitz, 294 N. Y. 163, 168, 61 N. E. 2d 427; Matter of Hogan v. Court of General Sessions, 296 N. Y. 1, 9, 68 N. E. 2d 849. So long as the rights under the United States Constitution may be pursued, it is for a State and not for this Court to define the mode by which they may be vindicated.
An accused may have been denied the assistance of counsel under circumstances which constitute an infringement of the United States Constitution. If the State affords no mode for redressing that wrong, he may come to the federal courts for relief. But where a remedy is provided by the State, a defendant must first exhaust it in the 'manner in which the State prescribes. Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114; House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42. For the relation of the United States and the courts of the United States to the States and the courts of the States is a very delicate matter. See Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 251. When a defendant, as here, invokes a remedy provided by the State of Illinois, the decision of the local court must be judged on the basis of the scope of the remedy provided and what the court properly had before it in such a proceeding. Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211. The only thing before the Illinois Supreme Court was what is known under Illinois practice as the common law record. That record, as certified in this case, included only the indictment, the judgment on plea of guilty, the minute entry bearing on sentence, and the sentence. And so the very narrow question now before us is whether this common law record establishes that the defendant’s sentence is void because in the proceedings that led to it he was denied the assistance of counsel.
This case is quite different from a case like Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786. In that case the record properly before this Court contained specific allegations bearing on the disabilities of the defendant to stand prosecution without the aid of counsel. There was not, as we have here, an unchallenged finding by the trial court that the accused was duly apprised of his rights and, in awareness of them, chose to plead guilty. The judgment against Carter explicitly states:
“And the said defendant Harice Leroy Carter commonly known as Roy Carter having been duly arraigned and being called upon to plead expresses a desire to plead guilty to the crime of murder as charged in the indictment. Thereupon the Court fully explained to the Defendant Harice Leroy Carter commonly known as Roy Carter the consequence of such plea and of all his rights in the premises including the right to have a lawyer appointed by the Court to defend him and also of his right to a trial before a jury of twelve jurors sworn in open Court and of the degree of proof that would be required to justify a verdict of guilty against him under the plea of not guilty but the defendant Harice Leroy Carter commonly known as Roy Carter persists in his desire to plead guilty and for a plea says he is guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment.”
This, then, is not a case in which intelligent waiver of counsel is a tenuous inference from the mere fact of a plea of guilty. Rice v. Olson, supra, at 788. A fair reading of the judgment against Carter indicates a judicial attestation that the accused, with his rights fully explained to him, consciously chose to dispense with counsel. And there is nothing in the record to contradict the judicial finding. From the common law record, we do not know what manner of man the defendant was. Facts bearing on his maturity or capacity of comprehension, or on the circumstances under which a plea of guilty was tendered and accepted, are wholly wanting. We have only the fact that the trial judge explained what the plea of guilty involved. To be sure, the record does not show that the trial court spelled out with laborious detail the various degrees of homicide under Illinois law and the various defenses open to one accused of murder. But the Constitution of the United States does not require of a judge that he recite with particularity that he performed his duty.
The only peg on which the defendant seeks to hang a claim that his right to counsel was denied is the fact that the judge did assign him counsel when it came to sentencing. From this fact alone, we are asked to draw the inference that the accused was not capable of understanding the proceedings which led to his plea of guilty, and was therefore deprived of the indispensable assistance of counsel. We cannot take such a jump in reasoning. A trial court may justifiably be convinced that a defendant knows what he is about when he pleads guilty and that he rightly believes that a trial is futile because a defense is wanting. But the imposition of sentence presents quite different considerations. There a judge usually moves within a large area of discretion and doubts. Such is the situation under Illinois law. The range of punishment which a judge in Illinois may impose for murder is between fourteen years and death. It is a commonplace that no more difficult task confronts judges than the determination of punishment not fixed by statute. Even the most self-assured judge may well want to bring to his aid every consideration that counsel fob the accused can appropriately urge. In any event, the designation of counsel to assist the accused at the sentencing stage of the prosecution in no wise implies that the defendant was not capable of intelligent self-protection when he pleaded guilty. Cf. Canizio v. New York, 327 U. S. 82.
We conclude that on the record before the Supreme Court of Illinois there was no showing that Carter’s plea of guilty was made under circumstances which cut the ground from under the resulting sentence. In restricting its review to that record the Supreme Court of Illinois followed local practice, and the practice constitutes allowable State appellate procedure. Factors that might suggest fundamental unfairness in the proceedings before the trial judge — e. g., the racial handicap of the defendant, his mental incapacity, his inability to make an intelligent choice, precipitancy in the acceptance of a plea of guilty— are not before us because they were not in the common law record which was all that was before the Supreme Court of Illinois. Whether the defendant is entitled to press such claims to show a denial by the State of Illinois of a constitutional right, it will be time enough to consider when that issue is properly before us after being presented in a proceeding in the State courts appropriate to that purpose, or, if none is available, in a federal court. Woods v. Nierstheimer, supra; Ex parte Hawk, supra.
After indicating the restricted scope of review in this proceeding, the court below observed that under Illinois law a defendant who desires counsel must ask for it and show that he cannot afford one of his own choice. There are situations when justice cannot be administered unless persons charged with crime are defended by capable and responsible counsel. But there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the circumstances made it necessary for Carter to have professional guidance other than that given by the trial court. There is therefore nothing in the statement of the Illinois Supreme Court alone from which we can infer that these normal requirements of Illinois law prejudiced this defendant or made their observance in this case incongruous with his constitutional rights.
Judgment 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 petitioner was convicted in a Kentucky court on a charge of first-degree manslaughter, and the judgment of conviction was sustained on direct appeal. Pilon v. Common wealth, 544 S. W. 2d 228 (Ky. 1976). The petitioner then filed a habeas corpus petition in a Federal District Court, alleging that the Kentucky conviction was supported by evidence insufficient to afford him due process of law. The federal court denied relief. Applying the “no evidence” test of Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199 (1960), the court concluded that “'[a] Ithough this was a close case on the evidence, we believe that the case was not devoid of an evidentiary basis for petitioner’s conviction.” The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, also relying on the “no evidence” test, affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief. 593 F. 2d 264.
Thereafter, this Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979), held that the Thompson “no evidence” test is constitutionally inadequate in a case such as this. An earlier decision had made clear that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the criminal conviction of any person except upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). The Court in Jackson held that this constitutional requirement can be effectuated only if a federal habeas corpus court, in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a state-court conviction, inquires “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 443 U. S., at 319 (emphasis omitted).
It is thus beyond dispute that the District Court and Court of Appeals applied an incorrect and inadequate constitutional test in resolving the petitioner’s due process claim that his state-court conviction rested on insufficient evidence. Although it is quite possible that the evidence against the petitioner will survive a challenge under the correct constitutional standard, he is entitled to have his application for habeas corpus considered under that standard.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky so that it may consider the petitioner’s application for habeas corpus in the light of Jackson v. Virginia.
It is so ordered.
The opinion of the District Court is unreported.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama from his sentence following a judgment of conviction for rape in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Ala. Among the allegations of constitutional error in his trial — presented to the District Court in petitioner’s traverse to the State’s response to his petition — petitioner claimed that the in-court identification of him by the prosecuting witness was the product of an out-of-court identification at an impermissibly suggestive photographic array and a later uncounseled lineup. The District Court refused to entertain this claim on the ground, recited in its opinion, that “this issue has never been presented to any state court.” No. 77-A-0029-E (mem. filed Feb. 11, 1977). This conclusion was premised upon the absence of any reference to the contention in the reported opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the conviction. Smith v. State, 57 Ala. App. 164, 326 So. 2d 692 (1975). The District Court stated: “It is inconceivable to this Court that had Smith raised that issue [in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals] that [that court] would not have written to it.” The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied petitioner’s pro se application for a certificate of probable cause and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. No. 77-8141 (Apr. 20, 1977).
In his pro se petition for certiorari, petitioner asserted that “■[i]t is beyond doubt that State remedies have been exhausted.” Pet. for Cert. 3. This Court directed the filing here of the briefs submitted to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner’s brief to that court reveals that petitioner, citing decisions of this Court, did indeed submit the constitutional contention that the prosecuting witness’ in-court identification should have been excluded from evidence because that identification derived from an impermissibly suggestive pretrial photographic array and a later uncounseled lineup; moreover, the State Attorney General’s brief devoted two of its seven pages to argument answering the contention.
It is too obvious to merit extended discussion that whether the exhaustion requirement of 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (b) has been satisfied cannot turn upon whether a state appellate court chooses to ignore in its opinion a federal constitutional claim squarely raised in petitioner’s brief in the state court, and, indeed, in this case, vigorously opposed in the State’s brief. It is equally obvious that a district court commits plain error in assuming that a habeas petitioner must have failed to raise in the state courts a meritorious claim that he is incarcerated in violation of the Constitution if the state appellate court’s opinion contains no reference to the claim.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and the petition for certiorari are granted. The order of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the District Court are reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968); United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 (1967); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (1967).
Inexplicably, the Attorney General’s response to the petition for cer-tiorari, which squarely presénted the question whether habeas "was improperly denied,” made no mention whatever that his brief to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals had joined issue on the pretrial photographic array and lineup issues, and did not point out that the District Court erred in stating in its order that “this issue has never been presented to any state court.” Rather, the response argued only that petitioner had raised only two other issues in federal court neither of which was cognizable on habeas.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are companion cases to No. 22, Kinsella v. Singleton, ante, p. 234, and No. 58, Grisham v. Hagan, ante, p. 278, both decided today, . All the cases involve the application of Article 2 (11) of the Uniform Code of Military. Justice.- Here its application to noncapital offenses committed by civilian employees of the armed forces while stationed overseas is tested.
In No. 21 the respondent, a civilian employee of the Air Force performing the duties of an electrical lineman, was convicted by court-martial at the Nouasseur'Air Depot near Casablanca, Morocco, of larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny from the supply house at the Depot.' Before. being transferred to the United States Disciplinary Barracks, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the military authorities had no jurisdiction to try him by court-martial. This petition was dismissed.' 158 F. Supp. 171. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered respondent discharged. It held that Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 (1957), was binding as to all classes of persons included within the section and that each class was nonsever^ble. 104 U. S. App. D. C. 112, 259 F. 2d 927. We granted certiorari, 359 U. S. 904, in view of the conflict with Grisham v. Taylor, 261 F. 2d 204.
In No. 37, petitioner,- a civilian auditor employed by the United States Army and stationed in Berlin, was convicted by a general court-martial on a plea of guilty to three acts of sodomy. While serving his five-year sentence, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for Colorado. The petition was dismissed, 167 F. Supp. 791, and appeal was perfected to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Prior to argument we granted certiorari. 359 U. S. 906.
We first turn to respondent Guagliardo’s contention that Article 2 (11) is nonseverable. As desirable as it is to avoid constitutional issues, we cannot do so on .this ground. The Act provides for severability of the remaining sections if “a part of this Act is invalid in one or more of its applications.” 70A Stat. 640. The intention of Congress in providing for severability is clear, and legal effect can be given to each category standing alone. See Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 290 (1924).
. We believe that these cases involving the applicability of Article 2 (11) to employees of the armed services while serving outside the United States are controlled by our opinion in No. 22, Kinsella v. Singleton, ante, p. 234, and No. 58, Grisham v. Hagan, ante, p. 278, announced today. In Singleton we refused, in the light of Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 (1957), to apply the provisions of the article to noncapital offenses committed by dependents of soldiers in the armed services while overseas; in Grisham we held that there was no constitutional distinction for purposes of court-martial jurisdiction between dependents and employees insofar as application of the death penalty is concerned. The rationale of those cases applies here.
' Although it is true that there are materials supporting trial of sutlers and other civilians by courts-martial, these materials are “too episodic, toó meager, to form a solid basis in history, preceding and contemporaneous with the framing of the Constitution, for constitutional adjudication.” Concurring opinion, Covert, 354 U. S., at 64., Furthermore, those trials during the Revolutionary Period, on which it is claimed that court-martial jurisdiction rests, were all during a period of war, and hence are inapplicable here. Moreover, the materials are not by any means one-sided. The recognized authority on court-martial jurisdiction, after a careful consideration of all the historical background, concluded: “That a civilian, entitled as he is, by Art. VI of' the Amendments to the Constitution, to trial by jury, cannot .legally be .made liable to the military law and jurisdiction, in time of peace, is a fundamental principle of our public law . ...” But iL is contended that Ex parte Reed, 100 U. S. 13 (1879), is controlling because the forces covered by Article 2(11) are overseas and therefore “in the field.” Examination of that case, as well as Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S. 109 (1895), however, shows them to be entirely inapposite. Those cases permitted trial by courts-martial of paymasters’ clerks in the navy. The Court found that such a position was “an important one in the machinery of the navy,” the appointment being made only upon approval of the commander of the ship and for a permanent tenure “until discharged.” Also the paymaster’s clerk was required to agree in writing “to submit to the laws and regulations for- the government and discipline of the navy.” Moreover, from time immemorial the law of the sea has placed the power of disciplinary action in the commander of the ship when at sea or in a foreign port. None of these considerations are present here. As we shall point out subsequently, a procedure along the lines of that used by the navy as to paymasters’ clerks might offer a practical alternative to the use of civilian employees by the armed services. As was stated in the second Covert case, supra, at 23, “there might be circumstances where a person could be ‘in’ the armed' services for purposes of Clause 14 even though he had not formally been inducted into the military . . . .”
The only other authorities cited in support of court-martial jurisdiction over civilians appear to be opinions by the Attorney General and the Judge Advocate General of the Army. However, the 1866 opinion of the Judge Advocate General (cited in support of the Government’s position) was repudiated by subsequent Judge Advocate Generals. To be sure, the 1872 opinion of the Attorney General, dealing with civilians serving with troops in the building of defensive earthworks to protect against threatened Indian uprisings, is entitled to some weight. However, like the other examples of frontier activities based on the legal concept of the troops’ being “in the field,” they are inapposite here. They were in time of “hostilities” with Indian tribes or were in “territories” governed by entirely different considerations. See second Covert, at 12-13. Such opinions, however, do not have the force of judicial decisions and, where so “episodic,” have little weight in the reviewing of administrative practice. Moreover, in the performance of such functions as were involved there, the military service would today use engineering corps subject to its jurisdiction. This being entirely practical, as we hereafter point out, as to all civilians serving with the armed forces today, we believe the Toth doctrine^ that we must limit the coverage of Clause 14 to “the least possible power adequate to the end proposed,” 350 U. S., at 23, to be controlling.
In the consideration of the constitutional question here we believe it should be pointed out that, in addition to the alternative types of procedure available to the Government in the prosecution of civilian dependents • and mentioned in Kinsella v. Singleton, supra, additional practical alternatives have been suggested in the case of employees of the armed sérvices. One solution might possibly be to follow a procedure along the line of that provided for. paymasters’ clerks as approved in Ex parte Reed, supra. Another would incorporate those civilian employees who are to. be stationed outside the United States directly into the armed services, either by compulsory induction or by voluntary enlistment. If a doctor or dentist may be “drafted” into the armed services, 50 U. S. C. App. § 454 (i), extended, 73 Stat. 13; Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83 (1953), there should be no legal objection, to the organization and recruitment of other civilian specialists needed by the armed services?
Moreover, the armed services presently have sufficient authority to set up a system for. the voluntary enlistment of “specialists.” This was done with much success during the Second World War. “The Navy’s Construction Battalions, popularly known as the Seabees, were established to meet 'the wartime need for uniformed men to perform construction work in combat areas.” 1 Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II (1947) 133. Just as electricians, clerks, draftsmen, and surveyors were enlisted as “specialists” in the Seabees, id., at 136, provisions can be made for the voluntary enlistment of an electrician (Guágliardo), an auditor (Wilson), or an accountant (Grisham). It likewise appears.entirely possible that the present “specialist” program conducted by the Department of the Army could be utilized to replace civilian employees if disciplinary problems require military control. Although some workers might hesitate to give up . their civilian status for government employment overseas, it is unlikely that the armed forces would be unable to obtain a sufficient number of volunteers to meet their requirements. The increased cost to maintain these employees in a military status is the price the Government must pay in order to comply with' constitutional requirements.
The judgment in No. 21 is affirmed and the judgment in No. 37 is reversed.
No. 21, affirmed.
No. 37, reversed.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see ante, p. 249.]
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Whittaker, joined by Mr. Justice Stewart, see ante, p. 259.]
Article 2. “The following persons are,subject to this chapter:
“(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of .international law, persons serving with,, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the- United States arid outside the following: that part of Alaska east of longitude 172 degrees west, the Canal Zone, the main group of the Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.”
Since the offense occurred within-the United States Area of Control of West Berlin, the Government now contends that petitioner Wilson is amenable to.the military government jurisdiction of an occupied territory. However the charges were drawn in terms of Article 2(11) power, and jurisdiction was sustained on that basis. Moreover the Court of Military Appeals refused to consider that issue when raised by the Government and the trial court did not rest its decision sustaining military jurisdiction over petitioner on that .ground. This contention is consequently denied.
Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents (2d ed. 1896), 143. See also, Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 121, 123 (1866); Maltby, Courts Martial and Military Law, 37; Rawle, Constitution (2d ed. 1829), 220; 3 Op. Atty. Gen. 690; 5 id., at 736; 13 id., at 63.
See 16 Op. Atty. Gen: 13; id., at 48; Dig. Op. JAG'{1901), 563, ¶2023; id. (1895), at 599-600, ¶4; id. (1880), at 384, ¶4.
See Army Regulations 600-201, 20 June 1956, as changed 15 March .1957, and Army Regulations 624-200, 19 May 1958, as changed 1 July 1959.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns options open to plaintiffs, when denied class-action certification by a district court, to gain appellate review of the district court's order. Orders granting or denying class certification, this Court has held, are "inherently interlocutory," Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 470, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978), hence not immediately reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides for appeals from "final decisions." Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), promulgated in 1998, however, orders denying or granting class certification may be appealed immediately if the court of appeals so permits. Absent such permission, plaintiffs may pursue their individual claims on the merits to final judgment, at which point the denial of class-action certification becomes ripe for review.
The plaintiffs in the instant case, respondents here, were denied Rule 23(f) permission to appeal the District Court's refusal to grant class certification. Instead of pursuing their individual claims to final judgment on the merits, respondents stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of their claims "with prejudice," but reserved the right to revive their claims should the Court of Appeals reverse the District Court's certification denial.
We hold that the voluntary dismissal essayed by respondents does not qualify as a "final decision" within the compass of § 1291. The tactic would undermine § 1291's firm finality principle, designed to guard against piecemeal appeals, and subvert the balanced solution Rule 23(f) put in place for immediate review of class-action orders.
I
A
Under § 1291 of the Judicial Code, federal courts of appeals are empowered to review only "final decisions of the district courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Two guides, our decision in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), control our application of that finality rule here.
1
In Coopers & Lybrand, this Court considered whether a plaintiff in a putative class action may, under certain circumstances, appeal as of right a district court order striking class allegations or denying a motion for class certification. We held unanimously that the so-called "death-knell" doctrine did not warrant mandatory appellate jurisdiction of such "inherently interlocutory" orders. 437 U.S., at 470, 477, 98 S.Ct. 2454. Courts of Appeals employing the doctrine "regarded [their] jurisdiction as depending on whether [rejection of class-action status] had sounded the 'death knell' of the action." Id., at 466, 98 S.Ct. 2454. These courts asked whether the refusal to certify a class would end a lawsuit for all practical purposes because the value of the named plaintiff's individual claims made it "economically imprudent to pursue his lawsuit to a final judgment and [only] then seek appellate review of [the] adverse class determination." Id., at 469-470, 98 S.Ct. 2454. If, in the court of appeals' view, the order would terminate the litigation, the court deemed the order an appealable final decision under § 1291. Id., at 471, 98 S.Ct. 2454. If, instead, the court determined that the plaintiff had "adequate incentive to continue [litigating], the order [was] considered interlocutory." Ibid. Consequently, immediate appeal would be denied.
The death-knell theory likely "enhance[d] the quality of justice afforded a few litigants," we recognized. Id., at 473, 98 S.Ct. 2454. But the theory did so, we observed, at a heavy cost to § 1291's finality requirement, and therefore to "the judicial system's overall capacity to administer justice." Id., at 473, 98 S.Ct. 2454 ; see id., at 471, 98 S.Ct. 2454 ( Section 1291"evinces a legislative judgment that'restricting appellate review to final decisions prevents the debilitating effect on judicial administration caused by piecemeal appeal disposition.' " (quoting Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 170, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted))). First, the potential for multiple interlocutory appeals inhered in the doctrine: When a ruling denying class certification on one ground was reversed on appeal, a death-knell plaintiff might again claim "entitle[ment] to an appeal as a matter of right" if, on remand, the district court denied class certification on a different ground. Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S., at 474, 98 S.Ct. 2454.
Second, the doctrine forced appellate courts indiscriminately into the trial process, thereby defeating a "vital purpose of the final-judgment rule-that of maintaining the appropriate relationship between the respective courts." Id., at 476, 98 S.Ct. 2454 (internal quotation marks omitted); see id., at 474, 98 S.Ct. 2454. The Interlocutory Appeals Act of 1958, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), we explained, had created a two-tiered "screening procedure" to preserve this relationship and to restrict the availability of interlocutory review to "appropriate cases." 437 U.S., at 474, 98 S.Ct. 2454. For a party to obtain review under § 1292(b), the district court must certify that the interlocutory order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." The court of appeals may then, "in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order." The death-knell doctrine, we stressed, "circumvent[ed] [ § 1292(b)'s] restrictions." Id., at 475, 98 S.Ct. 2454.
Finally, we observed, the doctrine was one sided: It "operate[d] only in favor of plaintiffs," even though the class-certification question is often "of critical importance to defendants as well." Id., at 476, 98 S.Ct. 2454. Just as a denial of class certification may sound the death knell for plaintiffs, "[c]ertification of a large class may so increase the defendant's potential damages liability and litigation costs that he may find it economically prudent to settle and to abandon a meritorious defense." Ibid.
In view of these concerns, the Court reached this conclusion in Coopers & Lybrand : "The fact that an interlocutory order may induce a party to abandon his claim before final judgment is not a sufficient reason for considering [the order] a 'final decision' within the meaning of § 1291." Id., at 477, 98 S.Ct. 2454.
2
After Coopers & Lybrand, a party seeking immediate review of an adverse class-certification order had no easy recourse. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not then "contain any unique provisions governing appeals" in class actions, id., at 470, 98 S.Ct. 2454 so parties had to survive § 1292(b)'s two-level inspection, see id., at 474-475, and n. 27, 98 S.Ct. 2454 ;supra, at 1707 - 1708, or satisfy the extraordinary-circumstances test applicable to writs of mandamus, see Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 108, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967) (Black, J., concurring) ("[In] extraordinary circumstances, mandamus may be used to review an interlocutory order which is by no means 'final' and thus appealable under federal statutes."); cf. Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S., at 466, n. 6, 98 S.Ct. 2454.
Another avenue opened in 1998 when this Court approved Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Seen as a response to Coopers & Lybrand, see, e.g., Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 834 (C.A.7 1999) ; Solimine & Hines, Deciding To Decide: Class Action Certification and Interlocutory Review by the United States Courts of Appeals Under Rule 23(f), 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1531, 1568 (2000), Rule 23(f) authorizes "permissive interlocutory appeal" from adverse class-certification orders in the discretion of the court of appeals, Advisory Committee's 1998 Note on subd. (f) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, 28 U.S.C.App., p. 815 (hereinafter Committee Note on Rule 23(f) ). The Rule was adopted pursuant to § 1292(e), see Committee Note on Rule 23(f), which empowers this Court, in accordance with the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072, to promulgate rules "to provide for an appeal of an interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals that is not otherwise provided for [in § 1292 ]." § 1292(e). Rule 23(f) reads:
"A court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification... if a petition for permission to appeal is filed with the circuit clerk within 14 days after the order is entered. An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders."
Courts of appeals wield "unfettered discretion" under Rule 23(f), akin to the discretion afforded circuit courts under § 1292(b). Committee Note on Rule 23(f). But Rule 23(f) otherwise "departs from the § 1292(b) model," for it requires neither district court certification nor adherence to § 1292(b)'s other "limiting requirements." Committee Note on Rule 23(f) ; see supra, at 1707 - 1708.
This resolution was the product of careful calibration. By "[r]emoving the power of the district court to defeat any opportunity to appeal," the drafters of Rule 23(f) sought to provide "significantly greater protection against improvident certification decisions than § 1292(b)" alone offered. Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, Minutes of November 9-10, 1995. But the drafters declined to go further and provide for appeal as a matter of right. "[A] right to appeal would lead to abuse" on the part of plaintiffs and defendants alike, the drafters apprehended, "increas[ing] delay and expense" over "routine class certification decisions" unworthy of immediate appeal. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Brief for Civil Procedure Scholars as Amici Curiae 6-7, 11-14 (" Rule 23(f) was crafted to balance the benefits of immediate review against the costs of interlocutory appeals." (capitalization omitted)). Rule 23(f) therefore commits the decision whether to permit interlocutory appeal from an adverse certification decision to "the sole discretion of the court of appeals." Committee Note on Rule 23(f) ; see Federal Judicial Center, T. Willging, L. Hooper, & R. Niemic, Empirical Study of Class Actions in Four Federal District Courts: Final Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules 86 (1996) (hereinafter Federal Judicial Center Study) ("The discretionary nature of the proposed rule... is designed to be a guard against abuse of the appellate process.").
The Rules Committee offered some guidance to courts of appeals considering whether to authorize appeal under Rule 23(f). "Permission is most likely to be granted," the Committee Note states, "when the certification decision turns on a novel or unsettled question of law," or when "the decision on certification is likely dispositive of the litigation," as in a death-knell or reverse death-knell situation. Committee Note on Rule 23(f) ; see supra, at 1708, and n. 2. Even so, the Rule allows courts of appeals to grant or deny review "on the basis of any consideration." Committee Note on Rule 23(f) (emphasis added).
B
With this background in mind, we turn to the putative class action underlying our jurisdictional inquiry. The lawsuit is not the first of its kind. A few years after petitioner Microsoft Corporation released its popular videogame console, the Xbox 360, a group of Xbox owners brought a putative class action against Microsoft based on an alleged design defect in the device. See In re Microsoft Xbox 360 Scratched Disc Litigation, 2009 WL 10219350, *1 (W.D.Wash., Oct. 5, 2009). The named plaintiffs, advised by some of the same counsel representing respondents in this case, asserted that the Xbox scratched (and thus destroyed) game discs during normal game-playing conditions. See ibid. The District Court denied class certification, holding that individual issues of damages and causation predominated over common issues. See id., at *6-*7. The plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f) for leave to appeal the class-certification denial, but the Ninth Circuit denied the request. See 851 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1276 (W.D.Wash.2012). Thereafter, the Scratched Disc plaintiffs settled their claims individually. 851 F.Supp.2d, at 1276.
Two years later, in 2011, respondents filed this lawsuit in the same Federal District Court. They proposed a nationwide class of Xbox owners based on the same design defect alleged in Scratched Disc Litigation. See 851 F.Supp.2d, at 1275-1276. The class-certification analysis in the earlier case did not control, respondents urged, because an intervening Ninth Circuit decision constituted a change in law sufficient to overcome the deference ordinarily due, as a matter of comity, the previous certification denial. Id., at 1277-1278. The District Court disagreed. Concluding that the relevant Circuit decision had not undermined Scratched Disc Litigation's causation analysis, the court determined that comity required adherence to the earlier certification denial and therefore struck respondents' class allegations. 851 F.Supp.2d, at 1280-1281.
Invoking Rule 23(f), respondents petitioned the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal that ruling. Interlocutory review was appropriate in this case, they argued, because the District Court's order striking the class allegations created a "death-knell situation": The "small size of [their] claims ma[de] it economically irrational to bear the cost of litigating th[e] case to final judgment," they asserted, so the order would "effectively kil[l] the case." Pet. for Permission To Appeal Under Rule 23(f) in No. 12-80085(CA9), App. 118. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. Order in No. 12-80085 (CA9, June 12, 2012), App. 121.
Respondents then had several options. They could have settled their individual claims like their Scratched Disc predecessors or petitioned the District Court, pursuant to § 1292(b), to certify the interlocutory order for appeal, seesupra, at 1707 - 1708. They could also have proceeded to litigate their case, mindful that the District Court could later reverse course and certify the proposed class. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(c)(1)(C) ("An order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment."); Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S., at 469, 98 S.Ct. 2454 (a certification order "is subject to revision in the District Court"). Or, in the event the District Court did not change course, respondents could have litigated the case to final judgment and then appealed. Id., at 469, 98 S.Ct. 2454 ("an order denying class certification is subject to effective review after final judgment at the behest of the named plaintiff").
Instead of taking one of those routes, respondents moved to dismiss their case with prejudice. "After the [c]ourt has entered a final order and judgment," respondents explained, they would "appeal the... order striking [their] class allegations." Motion To Dismiss in No. 11-cv-00722 (WD Wash., Sept. 25, 2012), App. 122-123. In respondents' view, the voluntary dismissal enabled them "to pursue their individual claims or to pursue relief solely on behalf of the class, should the certification decision be reversed." Brief for Respondents 15. Microsoft stipulated to the dismissal, but maintained that respondents would have "no right to appeal" the order striking the class allegations after thus dismissing their claims. App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a-36a. The District Court granted the stipulated motion to dismiss, id., at 39a, and respondents appealed. They challenged only the District Court's interlocutory order striking their class allegations, not the dismissal order which they invited. See Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants in No. 12-35946(CA9).
The Ninth Circuit held it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under § 1291. 797 F.3d 607, 612 (2015). The Court of Appeals rejected Microsoft's argument that respondents' voluntary dismissal, explicitly engineered to appeal the District Court's interlocutory order striking the class allegations, impermissibly circumvented Rule 23(f). Ibid., n. 3. Because the stipulated dismissal "did not involve a settlement," the court reasoned, it was " 'a sufficiently adverse-and thus appealable-final decision' " under § 1291.
Id., at 612 (quoting Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 1061, 1065 (C.A.9 2014) ); see id., at 1065 (relying on 7B C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1802, pp. 297-298 (3d ed. 2005), for the proposition "that finality for appeal purposes can be achieved in this manner").
Satisfied of its jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court had abused its discretion in striking respondents' class allegations. 797 F.3d, at 615. The Court of Appeals "express[ed] no opinion on whether" respondents "should prevail on a motion for class certification," ibid., concluding only that the District Court had misread recent Circuit precedent, see id., at 613-615, and therefore misapplied the comity doctrine, id., at 615. Whether a class should be certified, the court said, was a question for remand, "better addressed if and when [respondents] move[d] for class certification." Ibid.
We granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict over this question: Do federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction under § 1291 and Article III of the Constitution to review an order denying class certification (or, as here, an order striking class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice? 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 890, 193 L.Ed.2d 783 (2016). Because we hold that § 1291 does not countenance jurisdiction by these means, we do not reach the constitutional question, and therefore do not address the arguments and analysis discussed in the opinion concurring in the judgment.
II
"From the very foundation of our judicial system," the general rule has been that "the whole case and every matter in controversy in it [must be] decided in a single appeal." McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661, 665-666, 12 S.Ct. 118, 35 L.Ed. 893 (1891). This final-judgment rule, now codified in § 1291, preserves the proper balance between trial and appellate courts, minimizes the harassment and delay that would result from repeated interlocutory appeals, and promotes the efficient administration of justice. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981).
Construing § 1291 in line with these reasons for the rule, we have recognized that "finality is to be given a practical rather than a technical construction." Eisen, 417 U.S., at 171, 94 S.Ct. 2140 (internal quotation marks omitted). Repeatedly we have resisted efforts to stretch § 1291 to permit appeals of right that would erode the finality principle and disserve its objectives. See, e.g., Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 112, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) ; Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 878-879, 884, 114 S.Ct. 1992, 128 L.Ed.2d 842 (1994) ; Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 324-325, 330, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940) (construing § 1291's predecessor statute). Attempts to secure appeal as of right from adverse class-certification orders fit that bill. See supra, at 1707 - 1708. Because respondents' dismissal device subverts the final-judgment rule and the process Congress has established for refining that rule and for determining when nonfinal orders may be immediately appealed, see §§ 2072(c) and 1292(e), the tactic does not give rise to a "final decisio[n]" under § 1291.
A
Respondents' voluntary-dismissal tactic, even more than the death-knell theory, invites protracted litigation and piecemeal appeals. Under the death-knell doctrine, a court of appeals could decline to hear an appeal if it determined that the plaintiff "ha[d] adequate incentive to continue" despite the denial of class certification. Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S., at 471, 98 S.Ct. 2454. Appellate courts lack even that authority under respondents' theory. Instead, the decision whether an immediate appeal will lie resides exclusively with the plaintiff; she need only dismiss her claims with prejudice, whereupon she may appeal the district court's order denying class certification. And, as under the death-knell doctrine, she may exercise that option more than once, stopping and starting the district court proceedings with repeated interlocutory appeals. See id., at 474, 98 S.Ct. 2454 (death-knell doctrine offered "no assurance that the trial process [would] not again be disrupted by interlocutory review").
Consider this case. The Ninth Circuit reviewed and rejected only the District Court's application of comity as a basis for striking respondents' class allegations. 797 F.3d, at 615. The appeals court declined to reach Microsoft's other arguments against class certification. See ibid. It remained open to the District Court, in the Court of Appeals' view, to deny class certification on a different ground, and respondents would be free, under their theory, to force appellate review of any new order denying certification by again dismissing their claims. In designing Rule 23(f)'s provision for discretionary review, the Rules Committee sought to prevent such disruption and delay. See supra, at 1709 - 1710.
Respondents nevertheless maintain that their position promotes efficiency, observing that after dismissal with prejudice the case is over if the plaintiff loses on appeal. Brief for Respondents 38-39. Their way, they say, means prompt resolution of many lawsuits and infrequent use of the voluntary-dismissal tactic, for "most appeals lose" and few plaintiffs will "take th[e] risk" of losing their claims for good. Id., at 35-36. Respondents overlook the prospect that plaintiffs with weak merits claims may readily assume that risk, mindful that class certification often leads to a hefty settlement. See Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S., at 476, 98 S.Ct. 2454 (defendant facing the specter of classwide liability may "abandon a meritorious defense"). Indeed, the same argument-that the case was over if the plaintiff lost on appeal-was evident in the death-knell context, yet this Court determined that the potential for piecemeal litigation was "apparent and serious." Id., at 474, 98 S.Ct. 2454. And that potential is greater still under respondents' theory, where plaintiffs alone determine whether and when to appeal an adverse certification ruling.
B
Another vice respondents' theory shares with the death-knell doctrine, both allow indiscriminate appellate review of interlocutory orders. Ibid. Beyond disturbing the "appropriate relationship between the respective courts," id., at 476, 98 S.Ct. 2454 (internal quotation marks omitted), respondents' dismissal tactic undercuts Rule 23(f)'s discretionary regime. This consideration is "[o]f prime significance to the jurisdictional issue before us." Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 46, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995) (pendent appellate jurisdiction in collateral-order context would undermine § 1292(b) ); see supra, at 1707 - 1708 (death-knell doctrine impermissibly circumvented § 1292(b) ).
In the Rules Enabling Act, as earlier recounted, Congress authorized this Court to determine when a decision is final for purposes of § 1291, and to provide for appellate review of interlocutory orders not covered by statute. See supra, at 1709, and n. 4. These changes are to come from rulemaking, however, not judicial decisions in particular controversies or inventive litigation ploys. See Swint, 514 U.S., at 48, 115 S.Ct. 1203. In this case, the rulemaking process has dealt with the matter, yielding a "measured, practical solutio[n]" to the questions whether and when adverse certification orders may be immediately appealed. Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S., at 114, 130 S.Ct. 599. Over years the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure studied the data on class-certification rulings and appeals, weighed various proposals, received public comment, and refined the draft rule and Committee Note. See Solimine & Hines, 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev., at 1564-1566, and nn. 178-189 ; Federal Judicial Center Study 80-87. Rule 23(f) reflects the rulemakers' informed assessment, permitting, as explained supra, at 1708 - 1710, interlocutory appeals of adverse certification orders, whether sought by plaintiffs or defendants, solely in the discretion of the courts of appeals. That assessment "warrants the Judiciary's full respect." Swint, 514 U.S., at 48, 115 S.Ct. 1203 ; see Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S., at 118-119, 130 S.Ct. 599 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
Here, however, the Ninth Circuit, after denying respondents permission to appeal under Rule 23(f), nevertheless assumed jurisdiction of their appeal challenging only the District Court's order striking the class allegations. See supra, at 1710 - 1712. According to respondents, even plaintiffs who altogether bypass Rule 23(f) may force an appeal by dismissing their claims with prejudice. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 34. Rule 23(f), respondents say, is irrelevant, for it "address[es] interlocutory orders," whereas this case involves "an actual final judgment." Brief for Respondents 26, 28.
We are not persuaded. If respondents' voluntary-dismissal tactic could yield an appeal of right, Rule 23(f)'s careful calibration-as well as Congress' designation of rulemaking "as the preferred means for determining whether and when prejudgment orders should be immediately appealable," Mohawk Industries, 558 U.S., at 113, 130 S.Ct. 599 (majority opinion)-"would be severely undermined," Swint, 514 U.S., at 47, 115 S.Ct. 1203. Respondents, after all, "[sought] review of only the [inherently interlocutory] orde[r]" striking their class allegations; they "d[id] not complain of the 'final' orde[r] that dismissed their cas[e]." Camesi v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 729 F.3d 239, 244 (C.A.3 2013).
Plaintiffs in putative class actions cannot transform a tentative interlocutory order, see supra, at 1710 - 1711, into a final judgment within the meaning of § 1291 simply by dismissing their claims with prejudice-subject, no less, to the right to "revive" those claims if the denial of class certification is reversed on appeal, see Brief for Respondents 45; Tr. of Oral Arg. 31 (assertion by respondents' counsel that, if the appeal succeeds, "everything would spring back to life" on remand). Were respondents' reasoning embraced by this Court, "Congress['] final decision rule would end up a pretty puny one." Digital Equipment Corp., 511 U.S., at 872, 114 S.Ct. 1992. Contrary to respondents' argument, § 1291's firm final-judgment rule is not satisfied whenever a litigant persuades a district court to issue an order purporting to end the litigation. Finality, we have long cautioned, "is not a technical concept of temporal or physical termination." Cobbledick, 309 U.S., at 326, 60 S.Ct. 540. It is one "means [geared to] achieving a healthy legal system," ibid., and its contours are determined accordingly, see supra, at 1712 - 1713.
C
The one-sidedness of respondents' voluntary-dismissal device "reinforce[s] our conclusion that [it] does not support appellate jurisdiction of prejudgment orders denying class certification." Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S., at 476, 98 S.Ct. 2454 ; see supra, at 1708. Respondents' theory permits plaintiffs only, never defendants, to force an immediate appeal of an adverse certification ruling. Yet the "class issue" may be just as important to defendants, Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S., at 476, 98 S.Ct. 2454 for "[a]n order granting certification... may force a defendant to settle rather than... run the risk of potentially ruinous liability," Committee Note on Rule 23(f) ; see supra, at 1708, and n. 2 (defendants may face a "reverse death knell"). Accordingly, we recognized in Coopers & Lybrand that "[w]hatever similarities or differences there are between plaintiffs and defendants in this context involve questions of policy for Congress." 437 U.S., at 476, 98 S.Ct. 2454. Congress chose the rulemaking process to settle the matter, and the rulemakers did so by adopting Rule 23(f)'s evenhanded prescription. It is not the prerogative of litigants or federal courts to disturb that settlement. See supra, at 1713 - 1714.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice THOMAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice ALITO join, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over respondents'
appeal, but I would ground that conclusion in Article III of the Constitution instead of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I therefore concur only in the judgment.
The plaintiffs in this case, respondents here, sued Microsoft, petitioner here, to recover damages after they purchased allegedly faulty video game consoles that Microsoft manufactured. The plaintiffs brought claims for themselves (individual claims) and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated consumers (class allegations). Early in the litigation, the District Court granted Microsoft's motion to strike the class allegations, effectively declining to certify the class. The Court of Appeals denied permission to appeal that decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which requires a party to obtain permission from the court of appeals before appealing a decision regarding class certification.
The plaintiffs decided not to pursue their individual claims, instead stipulating to a voluntary dismissal of those claims with prejudice. They then filed a notice of appeal from the voluntary dismissal order. On appeal, they did not ask the Court of Appeals to reverse the District Court's dismissal of their individual claims. They instead asked the Court of Appeals to reverse the order striking their class allegations. The question presented in this case is whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under both § 1291, which grants appellate jurisdiction to the courts of appeals over "final decisions" by district courts, and under Article III of the Constitution, which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "cases" and "controversies."
The Court today holds that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction under § 1291 because the voluntary dismissal with prejudice did not result in a "final decision." I disagree with that holding. A decision is "final" for purposes of § 1291 if it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). The order here dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and left nothing for the District Court to do but execute the judgment. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a ("direct [ing] the Clerk to enter Judgment... and close th[e] case").
The Court reaches the opposite conclusion, relying not on the text of § 1291 or this Court's precedents about finality, but on Rule 23(f). Rule 23(f) makes interlocutory orders regarding class certification appealable only with the permission of the court of appeals. The Court concludes that the plaintiffs' "voluntary dismissal" "does not qualify as a 'final decision' " because allowing the plaintiffs' appeal would "subvert the balanced solution Rule 23(f) put in place for immediate review of class-action orders." Ante, at 1707.
The Court's conclusion does not follow from its reasoning. Whether a dismissal with prejudice is "final" depends on the meaning of § 1291, not Rule 23(f). Rule 23(f) says nothing about finality, much less about the finality of an order dismissing individual claims with prejudice. I agree with 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:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent, Bernard W. Smith, an American soldier, was convicted by an Army court-martial for rape of one woman and assault with intent to rape another in violation of the 92d and 93d Articles of War. 10 U. S. C. §§ 1564 and 1565. His punishment was dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and imprisonment for life. Army reviewing authorities approved the conviction and sentence, but the President reduced the punishment to sixteen years’ imprisonment. This habeas corpus proceeding was brought in a District Court challenging the validity of the conviction. The District Court denied relief. 72 F. Supp. 935. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering respondent’s discharge. 170 F. 2d 61. We granted certiorari because the petition raises questions concerning important phases of court-martial statutory powers and the scope of judicial review of court-martial convictions.
We may at once dispose of the contention that the respondent should not have been convicted on the evidence offered. That evidence was in sharp dispute. But our authority in habeas corpus proceedings to review court-martial judgments does not permit us to pass on the guilt or innocence of persons convicted by courts-martial.
It is contended that the court-martial was without jurisdiction to try respondent. If so the court-martial exceeded its lawful authority and its judgment can be invalidated despite the limited powers of a court in habeas corpus proceedings. The soundness of this contention depends upon an interpretation of the 70th Article of War, the pertinent part of which is set out below. It provides the manner in which pre-trial investigations shall be made preliminary to trials of soldiers before general courts-martial. A part of the language is that “No charge will be referred to a general court martial for trial until after a thorough and impartial investigation thereof shall have been made.” The contention is that this requirement is jurisdictional in nature; that the kind of pretrial investigation prescribed is an indispensable prerequisite to exercise of general court-martial jurisdiction; and that absent such prior investigation a judgment of conviction is wholly void.
Here there was an investigation. The claim is that it was neither “thorough” nor “impartial” as the 70th Article requires. The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, so held, and its reversal was rested on that finding. There was no finding that there was unfairness in the court-martial trial itself.
We do not think that the pre-trial investigation procedure required by Article 70 can properly be construed as an indispensable prerequisite to exercise of Army general court-martial jurisdiction. The Article does serve important functions in the administration of court-martial procedures and does provide safeguards to an accused. Its language is clearly such that a defendant could object to trial in the absence of the required investigation. In that event the court-martial could itself postpone trial pending the investigation. And the military reviewing authorities could consider the same contention, reversing a court-martial conviction where failure to comply with Article 70 has substantially injured an accused. But we are not persuaded that Congress intended to make otherwise valid court-martial judgments wholly void because pre-trial investigations fall short of the standards prescribed by Article 70. That Congress has not required analogous pre-trial procedure for Navy courts-martial is an indication that the investigatory plan was not intended to be exalted to the jurisdictional level.
Nothing in the legislative history of the Article supports the contention that Congress intended that a conviction after a fair trial should be nullified because of the manner in which an investigation was conducted prior to the filing of charges. Its original purposes were to insure adequate preparation of cases, to guard against hasty, ill-considered charges, to save innocent persons from the stigma of unfounded charges, and to prevent trivial cases from going before general courts-martial. War Department, Military Justice During the War, 63 (1919). All of these purposes relate solely to actions required in advance of formal charges or trial. All the purposes can be fully accomplished without subjecting court-martial convictions to judicial invalidation where pre-trial investigations have not been made.
Shortly after enactment of Article 70 in 1920 the Judge Advocate General of the Army did hold that where there had been no pre-trial investigation, court-martial proceedings were void ah initio. But this holding has been expressly repudiated in later holdings of the Judge Advocate. This later interpretation has been that the pretrial requirements of Article 70 are directory, not mandatory, and in no way affect the jurisdiction of a court-martial. The War Department’s interpretation was pointedly called to the attention of Congress in 1947 after which Congress amended Article 70 but left unchanged the language here under consideration.
We hold that a failure to conduct pre-trial investigations as required by Article 70 does not deprive general courts-martial of jurisdiction so as to empower courts in habeas corpus proceedings to invalidate court-martial judgments. It is contended that this interpretation of Article 70 renders it meaningless, practically making it a dead letter. This contention must rest on the premise that the Army will comply with the 70th Article of War only if courts in habeas corpus proceedings can invalidate any court-martial conviction which does not follow an Article 70 pre-trial procedure. We cannot assume that judicial coercion is essential to compel the Army to obey this Article of War. It was the Army itself that initiated the pre-trial investigation procedure and recommended congressional enactment of Article 70. A reasonable assumption is that the Army will require compliance with the Article 70 investigatory procedure to the end that Army work shall not be unnecessarily impeded and that Army personnel shall not be wronged as the result of unfounded and frivolous court-martial charges and trials.
This court-martial conviction resulting from a trial fairly conducted cannot be invalidated by a judicial finding that the pre-trial investigation was not carried on in the manner prescribed by the 70th Article of War.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Murphy, with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Rutledge concur, dissenting.
Pre-trial investigation under the Seventieth Article of War performs a dual function. It saves the Army’s time by eliminating frivolous cases; it protects an accused from the ignominy of a general court martial when the charges against him are groundless. These policies, of course, mean more than the protection of the respondent in this case. Their primary service appears when the defendant is clearly innocent. If the Article is ignored, and the court martial finds the defendant innocent, the error can never be corrected — the officers’ time has been wasted and the defendant’s record is forever besmirched by the words “general court martial.” Yet if the prisoner is found guilty, there is still no sanction. For military authorities will not set aside a conviction unless the very accused asking reversal has been prejudiced. And if the trial has been fair, and resulted in conviction, who will say that the defendant has been prejudiced because preliminary investigation was wanting?
Unless a civilian court is able to enforce the requirement, then, it is not a requirement at all, but only a suggestion which should be observed. Today the Court adopts the latter alternative. It holds that the error of noncompliance with A. W. 70 is not jurisdictional. It makes A. W. 70 a virtual dead letter.
I cannot impute so bland a rule to the Congress. And no evidence of such sterility has been brought to our attention. What the Eightieth Congress thought about the problem is irrelevant, of course, for A. W. 70 was the product of the Sixty-Sixth Congress, in 1920, and respondent was tried in 1944, long before the Eightieth Congress convened. Had respondent’s trial taken place in 1948, the result might be entirely different. The available evidence indicates clearly that the Sixty-Sixth Congress considered preliminary investigation vital before trial. The language of the Article is that of command — “no charge will be referred” without investigation. The report accompanying the 1920 statute, after referring to an investigation of unfairness in administering military justice, and concluding that “the personal element entered too largely into these cases,” listed twenty-three changes in the law. The second change mentioned was this: “Speedy but thorough and impartial preliminary investigation will be had in all cases.” H. R. Rep. No. 940, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2 (1920).
In 1924, just four years after A. W. 70 became the law, the Board of Review construed the language directly opposite to the Court’s present interpretation. It held that the error was jurisdictional. CM 161728, Clark. Two later holdings, both in 1928, confirmed this view. CM 182225, Keller; CM 183183, Claybaugh. In Keller, the investigation took place, but was not “thorough.” The Board held that a thorough investigation was “an absolute right given to the accused by statute.” And in 1937 Congress reenacted the same language we are construing now, the same language the Board of Review expounded in 1924 and 1928. 50 Stat. 724. It seems extraordinary to say that reversals of the prior rulings in 1943, CM 229477, Floyd, 17 B. R. 149, should govern when Congress has apparently acquiesced in the first, and contemporary, interpretations.
Congressional belief in the importance of preliminary investigation should not now be frustrated by a holding that noncompliance cannot be attacked by habeas corpus. I agree with the court below that the preliminary investigation in this case did not meet the proper standard, and would affirm the judgment.
Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U. S. 365, 381; and see In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 8-9, and cases cited.
United States v. Cooke, 336 U. S. 210; Collins v. McDonald, 258 U. S. 416, 418; see In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 8-9.
“No charge will be referred to a general court martial for trial until after a thorough and impartial investigation thereof shall have been made. This investigation will include inquiries as to the truth of the matter set forth in said charges, form of charges, and what disposition of the case should be made in the interest of justice and discipline. At such investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf either in defense or mitigation, and the investigating officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after such investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides.” 41 Stat. 759, 802, as amended 50 Stat. 724; 10 U. S. C. § 1542. See also Act of June 24, 1948, §§ 222, 231, 244, 62 Stat. 604, 633, 639, 642.
Military reviewing authorities do not revise court-martial convictions for failure to follow pre-trial procedure unless it appears to them that such failure has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the accused. CM 229477, Floyd, 17 B. R. 149, 153-156 (1943). The Assistant Judge Advocate General testifying before the Committee on Armed Services stated: “If it appeared in the Office of the Judge Advocate General that the man had been deprived of any substantial right, such as the presentation of testimony in his own behalf, or something of that kind, it would be possible for us to say that the error injuriously affected the rights of the accused and that the sentence should therefore be vacated. The case of real injury would be rare. Ordinarily guilt or innocence is and should be determined at the trial and not by what occurred prior to the trial.” Hearings before Subcommittee No. 11, Legal, of House Committee on Armed Services on H. R. 2575, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 2059-2060 (1947).
CM 161728, Clark. See also to the same effect CM 182225, Keller; CM 183183, Claybaugh.
See Floyd, supra, n. 4; CMETO 4570, Hawkins, 13 B. R. (ETO) 57, 71-75 (1945); CM 323486, Ruckman, 72 B. R. 267, 272-274 (1947).
Act of June 24, 1948, §§222, 231, 244, 62 Stat. 604, 633, 639, 642. In congressional committee hearings War Department representatives were subjected to considerable questioning as to whether pre-trial requirements should be made jurisdictional prerequisites. One of many statements supporting the War Department’s view was that of Under Secretary of War Royall, who testified:
“However, our bill does not make it a jurisdictional factor, but it does contemplate a thorough investigation. In the States in which I have practiced law, preliminary investigations are never a jurisdictional requirement. I know they are not in the Federal courts .... We would be departing radically from accepted judicial practice, generally throughout the United States, if we made that a jurisdictional requirement. That is really the difference between the Durham bill and this, as I understand.”
This statement and others in opposition to raising pre-trial investigations to a jurisdictional level appear at the following pages of the Hearings before Subcommittee No. 11, Legal, of House Committee on Armed Services on H. R. 2575, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 1924-1925, 2058-2061, 2064-2065, 2146, 2152-2153 (1947).
War Department, Military Justice During the War, 63 (1919); H. R. Rep. No. 940, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1920).
Secretary Royall in referring to the procedure told the House Committee: “We believe very strongly in it and we will provide for it as strongly as we can, without making it grounds for a technical appeal.” Hearings before Subcommittee No. 11, Legal, of House Committee on Armed Services on H. R. 2575, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 2152 (1947).
District Courts and Courts of Appeal have not been in agreement on the question. Henry v. Hodges, 76 F. Supp. 968, 970-974; Anthony v. Hunter, 71 F. Supp. 823, 830-831; Hicks v. Hiatt, 64 F. Supp. 238, 242; Waite v. Overlade, 164 F. 2d 722, 723-724; De War v. Hunter, 170 F. 2d 993, 995-997.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 was convicted in a United States District Court of an assault with intent to murder, an offense punishable under 18 U. S. C. § 113 (a) “by imprisonment for not more than twenty years.” Desiring more detailed information as a basis for determining the sentence to be imposed, the trial judge decided to proceed “under the flexible provisions of [§] 4208” of 18 U. S. C. Accordingly, he committed respondent to the custody of the Attorney General to await a study by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons of respondent’s previous delinquency, criminal experience, social background, etc. His order provided that after the results of the study and the Director’s recommendations were reported to the court, respondent’s commitment, deemed to be for 20 years, would “be subject to modification in accordance with Title 18 U. S. C. 4208 (b).”
After the Director’s report was received, the trial court entered an order providing “that the period of imprisonment heretofore imposed be reduced to Five (5) years” and that the Board of Parole might decide when the respondent should be eligible for parole. Neither respondent nor his counsel was present when this modification of the court’s previous commitment under § 4208 (b) was entered. No direct appeal was taken, but respondent moved to vacate sentence under 28 U. S. C. § 2255. The trial court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the sentence on the ground that it was error for the district judge to impose the final sentence under § 4208 (b) in the absence of petitioner and his counsel. In another case, Corey v. United States, 307 F. 2d 839, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that it was the original commitment under § 4208 (b), not the fixing of the final sentence, which marked the point from which time to appeal began running. Because of the disagreement between the two appellate courts’ interpretation of § 4208 (b) and the general confusion in District Courts and Courts of Appeals as to this section’s exact meaning and effect, we granted cer-tiorari in both cases.
In asking that we grant certiorari in the present case, the Solicitor General conceded that if the action of the District Court in fixing the final term of imprisonment under § 4208 (b) was a final judgment for the purposes of appeal, then the defendant would plainly be entitled to have himself and his counsel present when the final action was taken. We have decided today, for reasons set out in our opinion in the Corey case, post, p. 169, that the action of a District Court finally determining under § 4208 (b) the sentence to be imposed upon a defendant is a final, appealable order. For those reasons as well as those set out below, we hold that the District Court erred in the present case when, modifying its original oral § 4208 (b) order, it fixed the final sentence in the absence of respondent and his counsel. It is plain that as far as the sentence is concerned the original order entered under § 4208 (b) is wholly tentative. That section merely provides that commitment of a defendant to the custody of the Attorney General “shall be deemed to be for the maximum sentence,” but does not make that the final sentence. The whole point of using § 4208 (b) is, in its own language, to get “more detailed information as a basis for determining the sentence to be imposed . . . (Emphasis supplied.) It is only after the Director of the Bureau of Prisons makes his report that the court makes its final decision as to what the sentence will be. Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifically requires that the defendant be present “at every stage of the trial including . . . the imposition of sentence . . . .” It is true that the same rule provides that a defendant’s presence is not required when his sentence is reduced under Rule 35. But a reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is quite different from the final determination under § 4208 (b) of what a sentence is to be. Rule 35 refers to the power of a court to reduce a sentence which has already become final in every respect. There is no such finality of sentence at a § 4208 (b) preliminary commitment. The use of § 4208 (b) postpones action as to the final sentence; by using that section the court decides to await studies and reports of a defendant’s background, mental and physical health, etc., to assist the judge in making up his mind as to what the final sentence shall be. It is only then that the judge’s final words are spoken and the defendant’s punishment is fixed. It is then that the right of the defendant to be afforded an opportunity to make a statement to the judge in his own behalf is of most importance. This right, ancient in the law, is recognized by Rule 32 (a) of the Federal Criminal Rules, which requires the court to “afford the defendant an opportunity to make a statement in his own behalf and to present any information in mitigation of punishment.” This right would be largely lost in the § 4208 proceeding if for administrative convenience the defendant were not permitted to invoke it when the sentence that counts is pronounced. We hold that it was error to impose this sentence in the absence of respondent and his counsel.
Affirmed.
18 U. S. C. §4208 (b) provides:
“If the court desires more detailed information as a basis for determining the sentence to be imposed, the court may commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General, which commitment shall be deemed to be for the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed by law, for a study as described in subsection (c) hereof. The results of such study, together with any recommendations which the Director of the Bureau of Prisons believes would be helpful in determining the disposition of the case, shall be furnished to the court within three months unless the court ^grants time, not to exceed an additional three months, for further1 study. After receiving such reports and recommendations, the court may in its discretion: (1) Place the prisoner on probation as authorized by section 3651 of this title, or (2) affirm the sentence of imprisonment originally imposed, or reduce the sentence of imprisonment, and commit the offender under any applicable provision of law. The term of the sentence shall run from date of original commitment under this section.”
312 F. 2d 223.
371 U. S. 966; 373 U. S. 902.
It is true that the House Committee on the Judiciary in reporting favorably on a proposed section identical to § 4208 (b) indicated that it saw no necessity for a defendant being present when final action on his sentence was taken. H. R. Rep. No. 1946, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10. This section failed of passage in the House but an identical one was added by the Senate and adopted without discussion of the point in the Senate committee and conference reports. See S. Rep. No. 2013, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2579, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. No language supporting this position appeared in the Senate bill or in the Act itself. We are not inclined to expand the language of the section, and thereby make necessary a constitutional decision, by reading the silence of the Act as depriving a defendant of a right to urge upon the-court reasons for leniency at the time when the judge at last has the relevant materials for decision before him.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The San Francisco, California, school system was integrated in 1971 as a result of a federal court decree, 339 F. Supp. 1315. See Lee v. Johnson, 404 U. S. 1215. The District Court found that there are 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry in the school system who do not speak English. Of those who have that language deficiency, about 1,000 are given supplemental courses in the English language. About 1,800, however, do not receive that instruction.
This class suit brought by non-English-speaking Chinese students against officials responsible for the operation of the San Francisco Unified School District seeks relief against the unequal educational opportunities, which are alleged to violate, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment. No specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak the language is one choice. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is another. There may be others. Petitioners ask .only that the Board of Education be directed to apply its expertise to the problem and rectify the situation.
The District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or of § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d, which excludes from participation in federal financial assistance, recipients of aid which discriminate against racial groups, 483 F. 2d 791. One judge dissented. A hearing en banc was denied, two judges dissenting. Id., at 805.
We granted the petition for certiorari because of the public importance of the question presented, 412 U. S. 938.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that “[ejvery student brings to the starting line of his educational career different advantages and disadvantages caused in part by social, economic and cultural background, created and continued completely apart from any contribution by the school system,” 483 F. 2d, at 797. Yet in our view the case may not be so easily decided. This is a public school system of California and § 71 of the California Education Code states that “English shall be the basic language of instruction in all schools.” That section permits a school district to determine “when and under what circumstances instruction may be given bilingually.” That section also states as “the policy of the state” to insure “the mastery of English by all pupils in the schools.” And bilingual instruction is authorized “to the extent that it does not interfere with the systematic, sequential, and regular instruction of all pupils in the English language.”
Moreover, § 8573 of the Education Code provides that no pupil shall receive a diploma of graduation from grade 12 who has not met the standards of proficiency in “English,” as well as other prescribed subjects. Moreover, by § 12101 of the Education Code (Supp. 1973) children between the ages of six and 16 years are (with exceptions not material here) “subject to compulsory full-time education.”
Under these state-imposed standards there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.
Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.
We do not reach the Equal Protection Clause argument which has been advanced but rely solely on § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d, to reverse the Court of Appeals.
That section bans discrimination based “on the ground of race, color, or national origin,” in “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The school district involved in this litigation receives large amounts of federal financial assistance. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which has authority to promulgate regulations prohibiting discrimination in federally assisted school systems, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-l, in 1968 issued one guideline that “[sjchool systems are responsible for assuring that students of a particular race, color, or national origin are not denied the opportunity to obtain the education generally obtained by other students in the system.” 33 Fed. Reg. 4956. In 1970 HEW made the guidelines more specific, requiring school districts that were federally funded “to rectify the language deficiency in order to open” the instruction to students who had “linguistic deficiencies,” 35 Fed. Reg. 11595.
By § 602 of the Act HEW is authorized to issue rules, regulations, and orders to make sure that recipients of federal aid under its jurisdiction conduct any federally financed projects consistently with § 601. HEW’s regulations, 45 CFR § 80.3 (b)(1), specify that the recipients may not
“(ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program;
“(iv) Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program.”
Discrimination among students on account of race or national origin that is prohibited includes “discrimination ... in the availability or use of any academic ... or other facilities of the grantee or other recipient.” Id., § 80.5 (b).
Discrimination is barred which has that effect even though no purposeful design is present: a recipient “may not. . . utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination” or have “the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.” Id., § 80.3 (b) (2).
It seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents’ school system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program — all earmarks of the discrimination banned by the regulations. In 1970 HEW issued clarifying guidelines, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595, which include the following:
“Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.”
“Any ability grouping or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special language skill needs of national origin-minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an educational deadend or permanent track.”
Respondent school district contractually agreed to “comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation” of HEW (45 CFR pt. 80) which are “issued pursuant to that title . . and also immediately to “take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement.” The Federal Government has power to fix the terms on which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed. Oklahoma v. CSC, 330 U. S. 127, 142-143. Whatever may be the limits of that power, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548, 590 et seq., they have not been reached here. Senator Humphrey, during the floor debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, said:
“Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination.”
We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice White concurs in the result.
A report adopted by the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco and submitted to the Court by respondents after oral argument shows that, as of April 1973, there were 3,457 Chinese students in the school system who spoke little or no English. The document further showed 2,136 students enrolled in Chinese special instruction classes, but at least 429 of the enrollees were not Chinese but were included for ethnic balance. Thus, as of April 1973, no more than 1,707 of the 3,457 Chinese students needing special English instruction were receiving it.
Section 602 provides:
“Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. . . 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-1.
And see Report of the Human Rights Commission of San Francisco, Bilingual Education in the San Francisco Public Schools, Aug. 9, 1973.
110 Cong. Rec. 6543 (Sen. Humphrey, quoting from President Kennedy’s message to Congress, June 19, 1963).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 operative facts herein are substantially identical to those in United States v. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Respondent’s ear was stopped by Border Patrol agents; a search disclosed marihuana. Respondent lost a motion to suppress and was found guilty after a bench trial. Following this trial, but before sentencing, the District Court, relying upon our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), granted respondent’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as it did in Morrison, found the Government’s appeal barred by double jeopardy.
In United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975), we held that double jeopardy would not bar a Government appeal if success on that appeal would result in the reinstatement of a verdict of guilty. The fact that the order of suppression here occurred after a general finding of guilt rendered by the court in a bench trial, rather than after a return of a verdict of guilty by a jury, is immaterial. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Double jeopardy, therefore, does not bar an appeal by the Government.
We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for proceedings consistent herewith.
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These four cases, three from Mississippi and one from Virginia, involve the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to state election laws and regulations. The Mississippi cases were consolidated on appeal and argued together in this Court. Because of the grounds on which we decide all four cases, the appeal in the Virginia case is also disposed of by this opinion.
In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966), we held the provisions of the Act involved in these cases to be constitutional. These cases merely require us to determine whether the various state enactments involved are subject to the requirements of the Act.
We gave detailed treatment to the history and purposes of the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra. Briefly, the Act implemented Congress’ firm intention to rid the country of racial discrimination in voting. It provided stringent new remedies against those practices which have most frequently denied citizens the right to vote on the basis of their race. Thus, in States covered by the Act, literacy tests and similar voting qualifications were suspended for a period of five years from the last occurrence of substantial voting discrimination. However, Congress apparently feared that the mere suspension of existing tests would not completely solve the problem, given the history some States had of simply enacting new and slightly different requirements with the same discriminatory effect. Not underestimating the ingenuity of those bent on preventing Negroes from voting, Congress therefore enacted § 5, the focal point of these cases.
Under § 5, if a State.covered by the Act passes any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964,” no person can be deprived of his right to vote “for failure to comply with” the new enactment “unless and until” the State seeks and receives a declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the new enactment “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1964 ed., Supp. I). See Appendix, infra.
. However, § 5 does not necessitate that a covered State obtain a declaratory judgment action before it can enforce any change in its election laws. It provides that a State may enforce a new enactment if the State submits the new provision to the Attorney General of the United States and, within 60 days of the submission, the Attorney General does not formally object to the new statute or regulation. The Attorney General does not act as a court in approving or disapproving the state legislation. If the Attorney General objects to the new enactment, the State may still enforce the legislation upon securing a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Also, the State is not required to first submit the new enactment to the Attorney General as it may go directly to the District Court for the District of Columbia. The provision for submission to the Attorney General merely gives the covered State a rapid method of rendering a new state election law enforceable. Once the State has successfully complied with the § 5 approval requirements, private parties may enjoin the enforcement of the new enactment only in traditional suits attacking its constitutionality; there is no further remedy provided by § 5.
In these four cases, the States have passed new laws or issued new regulations. The central issue is whether these provisions fall within the prohibition of § 5 that prevents the enforcement of “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting” unless the State first complies with one of the section's approval procedures.
No. 25, Fairley v. Patterson, involves a 1966 amendment to § 2870 of the Mississippi Code of 1942. The amendment provides that the board of supervisors of each county may adopt an order providing that board members be elected at large by all qualified electors of the county. Prior to the 1966 amendment, all counties by law were divided into five districts; each district elected one member of the board of supervisors. After the amendment, Adams and Forrest Counties adopted the authorized orders, specifying that each candidate must run at large, but also requiring that each candidate be a resident of the county district he seeks to represent.
The appellants are qualified electors and potential candidates in the two counties. They sought a declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi that the amendment to § 2870 was subject to the provisions of § 5 of the Act and hence could not be enforced until the State complied with the approval requirements of § 5.
No. 26, Bunton v. Patterson, concerns a 1966 amendment to § 6271-08 of the Mississippi Code. The amendment provides that in 11 specified counties, the county-superintendent of education shall be appointed by the board of education. Before the enactment of this amendment, all these counties had the option of electing or appointing the superintendent. Appellants are qualified electors and potential candidates for the position of county superintendent of education in three of the counties covered by the 1966 amendment. They sought a declaratory judgment that the amendment was subject to § 5, and thus unenforceable unless the State complied with the § 5 approval requirements.
No. 36, Whitley v. Williams, involves a 1966 amendment to § 3260 of the Mississippi Code, which changed the requirements for independent candidates running in general elections. The amendment makes four revisions: (1) it establishes a new rule that no person who has voted in a primary election may thereafter be placed on the ballot as an independent candidate in the general election; (2) the time for filing a petition as an independent candidate is changed to 60 days before the primary election from the previous 40 days before the general election; (3) the number of signatures of qualified electors needed for the independent qualifying petition is increased substantially; and (4) a new provision is added that each qualified elector who signs the independent qualifying petition must personally sign the petition and must include his polling precinct and county. Appellants are potential candidates whose nominating petitions for independent listing on the ballot were rejected for failure to comply with one or more of the amended provisions.
In all three of these cases, the three-judge District Court ruled that the amendments to the Mississippi Code did not come within the purview of and are not covered by § 5, and dismissed the complaints. Appellants brought direct appeals to this Court. We consolidated the cases and postponed consideration of jurisdiction to a hearing on the merits. 392 U. S. 902 (1968).
No. 3, Allen v. State Board of Elections, concerns a bulletin issued by the Virginia Board of Elections to all election judges. The bulletin was an attempt to modify the provisions of § 24 — 252 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 which provides, inter alia, that “any voter [may] place on the official ballot the name of any person in his own handwriting The Virginia Code (§ 24— 251) further provides that voters with a physical incapacity may be assisted in preparing their ballots. For example, one who is blind may be aided in the preparation of his ballot by a person of his choice. Those unable to mark their ballots due to any other physical disability may be assisted by one of the election judges. However, no statutory provision is made for assistance to those who wish to write in a name, but who are unable to do so because of illiteracy. When Virginia was brought under the coverage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Virginia election officials apparently thought that the provision in § 24-252, requiring a voter to cast a write-in vote in the voter’s own handwriting, was incompatible with the provisions of § 4 (a) of the Act suspending the enforcement of any test or device as a prerequisite to voting. Therefore, the Board of Elections issued a bulletin to all election judges, instructing that the election judge could aid any qualified voter in the preparation of his ballot, if the voter so requests and if the voter is unable to mark his ballot due to illiteracy.
Appellants are functionally illiterate registered voters from the Fourth Congressional District of Virginia. They brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming that § 24-252 and the modifying bulletin violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A three-judge court was convened and the complaint dismissed. A direct appeal was brought to this Court and we postponed consideration of jurisdiction to a hearing on the merits. 392 U. S. 902 (1968).
In the 1966 elections, appellants attempted to vote for a write-in candidate by sticking labels, printed with the name of their candidate, on the ballot. The election officials refused to count appellants’ ballots, claiming that the Virginia election law did not authorize marking ballots with labels. As the election outcome would not have been changed had the disputed ballots been counted, appellants sought only prospective relief. In the District Court, appellants did not assert that § 5 precluded enforcement of the procedure prescribed by the bulletin. Rather, they argued § 4 suspended altogether the requirement of § 24-252 that the voter write the name of his choice in the voter’s own handwriting. Appellants first raised the applicability of § 5 in their jurisdictional statement filed with this Court. We are not precluded from considering the applicability of § 5, however. The Virginia legislation was generally attacked on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Voting Rights Act. Where all the facts are undisputed, this Court may, in the interests of judicial economy, determine the applicability of the provisions of that Act, even though some specific sections were not argued below.
We postponed consideration of our jurisdiction in these cases to a hearing on the merits. Therefore, before reaching the merits, we first determine whether these cases are properly before us on direct appeal from the district courts.
I.
These suits-were instituted by private citizens; an initial question is whether private litigants may invoke the jurisdiction of the district courts to obtain the relief requested in these suits. 28 U. S. C. § 1343 provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:... (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.” Clearly, if § 5 authorizes appellants to secure the relief sought, the district courts had jurisdiction over these suits.
The Voting Rights Act does not explicitly grant or deny private parties authorization to seek a declaratory judgment that a State has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act. However, § 5 does provide that “no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with [a new state enactment covered by, but not approved under, § 5].” Analysis of this language in light of the major purpose of the Act indicates that appellants may seek a declaratory judgment that a new state enactment is governed by § 5. Further, after proving that the State has failed to submit the covered enactment for § 5 approval, the private party has standing to obtain an injunction against further enforcement, pending the State’s submission of the legislation pursuant to § 5.
The Act was drafted to make the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment finally a reality for all citizens. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, at 308, 309. Congress realized that existing remedies were inadequate to accomplish this purpose and drafted an unusual, and in some aspects a severe, procedure for insuring that States would not discriminate on the basis of race in the enforcement of their voting laws.
The achievement of the Act’s laudable goal could be severely hampered, however, if each citizen were required to depend solely on litigation instituted at the discretion of the Attorney General. For example, the provisions of the Act extend to States and the subdivisions thereof. The Attorney General has a limited staff and often might be unable to uncover quickly new regulations and enactments passed at the varying levels of state government. It is consistent with the broad purpose of the Act to allow the individual citizen standing to insure that his city or county government complies with the § 5 approval requirements.
We have previously held that a federal statute passed to protect a class of citizens, although not specifically authorizing members of the protected class to institute suit, nevertheless implied a private right of action. In J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 (1964), we were called upon to consider § 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 48 Stat. 895, 15 II. S. C. § 78n (a). That section provides that it shall be “unlawful for any person... [to violate] such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” We held that “[w]hile this language makes no specific reference to a private right of action, among its chief purposes is 'the protection of investors,’ which certainly implies the availability of judicial relief where necessary to achieve that result.” 377 U. S., at 432.
A similar analysis is applicable here. The guarantee of § 5 that no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with an unapproved new enactment subject to § 5, might well prove an empty promise unless the private citizen were allowed to seek judicial enforcement of the prohibition.
l-H H-1
Another question involving the jurisdiction of the district courts is presented by § 14 (b) of the Act. It provides that “[n]o court other than the District Court for the District of Columbia... shall have jurisdiction to issue any declaratory judgment pursuant to [§ 5] or any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction against the execution or enforcement of any provision of this Act... 79 Stat. 445, 42 U. S. C. § 1973Z (b) (1964 ed., Supp. I). The appellants sought declaratory judgments that the state enactments were subject to § 5 of the Act; appellees thus argue that these actions could be initiated only in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Section 14 (b) must be read with the Act’s other enforcement provisions. Section 12 (f) provides that the district courts shall have jurisdiction over actions brought pursuant to § 12 (d) to enjoin a person from acting when “there are reasonable grounds to believe that [such person] is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by [§ 5].” These § 12 (f) injunctive actions are distinguishable from the actions mentioned in § 14 (b). The § 14 (b) injunctive action is one aimed at prohibiting enforcement of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and would involve an attack on the constitutionality of the Act itself. See Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641 (1966). On the other hand, the § 12 (f) action is aimed at prohibiting the enforcement of a state enactment that is for some reason violative of the Act. Cf. United States v. Ward, 352 F. 2d 329 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1965); Perez v. Rhiddlehoover, 247 F. Supp. 65 (D. C. E. D. La. 1965).
A similar distinction is possible with respect to declaratory judgments. A declaratory judgment brought by the State pursuant to § 5 requires an adjudication that a new enactment does not have the purpose or effect of racial discrimination. However, a declaratory judgment action brought by a private litigant does not require the Court to reach this difficult substantive issue. The only issue is whether a particular state enactment is subject to the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and therefore must be submitted for approval before enforcement. The difference in the magnitude of these two issues suggests that Congress did not intend that both can be decided only by the District of Columbia District Court. Indeed, the specific grant of jurisdiction to the district courts in § 12 (f) indicates Congress intended to treat “coverage” questions differently from “substantive discrimination” questions. See Perez v. Rhiddlehoover, supra, at 72.
Moreover, as we indicated in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra, the power of Congress to require suits to be brought only in the District of Columbia District Court is grounded in Congress’ power, under Art. Ill, § 1, to “ordain and establish” inferior federal tribunals. We further noted Congress did not exceed constitutional bounds in imposing limitations on “litigation against the Federal Government....” 383 U. S., at 332 (emphasis added). Of course, in declaratory judgment actions brought by private litigants, the United States will not be a party. This distinction further suggests interpreting § 14 (b) as applying only to declaratory judgment actions brought by the State.
There are strong reasons for adoption of this interpretation. Requiring that declaratory judgment actions be brought in the District of Columbia places a burden on the plaintiff. The enormity of the burden, of course, will vary with the size of the plaintiff’s resources. Admittedly, it would be easier for States to bring § 5 actions in the district courts in their own States. However, the State has sufficient resources to prosecute the actions easily in the Nation’s Capital; and, Congress has power to regulate which federal court shall hear suits against the Federal Government. On the other hand, the individual litigant will often not have sufficient resources to maintain an action easily outside the district in which he resides, especially in cases where the individual litigant is attacking a local city or county regulation. Thus, for the individual litigant, the District of Columbia burden may be sufficient to preclude him from bringing suit.
We hold that the restriction of § 14 (b) does not apply to suits brought by private litigants seeking a declaratory judgment that a new state enactment is subject to the approval requirements of § 5, and that these actions may be brought in the local district court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (4).
III.
A final jurisdictional question remains. These actions were all heard before three-judge district courts. We have jurisdiction over an appeal brought directly from the three-judge court only if the three-judge court was properly convened. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm’n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U. S. 281 (1965); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 5 (1965); see 28 U. S. C. § 1253. Appellants initially claimed that the statutes and regulations in question violated the Fifteenth Amendment. However, by stipulation these claims were removed from the cases prior to a hearing in the District Court and the cases were submitted solely on the question of the applicability of § 5. We held in Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, 127 (1965), that a three-judge court is not required under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 if the state statute is attacked on the grounds that it is in conflict with a federal statute and consequently violates the Supremacy Clause. These suits involve such an attack and, in the absence of a statute authorizing a three-judge court, would not be proper before a district court of three judges.
Appellants maintain that § 5 authorizes a three-judge court in suits brought by private litigants to enforce the approval requirements of the section. The final sentence of § 5 provides that “[a]ny action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges... and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1964 ed., Supp. I) (emphasis added). Appellees argue that this sentence refers only to the action specifically mentioned in the first sentence of § 5 (i e., declaratory judgment suits brought by the State) and does not apply to suits brought by the private litigant.
As we have interpreted § 5, suits involving the section may be brought in at least three ways. First, of course, the State may institute a declaratory judgment action. Second, an individual may bring a suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, claiming that a state requirement is covered by § 5, but has not been subjected to the required federal scrutiny. Third, the Attorney General may bring an injunctive action to prohibit the enforcement of a new regulation because of the State’s failure to obtain approval under § 5. All these suits may be viewed as being brought “under” § 5. The issue is whether the language “under this section” should be interpreted as authorizing a three-judge action in these suits.
We have long held that congressional enactments providing for the convening of three-judge courts must be strictly construed. Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246 (1941). Convening a three-judge court places a burden on our federal court system, and may often result in a delay in a matter needing swift initial adjudication. See Swift & Co. v. Wickham, supra, at 128. Also, a direct appeal may be taken from a three-judge court to this Court, thus depriving us of the wise and often crucial adjudications of the courts of appeals. Thus we have been reluctant to extend the range of cases necessitating the convening of three-judge courts. Ibid.
However, we have not been unaware of the legitimate reasons that prompted Congress to enact three-judge-court legislation. See Swift & Co. v. Wickham, supra, at 116-119. Notwithstanding the problems for judicial administration, Congress has determined that three-judge courts are desirable in a number of circumstances involving confrontations between state and federal power or in circumstances involving a potential for substantial interference with government administration. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is an example. Federal supervision over the enforcement of state legislation always poses difficult problems for our federal system. The problems are especially difficult when the enforcement of state enactments may be enjoined and state election procedures suspended because the State has failed to comply with a federal approval procedure.
In drafting § 5, Congress apparently concluded that if the governing authorities of a State differ with the Attorney General of the United States concerning the purpose or effect of a change in voting procedures, it is inappropriate to have that difference resolved by a single district judge. The clash between federal and state power and the potential disruption to state government are apparent. There is no less a clash and potential for disruption when the disagreement concerns whether a state enactment is subject to § 5. The result of both suits can be an injunction prohibiting the State from enforcing its election laws. Although a suit brought by the individual citizen may not involve the same federal-state confrontation, the potential for disruption of state election procedures remains.
Other provisions of the Act indicate that Congress was well aware of the extraordinary effect the Act might have on federal-state relationships and the orderly operation of state government. For example, § 10, which prohibits the collection of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting, contains a provision authorizing a three-judge court when the Attorney General brings an action “against the enforcement of any requirement of the payment of a poll tax as a precondition to voting....” 79 Stat. 442, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1973h (a)-(c) (1964 ed., Supp. I). See also 42 ü. S. C. § 1973b (a) (1964 ed., Supp. I).
We conclude that in light of the extraordinary nature of the Act in general, and the unique approval requirements of § 5, Congress intended that disputes involving the coverage of § 5 be determined by a district court of three judges.
IV.
Finding that these cases are properly before us, we turn to a consideration of whether these state enactments are subject to the approval requirements of § 5. These requirements apply to “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting....” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1964 ed., Supp. I). The Act further provides that the term “voting” “shall include all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, registration, listing... or other action required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having such ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election.” §14 (c)(1), 79 Stat. 445, 42 U. S. C. § 19731 (c)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. I). See Appendix, infra. Appellees in the Mississippi cases maintain that § 5 covers only those state enactments which prescribe who may register to vote. While accepting that the Act is broad enough to insure that the votes of all citizens should be cast, appellees urge that § 5 does not cover state rules relating to the qualification of candidates or to state decisions as to which offices shall be elective.
Appellees rely on the legislative history of the Act to support their view, citing the testimony of former Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall before a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary:
“Mr. Corman. We have not talked at all about whether we have to be concerned with not only who can vote, but who can run for public office and that has been an issue in some areas in the South in 1964. Have you given any consideration to whether or not this bill ought to address itself to the qualifications for running for public office as well as the problem of registration?
“Mr. Marshall. The problem that the bill was aimed at was the problem of registration, Congressman. If there is a problem of another sort, I would like to see it corrected, but that is not what we were trying to deal with in the bill.”
Appellees in No. 25 also argue that § 5 was not intended to apply to a change from district to at-large voting, because application of § 5 would cause a conflict in the administration of reapportionment legislation. They contend that under such a broad reading of § 5, enforcement of a reapportionment plan could be enjoined for failure to meet the § 5 approval requirements, even though the plan had been approved by a federal court. Appellees urge that Congress could not have intended to force the States to submit a reapportionment plan to two different courts.
We must reject a narrow construction that appellees would give to § 5. The Voting Rights Act was aimed at the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race. Moreover, compatible with the decisions of this Court, the Act gives a broad interpretation to the right to vote, recognizing that voting includes "all action necessary to make a vote effective.” 79 Stat. 445, 42 U. S. C. § 19731(c)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. I). See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964). We are convinced that in passing the Voting Rights Act, Congress intended that state enactments such as those involved in the instant cases be subject to the § 5 approval requirements.
The legislative history on the whole supports the view that Congress intended to reach any state enactment which altered the election law of a covered State in even a minor way. For example, § 2 of the Act, as originally drafted, included a prohibition against any “qualification or procedure.” During the Senate hearings on the bill, Senator Fong expressed concern that the word “procedure” was not broad enough to cover various practices that might effectively be employed to deny citizens their right to vote. In response, the Attorney General said he had no objection to expanding the language of the section, as the word “procedure” “was intended to be all-inclusive of any kind of practice.” Indicative of an intention to give the Act the broadest possible scope, Congress expanded the language in the final version of § 2 to include any “voting qualifications or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973 (1964 ed., Supp. I).
Similarly, in the House hearings, it was emphasized that § 5 was to have a broad scope:
“Mr. Katzenbach. The justification for [the approval requirements] is simply this: Our experience in the areas that would be covered by this bill has been such as to indicate frequently on the part of State legislatures a desire in a sense to outguess the courts of the United States or even to outguess the Congress of the United States.... [A]s the Chairman may recall... at the time of the initial school desegregation,... the legislature passed I don’t know how many laws in the shortest period of time. Every time the judge issued a decree, the legislature... passed a law to frustrate that decree.
“If I recollect correctly, the school board was ordered to do something and the legislature immediately took away all authority of the school boards. They withdrew all funds from them to accomplish the purposes of the act.” House Hearings 60.
Also, the remarks of both opponents and proponents during the debate over passage of the Act demonstrate that Congress was well aware of another admonition of the Attorney General. He had stated in the House hearings that two or three types of changes in state election law (such as changing from paper ballots to voting machines) could be specifically excluded from § 5 without undermining the purpose of the section. He emphasized, however, that there were “precious few” changes that could be excluded “because there are an awful lot of things that could be started for purposes of evading the 15th amendment if there is the desire to do so.” House Hearings 95. It is significant that Congress chose not to include even these minor exceptions in § 5, thus indicating an intention that all changes, no matter how small, be subjected to § 5 scrutiny.
In light of the mass of legislative history to the contrary, especially the Attorney General’s clear indication that the section was to have a broad scope and Congress’ refusal to engraft even minor exceptions, the single remark of Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall cannot be given determinative weight. Indeed, in any case where the legislative hearings and debate are so voluminous, no single statement or excerpt of testimony can be conclusive. Also, the question of whether § 5 might cause problems in the implementation of reapportionment legislation is not properly before us at this time. There is no direct conflict between our interpretation of this statute and the principles involved in the reapportionment cases. The argument that some administrative problem might arise in the future does not establish that Congress intended that § 5 have a narrow scope; we leave to another case a consideration of any possible conflict.
The weight of the legislative history and an analysis of the basic purposes of the Act indicate that the enactment in each of these cases constitutes a “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting” within the meaning of § 5.
No. 25 involves a change from district to at-large voting for county supervisors. The right to vote can be affected by a dilution of voting power as well as by an absolute prohibition on casting a ballot. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964). Voters who are members of a racial minority might well be in the majority in one district, but in a decided minority in the county as a whole. This type of change could therefore nullify their ability to elect the candidate of their choice just as would prohibiting some of them from voting.
In No. 26 an important county officer in certain counties was made appointive instead of elective. The power of a citizen’s vote is affected by this amendment; after the change, he is prohibited from electing an officer formerly subject to the approval of the voters. Such a change could be made either with or without a discriminatory purpose or effect; however, the purpose of § 5 was to submit such changes to scrutiny.
The changes in No. 36 appear aimed at increasing the difficulty for an independent candidate to gain a position on the general election ballot. These changes might also undermine the effectiveness of voters who wish to elect independent candidates. One change involved in No. 36 deserves special note. The amendment provides that no person who has voted in a primary election may thereafter be placed on the ballot as an independent candidate in the general election. This is a “procedure with respect to voting” with substantial impact. One must forgo his right to vote in his party primary if he thinks he might later wish to become an independent candidate.
The bulletin in No. 3 outlines new procedures for casting write-in votes. As in all these cases, we do not consider whether this change has a discriminatory purpose or effect. It is clear, however, that the new procedure with respect to voting is different from the procedure in effect when the State became subject to the Act; therefore, the enactment must meet the approval requirements of § 5 in order to be enforceable.
In these cases, as in so many others that come before us, we are called upon to determine the applicability of a statute where the language of the statute does not make crystal clear its intended scope. In all such cases we are compelled to resort to the legislative history to determine whether, in light of the articulated purposes of the legislation, Congress intended that the statute apply to the particular cases in question. We are of the opinion that, with the exception of the statement of Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall, the balance of legislative history (including the statements of the Attorney General and congressional action expanding the language) indicates that § 5 applies to these cases. In saying this, we of course express no view on the merit of these enactments; we also emphasize that our decision indicates no opinion concerning their constitutionality.
Y.
Appellees in the Mississippi cases argue that even if these state enactments are covered by § 5, they may now be enforced, since the State submitted them to the Attorney General and he has failed to object. While appellees admit that they have made no “formal” submission to the Attorney General, they argue that no formality is required. They say that once the Attorney General has become aware of the state enactment, the enactment has been “submitted” for purposes of § 5. Appellees contend that the Attorney General became aware of the enactments when served with a copy of appellees’ briefs in these cases.
We reject this argument. While the Attorney General has not required any formal procedure, we do not think the Act contemplates that a “submission” occurs when the Attorney General merely becomes aware of the legislation, no matter in what manner. Nor do we think the service of the briefs on the Attorney General constituted a “submission.” A fair interpretation of the Act requires that the State in some unambiguous and recordable manner submit any legislation or regulation in question directly to the Attorney General with a request for his consideration pursuant to the Act.
VI.
Appellants in the Mississippi cases have asked this Court to set aside the elections conducted pursuant to these enactments and order that new elections be held under the pre-amendment laws. The Solicitor General has also urged us to order new elections if the State does not promptly institute § 5 approval proceedings. We decline to take corrective action of such consequence, however. These § 5 coverage questions involve complex issues of first impression — issues subject to rational disagreement. The state enactments were not so clearly subject to § 5 that the appellees’ failure to submit them for approval constituted deliberate defiance
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, the Franchise Tax Board of California, determined that four employees of appellee United States Postal Service were delinquent in the payment of their state income taxes. The Board served process on the Postal Service directing it to withhold the amounts of the delinquencies from the employees’ wages, pursuant to § 18817 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, which authorizes the Board to require any employer to withhold delinquent taxes from an employee’s salary and transfer those funds to the Board. The question presented is whether the Postal Service was obligated to honor these “orders to withhold.”
I — I
When the Postal Service refused to comply with the four orders to withhold, the Board filed this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California asserting that the Service was liable under the Revenue and Taxation Code for failing to honor the orders, and invoking federal jurisdiction pursuant to 39 U. S. C. § 409(a) and 28 U. S. C. § 1339. The District Court entered summary judgment for the Postal Service. It held that 5 U. S. C. §5517, which authorized the agreement that California and the United States had made regarding the withholding of state income taxes from the pay of federal employees, applies only to withholding of anticipated tax liabilities and not to delinquent liabilities. The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that 5 U. S. C. § 5517 excused the Service from complying with the orders. Employment Development Department v. United States Postal Service, 698 F. 2d 1029 (CA9.1983). The Court of Appeals rejected the Board’s argument that § 5517 did not prohibit issuance of the orders, and also rejected the argument that the provision in 39 U. S. C. § 401(1) declaring that the Postal Service may “sue and be sued in its official name” had waived any sovereign immunity that the Service might possess. This appeal followed.
In this Court, the Postal Service does not argue that 5 U. S. C. § 5517 and the agreement pursuant thereto between the United States and California prohibit the issuance of an order to withhold against the Postal Service with respect to delinquent tax liabilities of its employees. To the contrary, the Postal Service expressly concedes that it is amenable to judicial process and could be required to honor a garnishment order requiring it to withhold the salary of a federal employee in order to satisfy a delinquent tax liability if issued by a state court. Instead, the Postal Service contends that although it must obey a judicial order, it retains sovereign immunity with respect to state administrative tax levies. It argues that while the provision that the Postal Service can “sue and be sued in its official name” waives immunity from suit, it does not apply to administrative proceedings.
The Board does not dispute the proposition that, unless waived, sovereign immunity prevents the creditor of a federal employee from collecting a debt through a judicial order requiring the United States to garnishee the employee’s salary. See Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20 (1845). Rather, it places its primary reliance on 39 U. S. C. § 401(1), which indicates that the Postal Service may “sue and be sued.” Thus the question in this case is whether this statutory waiver of sovereign immunity extends to the Board’s orders to withhold.
This Court construed a statute providing that an agency created by Congress — the Federal Housing Authority — was empowered “to sue and be sued,” in FHA v. Burr, 309 U. S. 242 (1940). In Burr the question presented was whether the agency had to honor a garnishment order issued by a state court. The Court began by observing: “Since consent to ‘sue and be sued’ has been given by Congress, the problem here merely involves a determination of whether or not garnishment comes within the scope of that authorization.” Id., at 244. It continued:
“[W]e start from the premise that such waivers by Congress of governmental immunity in case of such federal instrumentalities should be liberally construed. This policy is in line with the current disfavor of the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit, as evidenced by the increasing tendency of Congress to waive the immunity where federal governmental corporations are concerned. . . . Hence, when Congress establishes such an agency, authorizes it to engage in commercial and business transactions with the public, and permits it to ‘sue and be sued,’ it cannot be lightly assumed that restrictions on that authority are to be implied. Rather if the general, authority to ‘sue and be sued’ is to be delimited by implied exceptions, it must be clearly shown that certain types of suits are not consistent with the statutory or constitutional scheme, that an implied restriction of the general authority is necessary to avoid grave interference with the performance of a governmental function, or that for other reasons it was plainly the purpose of Congress to use the ‘sue and be sued’ clause in a narrow sense. In the absence of such showing, it must be presumed that when Congress launched a governmental agency into the commercial world and endowed it with authority to ‘sue or be sued,’ that agency is not less amenable to judicial process than a private enterprise under like circumstances would be.” Id., at 245 (footnote omitted).
The Court then explained why garnishment orders fell within the scope of the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity:
“Clearly the words ‘sue and be sued’ in their normal connotation embrace all civil process incident to the commencement or continuance of legal proceedings. Garnishment and attachment commonly are part and parcel of the process, provided by statute, for the collection of debt. . . . [Hjowever it may be denominated, whether legal or equitable, and whenever it may be available, whether prior to or after final judgment, garnishment is a well-known remedy available to suitors. To say that Congress did not intend to include such civil process in the words 'sue and be sued’ would in general deprive suits of some of their efficacy.” Id., at 245-246 (footnotes and citation omitted).
If anything, the waiver of sovereign immunity is broader here than it was in Burr. In passing the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 719, Congress not only indicated that the Postal Service could “sue and be sued,” 39 U. S. C. §401(1), but also that it had the power “to settle and compromise claims by or against it,” §401(8), and that “[t]he provisions of chapter 171 and all other provisions of title 28 relating to tort claims shall apply to tort claims arising out of activities of the Postal Service.” § 409(c). Neither of these provisions would have been necessary had Congress intended to preserve sovereign immunity with respect to the Postal Service. Congress also indicated that it wished the Postal Service to be run more like a business than had its predecessor, the Post Office Department.
Here, the Board has employed the same “well-known” remedy that was held to be within the scope of a sue-and-be-sued clause in Burr. Moreover, as was true of the agency involved in Burr, Congress has “launched [the Postal Service] into the commercial world”; hence under Burr not only must we liberally construe the sue-and-be-sued clause, but also we must presume that the Service’s liability is the same as that of any other business. No showing has been made to overcome that presumption. Since an order to withhold cannot issue unless the Postal Service owes the employee wages, the Service is nothing but a stakeholder; the order to withhold has precisely the same effect on its ability to operate efficiently as it does on that of any other employer subject to the California statute. It creates no greater inconvenience than did the garnishment order that this Court held could issue against a federal agency in Burr. Indeed, the Board’s order to withhold contains the same direction as did the writ of garnishment served on the FHA in Burr.
The Postal Service attempts to distinguish Burr by observing that the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 401(1) is limited to cases in which it has been “sued,” and then arguing that because the process that has issued here is that of an administrative agency rather than a court, the Service has not been “sued” within the meaning of §401(1). This crabbed construction of the statute overlooks our admonition that waiver of sovereign immunity is accomplished not by “a ritualistic formula”; rather intent to waive immunity and the scope of such a waiver can only be ascertained by reference to underlying congressional policy. Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381, 389 (1939). In this case, at the level of policy and practicality it is illogical to conclude that Congress would have differentiated between process issued by the Board and that of a court, for even if a court issued the orders to withhold, neither the Postal Service nor its employees would be in a materially different position.
The operation of California’s tax collection process makes it clear that there is no meaningful difference between an order to withhold issued by the Board and a garnishment order issued by a court. Under state law an assessment that has been validly made against a taxpayer operates to impose an absolute liability for the tax that may not be contested except in an action seeking refund of amounts already paid. Indeed state law is unequivocal in requiring employers to honor orders to withhold — no defense is permitted. Thus, a California tax assessment, like a federal tax assessment, operates in a way that is functionally indistinguishable from the judgment of a court of law; it creates an absolute legal obligation to make payment by a date certain:
“Once the tax is assessed the taxpayer will owe the sovereign the amount when the date fixed by law for payment arrives. Default in meeting the obligations calls for some procedure whereby payment can be enforced. The statute might remit the Government to an action at law wherein the taxpayer could offer such defense as he had. A judgment against him might be collected by the levy of an execution. But taxes are the life-blood of government, and their prompt and certain availability an imperious need. Time out of mind, therefore, the sovereign has resorted to more drastic means of collection. The assessment is given the force of a judgment, and if the amount assessed is not paid when due, administrative officials may seize the debtor’s property to satisfy the debt.” Bull v. United States, 295 U. S. 247, 259-260 (1935).
Thus, in operation and effect the Board’s orders to withhold are identical to the judgment of a court. They give rise to a binding legal obligation to pay the assessed amounts; the taxpayer may no more dispute this liability than the liability under any other judgment. Neither the Postal Service nor its employees would obtain any additional protections from a requirement that such orders be issued by a court, since the liability cannot be contested until after the tax has been paid and a refund action brought. At the same time, construing the statute to require the issuance of judicial process before the Postal Service need honor an order to withhold would create unwarranted disruption of the State’s machinery for collection of delinquent taxes, while simultaneously depriving the orders of “some of their efficacy” — a result inconsistent with Burr.
There is thus no reason to believe that Congress intended to impose a meaningless procedural requirement that an order to withhold be issued by a court. To distinguish between administrative and judicial process would be to take an approach to sovereign immunity that this Court rejected more than 40 years ago — “to impute to Congess a desire for incoherence in a body of affiliated enactments and for drastic legal differentiation where policy justifies none.” Keifer & Keifer, 306 U. S., at 394. In cases of this kind, we believe Congress intended the Postal Service to be treated similarly to other self-sustaining commercial ventures. Accordingly, we hold that when administrative process of the type employed by the Board issues against the Postal Service, it has been “sued” within the meaning of § 401(1), and must respond to that process.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The statute provides in pertinent part:
“The Franchise Tax Board may by notice, served personally or by first-class mail, require any employer . . . having in [its] possession, or under [its] control, any credits or other personal property or other things of value, belonging to a taxpayer ... to withhold, from such credits or other personal property or other things of value, the amount of any tax, interest, or penalties due from the taxpayer . . . and to transmit the amount withheld to the Franchise Tax Board at such times as it may designate. . . .” Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. § 18817 (West 1983).
See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. § 18818 (West 1983) (“Any employer or person failing to withhold the amount due from any taxpayer and to transmit the same to the Franchise Tax Board after service of a notice pursuant to Section 18817 is liable for such amounts”).
Section 1339 vests in district courts jurisdiction over any action arising under an Act of Congress relating to the Postal Service. Section 409(a) provides:
“Except as provided in section 3628 of this title, the United States district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction over all actions brought by or against the Postal Service. Any action brought in a State court to which the Postal Service is a party may be removed to the appropriate United States district court. . . .”
In the alternative, the District Court held that the state statute obligating employers to honor orders to withhold did not apply to the Postal Service.
However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court’s construction of the state statute, concluding that it did authorize issuance of the orders to withhold to the Postal Service.
Judge Sehroeder dissented, arguing that § 401(1) constituted a waiver of the Postal Service’s immunity from process, including the type of process embodied in the orders to withhold.
While the Court of Appeals did not say in so many words that §§ 18817 and 18818 could not constitutionally be applied to the Postal Service, it did expressly hold that the state statute required the Postal Service to honor the orders to withhold. Therefore, a necessary predicate to the Court of Appeals’ holding is that enforcement of the state statute would be inconsistent with federal law and hence invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. See California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U. S. 393, 405-407 (1982); United States v. Clark, 445 U. S. 23, 26, n. 2 (1980). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2). See City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., 355 U. S. 489 (1958).
As the text of §5517 makes clear, it simply authorizes withholding agreements that otherwise the United States might be without statutory authority to enter, and limits the waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to these agreements. It does not concern the scope of the Postal Service’s amenability to process under 39 U. S. C. § 401(1):
“(a) When a State statute—
“(1) provides for the collection of a tax either by imposing on employers generally the duty of withholding sums from the pay of employees and making returns of the sums to the State, or by granting to employers generally the authority to withhold sums from the pay of employees if any employee voluntarily elects to have such sums withheld; and
“(2) imposes the duty or grants the authority to withhold generally with respect to the pay of employees who are residents of the State;
the Secretary of the Treasury, under regulations prescribed by the President, shall enter into an agreement with the State within 120 days of a request for agreement from the proper State official. The agreement shall provide that the head of each agency of the United States shall comply with the requirements of the State withholding statute in the case of employees of the agency who are subject to the tax and whose regular place of Federal employment is within the State with which the agreement is made. . . .
“(b) This section does not give the consent of the United States to the application of a statute which imposes more burdensome requirements on the United States than on other employers, or which subjects the United States or its employees to a penalty or liability because of this section. An agency of the United States may not accept pay from a State for services performed in withholding State income taxes from the pay of the employees of the agency.”
See Brief for Appellee 13-15. In fact, the Postal Service’s regulations provide for withholding of employees’ wages when garnished by court order, United States Postal Service, Financial Management Manual § 431.1(g) (1978); see 39 CFR § 211.2(a)(2) (1983).
Accord, Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J. G. Menihan Corp., 312 U. S. 81, 84-85 (1941); United States v. Shaw, 309 U. S. 495, 501 (1940). See also Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, 359 U. S. 275, 280-281 (1959); Brady v. Roosevelt S.S. Co., 317 U. S. 575, 580 (1943). See generally National City Bank of New York v. Republic of China, 348 U. S. 356, 359 (1955) (“[E]ven the immunity enjoyed by the United States as territorial sovereign is a legal doctrine which has not been favored by the test of time. It has increasingly been found to be in conflict with the growing subjection of governmental action to the moral judgment”). Justice Frankfurter, writing for a unanimous Court in the Term prior to Burr, foreshadowed Burr’s approach to waivers of sovereign immunity:
“Congress has provided for not less than forty of such corporations discharging governmental functions, and without exception the authority to sue-and-be-sued was included. Such a firm practice is partly an indication of the present climate of opinion which has brought governmental immunity from suit into disfavor, partly it reveals a definite attitude on the part of Congress which should be given hospitable scope.” Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381, 390-391 (1939) (footnotes omitted).
Chapter 171 of Title 28 governs procedure under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§2671-2680.
The nearly universal conclusion of the lower federal courts has been that the Postal Reorganization Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Insurance Co. of North America v. United, States Postal Service, 675 F. 2d 756, 758 (CA5 1982); Portmann v. United States, 674 F. 2d 1155, 1168 (CA7 1982); Associates Financial Services of America, Inc. v. Robinson, 582 F. 2d 1 (CA5 1978) (per curiam); Beneficial Finance Co. of New York, Inc. v. Dallas, 571 F. 2d 125 (CA2 1978); General Electric Credit Corp. v. Smith, 565 F. 2d 291 (CA4 1977) (per curiam); Goodman’s Furniture Co. v. United States Postal Service, 561 F. 2d 462 (CA3 1977); May Department Stores Co. v. Williamson, 549 F. 2d 1147 (CA8 1977); Standard Oil Division v. Starks, 528 F. 2d 201 (CA7 1975) (per curiam); Kennedy Electric Co. v. United States Postal Service, 508 F. 2d 954, 957 (CA10 1974); Butz Engineering Corp. v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 561, 566-567, 499 F. 2d 619, 621-622 (1974); Milner v. Bolger, 546 F. Supp. 375 (ED Cal. 1982); Lutz v. United States Postal Service, 538 F. Supp. 1129, 1132 (EDNY 1982); Lincoln National Bank & Trust Co. v. Marotta, 442 F. Supp. 49 (NDNY 1977); Bank of Virginia v. Tompkins, 434 F. Supp. 787 (ED Va. 1977); United Virginia Bank/National v. Eaves, 416 F. Supp. 518 (ED Va. 1976); Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 1393 (SD Iowa 1976); Colonial Bank v. Broussard, 403 F. Supp. 686 (ED La. 1975). But see Nolan v. Woodruff, 68 F. R. D. 660 (DC 1975); Drs. Macht, Podare & Associates, Inc. v. Girton, 392 F. Supp. 66 (SD Ohio 1975); Lawhorn v. Lawhorn, 351 F. Supp. 1399 (SD W. Va. 1972); Detroit Window Cleaners Local 139 Insurance Fund v. Griffin, 345 F. Supp. 1343 (ED Mich. 1972).
See H. R. Rep. No. 91-1104, pp. 5,11-12 (1970); 116 Cong. Rec. 19846 (1970) (remarks of Rep. Corbett); id., at 20226 (remarks of Rep. Udall). Perhaps the clearest practical expression of this intent was Congress’ decision to create a new postal rate structure designed to make the Postal Service self-supporting. See 39 U. S. C. § 3621; H. R. Rep. No. 91-1104, pp. 16-17 (1970). See also National Assn, of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service, 462 U. S. 810, 813-814 (1983).
In Burr, the Court rejected the argument that the burden of responding to garnishment actions would interfere with its ability to perform its functions. See 309 U. S., at 249. Moreover, the burden upon the Postal Service of responding to the Board’s orders to withhold is no greater than the burden it would face if it had to comply with a similar order issued by a state court, which the Postal Service concedes would not be barred by sovereign immunity. It should be noted that the Postal Service cannot be held liable for honoring the orders to withhold, see Cal. Tax. & Rev. Code Ann. § 18819 (West 1983).
Accord, Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. J. G. Menihan Corp., 312 U. S., at 84. See also Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U. S. 229 (1935) (in order to interpret waiver of sovereign in a practical manner, sue-and-be-sued clause construed to extend to permit prejudgment attachment). In Keifer & Keifer, the Court wrote:
“Therefore, the government does not become the conduit of its immunity in suits against its agents or instrumentalities merely because they do its work. For more than a hundred years corporations have been used as agencies for doing work of government. Congress may create them ‘as appropriate means of executing the powers of government, as, for instance, ... a railroad corporation for the purpose of promoting commerce among the States.’ But this would not confer on such corporations legal immunity even if the conventional to-sue-and-be-sued clause were omitted. In the context of modern thought and practice regarding the use of corporate facilities, such a clause is not a ritualistic formula which alone can engender liability like unto indispensable words of early common law, such as ‘warrantizio’ or ‘to A and his heirs,’ for which there were no substitutes and without which desired legal consequences could not be wrought.
“Congress may, of course, endow a governmental corporation with the government’s immunity. But always the question is: has it done so? This is our present problem. Has Congress endowed Regional with immunity in the circumstances which enveloped its creation? It is not a textual problem; for Congress has not expressed its will in words. Congress may not even have had any consciousness of intention. The Congressional will must be divined, and by a process of interpretation which, in effect, is the ascertainment of policy immanent not merely in the single statute from which flow the rights and responsibilities of Regional, but in a series of statutes utilizing corporations for governmental purposes and drawing significance from dominant contemporaneous opinion regarding the immunity of government agencies from suit.” 306 U. S., at 388-389 (citations omitted) (quoting Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U. S. 525, 529 (1894)).
California law requires that a taxpayer receive notice and opportunity for hearing prior to the assessment of a deficiency, both before the Board and then before the State Board of Equalization through an administrative appeal. See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. §§ 18581-18602 (West 1983). No question is raised as to the constitutional sufficiency of the notice and opportunity for hearing that the four Postal Service employees received. See generally Commissioner v. Shapiro, 424 U. S. 614, 629-632, and m 12 (1976).
Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Ann. § 18819 (West 1983) (“Any employer or person required to withhold and transmit any amount pursuant to this article shall comply with the requirement without resort to any legal or equita ble action in a court of law or equity”); see Kanarek v. Davidson, 85 Cal. App. 3d 341, 346, 148 Cal. Rptr. 86, 89 (1978). California courts will not entertain a suit contesting the assessment of a tax until after the taxpayer has exhausted his administrative refund remedy. See Aronoff v. Franchise Tax Board, 60 Cal. 2d 177, 180-181, 383 P. 2d 409, 411 (1963). Moreover, California law prohibits the issuance of an injunction restraining the assessment or collection of any tax, Cal. Const., Art. XIII, § 32; Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 19081 (West 1983); see California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U. S., at 400-401, n. 10, 415.
See G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 352, n. 18 (1977); Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U. S. 660, 669 (1890); Hager v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U. S. 701, 710 (1884). See also Randall v. Franchise Tax Board, 453 F. 2d 381 (CA9 1971); Greene v. Franchise Tax Board, 27 Cal. App. 3d 38, 44, 103 Cal. Rptr. 483, 486-487 (1972).
The Postal Service argues that there is a significant disftinction between administrative and judicial garnishment because it can remove the latter proceeding, unlike the former, to federal court under 39 U. S. C. § 409(a). However, as an initial matter it is far from clear that the Postal Service may remove a garnishment action when it is merely a stakeholder and the real party in interest is the employee. See Jones Store Co. v. Hammons, 424 F. Supp. 494 (WD Mo. 1977); Armstrong Cover Co. v. Whitfield, 418 F. Supp. 972 (ND Ga. 1976). See also Murray v. Murray, 621 F. 2d 103 (CA5 1980). Even assuming that such a case is removable, the facts of this case demonstrate the fallacy in the Postal Service’s argument. If the Service feels it has a meritorious defense to the order to withhold, though it is hard to see how it could, see supra, at 522-523, it remains free to refuse to honor the order to withhold and force the Board to file suit against it, as it did here, or else it can initiate its own lawsuit against the Board under § 409(a).
See generally California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U. S., at 410-411; Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary, 454 U. S. 100 (1981); Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank, 450 U. S. 503, 522 (1981); Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 298 (1943).
In Keifer & Keifer, the Court held that a Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation, a Government corporation, was not protected by sovereign immunity even though its authorizing legislation contained no sue-and-be-sued clause; since its parent corporation and a wide variety of similarly situated entities did not have immunity, the Court concluded that Congress could not have intended a different result with respect to the regional corporation. See 306 U. S., at 392-394. See also Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U. S., at 235-236.
The Postal Service argues that Congress must have intended the Board to employ the “piggyback” provisions for collecting delinquent state tax liabilities found in 26 U. S. C. §§6361-6365, since they were passed to address this problem. However, nothing in that statute, which permits States to use the summary collection procedures of the Internal Revenue Service, limits the power of States to use any other available procedure. The Postal Service also argues that when Congress enacted 5 U. S. C. § 5520 in 1974, providing for the United States to enter withholding agreements for city and county income taxes, it must have assumed that the Service retained its sovereign immunity. Section 5520 is, however, no more relevant to this case than § 5517; both provide the Secretary of the Treasury with explicit authority to enter into withholding agreements which he might not otherwise be able to make; neither addresses the scope of the Service’s sovereign immunity. See n. 8, supra. Moreover, the Postal Service’s position that Congress intended use of only §§ 5517, 5520, and the piggyback provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to collect state taxes is inconsistent with the Service’s position that it has no immunity from a judicial garnishment order. In light of our disposition, we need not reach the Board’s contention that the Buck Act, 4 U. S. C. §§ 105-110, requires the Postal Service to honor the orders to withhold.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are called upon to decide whether, pursuant to § 3001(i) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)), as added, 98 Stat. 3252, 42 U. S. C. §6921(i), the ash generated by a resource recovery facility’s incineration of municipal solid waste is exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.
I
Since 1971, petitioner city of Chicago has owned and operated a municipal incinerator, the Northwest Waste-to-Energy Facility, that burns solid waste and recovers energy, leaving a residue of municipal waste combustion (MWC) ash. The facility burns approximately 350,000 tons of solid waste each year and produces energy that is both used within the facility and sold to other entities. The city has disposed of the combustion residue — 110,000 to 140,000 tons of MWC ash per year — at landfills that are not licensed to accept hazardous wastes.
In 1988, respondent Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a complaint against petitioners, the city of Chicago and its mayor, under the citizen suit provisions of RCRA, 42 U. S. C. § 6972, alleging that they were violating provisions of RCRA and of implementing regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Respondent alleged that the MWC ash generated by the facility was toxic enough to qualify as a “hazardous waste” under EPA’s regulations, 40 CFR pt. 261 (1993). It was uncontested that, with respect to the ash, petitioners had not adhered to any of the requirements of Subtitle C, the portion of RCRA addressing hazardous wastes. Petitioners contended that RCRA §3001(i), 42 U. S. C. §6921(i), excluded the MWC ash from those requirements. The District Court agreed with that contention, see Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Chicago, 727 F. Supp. 419, 424 (1989), and subsequently granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the “ash generated from the incinerators of municipal resource recovery facilities is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Chicago, 948 F. 2d 345, 352 (CA7 1991). The city petitioned for a writ of certiorari, and we invited the Solicitor General to present the views of the United States. Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 504 U. S. 906 (1992). On September 18, 1992, while that invitation was outstanding, the Administrator of EPA issued a memorandum to EPA Regional Administrators, directing them, in accordance with the agency’s view of §3001(i), to treat MWC ash as exempt from hazardous waste regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. Thereafter, we granted the city’s petition, vacated the decision, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of the memorandum. Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, 506 U. S. 982 (1992).
On remand, the Court of Appeals reinstated its previous opinion, holding that, because the statute’s plain language is dispositive, the EPA memorandum did not affect its analysis. 985 F. 2d 303, 304 (CA7 1993). Petitioners filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted. 509 U. S. 903 (1993).
II
RCRA is a comprehensive environmental statute that empowers EPA to regulate hazardous wastes from cradle to grave, in accordance with the rigorous safeguards and waste management procedures of Subtitle C, 42 U. S. C. §§6921-6934. (Nonhazardous wastes are regulated much more loosely under Subtitle D, 42 U. S. C. §§ 6941-6949.) Under the relevant provisions of Subtitle C, EPA has promulgated standards governing hazardous waste generators and transporters, see 42 U. S. C. §§ 6922 and 6923, and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF’s), see § 6924. Pursuant to § 6922, EPA has directed hazardous waste generators to comply with handling, recordkeeping, storage, and monitoring requirements, see 40 CFR pt. 262 (1993). TSDF’s, however, are subject to much more stringent regulation than either generators or transporters, including a 4- to 5-year permitting process, see 42 U. S. C. §6925; 40 CFR pt. 270 (1993); U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, The Nation’s Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads, The RCRA Implementation Study 49-50 (July 1990), burdensome financial assurance requirements, stringent design and location standards, and, perhaps most onerous of all, responsibility to take corrective action for releases of hazardous substances and to ensure safe closure of each facility, see 42 U. S. C. § 6924; 40 CFR pt. 264 (1993). “[The] corrective action requirement is one of the major reasons that generators and transporters work diligently to manage their wastes so as to avoid the need to obtain interim status or a TSD permit.” 3 Environmental Law Practice Guide § 29.06[3][d] (M. Gerrard ed. 1993) (hereinafter Practice Guide).
RCRA does not identify which wastes are hazardous and therefore subject to Subtitle C regulation; it leaves that designation to EPA. 42 U. S. C. § 6921(a). When EPA’s hazardous waste designations for solid wastes appeared in 1980, see 45 Fed. Reg. 33084, they contained certain exceptions from normal coverage, including an exclusion for “household waste,” defined as “any waste material . . . derived from households (including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels),” id., at 33120, codified as amended at 40 CFR § 261.4(b)(1) (1993). Although most household waste is harmless, a small portion — such as cleaning fluids and batteries — would have qualified as hazardous waste. The regulation declared, however, that “[h]ousehold waste, including household waste that has been collected, transported, stored, treated, disposed, recovered (e. g., refuse-derived fuel) or reused” is not hazardous waste. Ibid. Moreover, the preamble to the 1980 regulations stated that “residues remaining after treatment (e. g. incineration, thermal treatment) [of household waste] are not subject to regulation as a hazardous waste.” 45 Fed. Reg. 33099. By reason of these provisions, an incinerator that burned only household waste would not be considered a Subtitle C TSDF, since it processed only nonhazardous (i. e., household) waste, and it would not be considered a Subtitle C generator of hazardous waste and would be free to dispose of its ash in a Subtitle D landfill.
The 1980 regulations thus provided what is known as a “waste stream” exemption for household waste, ibid., i. e., an exemption covering that category of waste from generation through treatment to final disposal of residues. The regulation did not, however, exempt MWC ash from Subtitle C coverage if the incinerator that produced the ash burned anything in addition to household waste, such as what petitioners’ facility burns: nonhazardous industrial waste. Thus, a facility like petitioners’ would qualify as a Subtitle C hazardous waste generator if the MWC ash it produced was sufficiently toxic, see 40 CFR §§ 261.3, 261.24 (1993) — though it would still not qualify as a Subtitle C TSDF, since all the waste it took in would be characterized as nonhazardous. (An ash can be hazardous, even though the product from which it is generated is not, because in the new medium the contaminants are more concentrated and more readily leachable, see 40 CFR §§261.3, 261.24, and pt. 261, App. II (1993).)
Four years after these regulations were issued, Congress enacted the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Pub. L. 98-616, 98 Stat. 3221, which added to RCRA the “Clarification of Household Waste Exclusion” as § 3001(i), § 223, 98 Stat. 3252. The essence of our task in this case is to determine whether, under that provision, the MWC ash generated by petitioners’ facility — a facility that would have been considered a Subtitle C generator under the 1980 regulations — is subject to regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C. We conclude that it is.
Section 3001(i), 42 U. S. C. § 6921(i), entitled “Clarification of household waste exclusion,” provides:
“A resource recovery facility recovering energy from the mass burning of municipal solid waste shall not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing of, or otherwise managing hazardous wastes for the purposes of regulation under this subchapter, if—
“(1) such facility—
“(A) receives and burns only—
“(i) household waste (from single and multiple dwellings, hotels, motels, and other residential sources), and
“(ii) solid waste from commercial or industrial sources that does not contain hazardous waste identified or listed under this section, and
“(B) does not accept hazardous wastes identified or listed under this section, and
“(2) the owner or operator of such facility has established contractual requirements or other appropriate notification or inspection procedures to assure that hazardous wastes are not received at or burned in such facility.”
The plain meaning of this language is that so long as a facility recovers energy by incineration of the appropriate wastes, it (the facility) is not subject to Subtitle C regulation as a facility that treats, stores, disposes of, or manages hazardous waste. The provision quite clearly does not contain any exclusion for the ash itself Indeed, the waste the facility produces (as opposed to that which it receives) is not even mentioned. There is thus no express support for petitioners’ claim óf a waste-stream exemption.
Petitioners contend, however, that the practical effect of the statutory language is to exempt the ash by virtue of exempting the facility. If, they argue, the facility is not deemed to be treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste, then the ash that it treats, stores, or disposes of must itself be considered nonhazardous. There are several problems with this argument. First, as we have explained, the only exemption provided by the terms of the statute is for the facility. It is the facility, not the ash, that “shall not be deemed” to be subject to regulation under Subtitle C. Unlike the preamble to the 1980 regulations, which had.been in existence for four years by the time §3001(i) was enacted, §3001(i) does not explicitly exempt MWC ash generated by a resource recovery facility from regulation as a hazardous waste. In light of that difference, and given the statute’s express declaration of national policy that “[w]aste that is ... generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment,” 42 U. S. C. § 6902(b), we cannot interpret the statute to permit MWC ash sufficiently toxic to qualify as hazardous to be disposed of in ordinary landfills.
Moreover, as the Court of Appeals observed, the statutory language does not even exempt the facility in its capacity as a generator of hazardous waste. RCRA defines “generation” as “the act or process of producing hazardous waste.” 42 U. S. C. § 6903(6). There can be no question that the creation of ash by incinerating municipal waste constitutes “generation” of hazardous waste (assuming, of course, that the ash qualifies as hazardous under 42 U. S. G. § 6921 and its implementing regulations, 40 CFR pt. 261 (1993)). Yet although §3001(i) states that the exempted facility “shall not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing of, or otherwise managing hazardous wastes,” it significantly omits from the catalog the word “generating.” Petitioners say that because the activities listed as exempt encompass the full scope of the facility’s operation, the failure to mention the activity of generating is insignificant. But the statute itself refutes this. Each of the three specific terms used in §3001(i)— “treating,” “storing,” and “disposing of” — is separately defined by RCRA, and none covers the production of hazardous waste. The fourth and less specific term (“otherwise managing”) is also defined, to mean “collection, source separation, storage, transportation, processing, treatment, recovery, and disposal,” 42 U. S. C. §6903(7) — -just about every hazardous waste-related activity except generation. We think it follows from the carefully constructed text of §3001(i) that while a resource recovery facility’s management activities are excluded from Subtitle C regulation, its generation of toxic ash is not.
Petitioners appeal to the legislative history of §3001(i), which includes, in the Senate Committee Report, the statement that “[a]ll waste management activities of such a facility, including the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of waste shall be covered by the exclusion.” S. Rep. No. 98-284, p. 61 (1983) (emphasis added). But it is the statute, and not the Committee Report, which is the authoritative expression of the law, and the statute prominently omits reference to generation. As the Court of Appeals cogently put it: “Why should we, then, rely upon a single word in a committee report that did not result in legislation? Simply put, we shouldn’t.” 948 F. 2d, at 351. Petitioners point out that the activity by which they “treat” municipal waste is the very same activity by which they “generate” MWC ash, to wit, incineration. But there is nothing extraordinary about an activity’s being exempt for some purposes and nonexempt for others. The incineration here is exempt from TSDF regulation, but subject to regulation as hazardous waste generation. (As we have noted, see supra, at 331-332, the latter is much less onerous.)
Our interpretation is confirmed by comparing §3001(i) with another statutory exemption in RCRA. In the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-499, § 124(b), 100 Stat. 1689, Congress amended 42 U. S. C. § 6921 to provide that an “owner and operator of equipment used to recover methane from a landfill shall not be deemed to be managing, generating, transporting, treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous or liquid wastes within the meaning of” Subtitle C. This provision, in contrast to §3001(i), provides a complete exemption by including the term “generating” in its list of covered activities. “[I]t is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely” when it “includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another,” Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U. S. 200, 208 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with respondents that this provision “shows that Congress knew how to draft a waste stream exemption in RCRA when it wanted to.” Brief for Respondents 18.
Petitioners contend that our interpretation of §3001(i) turns the provision into an “empty gesture,” Brief for Petitioners 23, since even under the pre-existing regime an incinerator burning household waste and nonhazardous industrial waste was exempt from the Subtitle C TSDF provisions. If §3001(i) did not extend the waste-stream exemption to the product of such a combined household/ nonhazardous-industrial treatment facility, petitioners argue, it did nothing at all. But it is not nothing to codify a household waste exemption that had previously been subject to agency revision; nor is it nothing (though petitioners may value it as less than nothing) to restrict the exemption that the agency previously provided — which is what the provision here achieved, by withholding all waste-stream exemption for waste processed by resource recovery facilities, even for the waste stream passing through an exclusively household waste facility.
We also do not agree with petitioners’ contention that our construction renders §3001(i) ineffective for its intended purpose of promoting household/nonhazardous-industrial resource recovery facilities, see 42 U. S. C. §§ 6902(a)(1), (10), (11), by subjecting them “to the potentially enormous expense of managing ash residue as a hazardous waste.” Brief for Petitioners 20. It is simply not true that a facility which is (as our interpretation says these facilities are) a hazardous waste “generator” is also deemed to be “managing” hazardous waste under RCRA. Section 3001(i) clearly exempts these facilities from Subtitle C TSDF regulations, thus enabling them to avoid the “full brunt of EPA’s enforcement efforts under RCRA.” Practice Guide §29.05[1].
* * *
RCRA’s twin goals of encouraging resource recovery and protecting against contamination sometimes conflict. It is not unusual for legislation to contain diverse purposes that must be reconciled, and the most reliable guide for that task is the enacted text. Here that requires us to reject the Solicitor General’s plea for deference to the EPA’s interpretation, cf. Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843-844 (1984), which goes beyond the scope of whatever ambiguity §3001(i) contains. See John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 510 U. S. 86,109 (1993). Section 3001(i) simply cannot be read to contain the cost-saving waste-stream exemption petitioners seek.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is
Affirmed.
The dissent is able to describe the provision as exempting the ash itself only by resorting to what might be called imaginative use of ellipsis: “even though the material being treated and disposed of contains hazardous components before, diming, and after its treatment[,] that material ‘shall not be deemed to be . . . hazardous.’” Post, at 346. In the full text, quoted above, the subject of the phrase “shall not be deemed . . . hazardous” is not the material, but the resource recovery facility, and the complete phrase, including (italicized) the ellipsis, reads “shall not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing of, or otherwise managing hazardous wastes.” Deeming a facility not to be engaged in these activities with respect to hazardous wastes is of course quite different from deeming the output of that facility not to be hazardous.
“Treatment” means “any method, technique, or process, including neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste or so as to render such waste nonhazardous, safer for transport, amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. Such term includes any activity or processing designed to change the physical form or chemical composition of hazardous waste so as to render it nonhazardous.” 42 U. S. C. §6903(34).
“Storage” means “the containment of hazardous waste, either on a temporary basis or for a period of years, in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste.” §6903(33).
“Disposal” means “the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters.” §6903(3).
Nothing in the dissent’s somewhat lengthier discourse on §3001(i)’s legislative history, see post, at 343-345, convinces us that the statute’s omission of the term “generation” is a scrivener’s error.
We express no opinion as to the validity of EPA’s household waste regulation as applied to resource recovery facilities before the effective date of §3001(i). Furthermore, since the statute in question addresses only resource recovery facilities, not household waste in general, we are unable to reach any conclusions concerning the validity of EPA’s regulatory scheme for household wastes not processed by resource recovery facilities.
In view of our construction of § 3001(i), we need not consider whether an agency interpretation expressed in a memorandum like the Administrator’s in this case is entitled to any less deference under Chevron than an interpretation adopted by rule published in the Federal Register, or by adjudication.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether federal or state law controls the ownership of land, called accretion, gradually deposited by the ocean on adjoining upland property conveyed by the United States prior to statehood. The circumstances that give rise to the question are these. Prior to 1889 all land in what is now the State of Washington was owned by the United States, except land that had been conveyed to private parties. At that time owners of property bordering the ocean, such as the predecessor in title of Mrs. Stella Hughes, the petitioner here, had under the common law a right to include within their lands any accretion gradually built up by the ocean. Washington became a State in 1889, and Article 17 of the State’s new constitution, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, denied the owners of ocean-front property in the State any further rights in accretion that might in the future be formed between their property and the ocean. This is a suit brought by Mrs. Hughes, the successor in title to the original federal grantee, against the State of Washington as owner of the tidelands to determine whether the right to future accretions which existed under federal law in 1889 was abolished by that provision of the Washington Constitution. The trial court upheld Mrs. Hughes’ contention that the right to accretions remained subject to federal law, and that she was the owner of the accreted lands. The State Supreme Court reversed, holding that state law controlled and that the State owned these lands. 67 Wash. 2d 799, 410 P. 2d 20 (1966). We granted certiorari. 385 U. S. 1000 (1967). We hold that this question is governed by federal, not state, law and that under federal law Mrs. Hughes, who traces her title to a federal grant prior to statehood, is the owner of these accretions.
While the issue appears never to have been squarely presented to this Court before, we think the path to decision is indicated by our holding in Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U. S. 10 (1935). In that case we dealt with the rights of a California property owner who held under a federal patent, and in that instance, unlike the present case, the patent was issued after statehood. We held that
“[t]he question as to the extent of this federal grant, that is, as to the limit of the land conveyed, or the boundary between the upland and the tideland, is necessarily a federal question. It is a question which concerns the validity and effect of an act done by the United States; it involves the ascertainment of the essential basis of a right asserted under federal law.” 296 U. S., at 22.
No subsequent case in this Court has cast doubt on the principle announced in Borax. See also United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1, 27-28 (1935). The State argues, and the court below held, however, that the Borax case should not be applied here because that case involved no question as to accretions. While this is true, the case did involve the question as to what rights were conveyed by the federal grant and decided that the extent of ownership under the federal grant is governed by federal law. This is as true whether doubt as to any boundary is based on a broad question as to the general definition of the shoreline or on a particularized problem relating to the ownership of accretion. See United States v. Washington, 294 F. 2d 830, 832 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U. S. 817 (1962). We therefore find no significant difference between Borax and the present case.
Recognizing the difficulty of distinguishing Borax, respondent urges us to reconsider it. Borax itself, as well as United States v. Oregon, supra, and many other cases, makes clear that a dispute over title to lands owned by the Federal Government is governed by federal law, although of course the Federal Government may, if it desires, choose to select a state rule as the federal rule. Borax holds that there has been no such choice in this area, and we have no difficulty in concluding that Borax was correctly decided. The rule deals with waters that lap both the lands of the State and the boundaries of the international sea. This relationship, at this particular point of the marginal sea, is too close to the vital interest of the Nation in its own boundaries to allow it to be governed by any law but the “supreme Law of the Land.”
This brings us to the question of what the federal rule is. The State has not attempted to argue that federal law gives it title to these accretions, and it seems clear to us that it could not. A long and unbroken line of decisions of this Court establishes that the grantee of land bounded by a body of navigable water acquires a right to any natural and gradual accretion formed along the shore. In Jones v. Johnston, 18 How. 150 (1856), a dispute between two parties owning land along Lake Michigan over the ownership of soil that had gradually been deposited along the shore, this Court held that “[l]and gained from the sea either by alluvion or dereliction, if the same be by little and little, by small and imperceptible degrees, belongs to the owner of the land adjoining.” 18 How., at 156. The Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this rule, County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46 (1874); Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co., 134 U. S. 178 (1890), and the soundness of the principle is scarcely open to question. Any other rule would leave riparian owners continually in danger of losing the access to water which is often the most valuable feature of their property, and continually vulnerable to harassing litigation challenging the location of the original water lines. While it is true that these riparian rights are to some extent insecure in any event, since they are subject to considerable control by the neighboring owner of the tideland, this is insufficient reason to leave these valuable rights at the mercy of natural phenomena which may in no way affect the interests of the tideland owner. See Stevens v. Arnold, 262 U. S. 266, 269-270 (1923). We therefore hold that petitioner is entitled to the accretion that has been gradually formed along her property by the ocean.
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Washington for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Jones v. Johnston, 18 How. 150 (1856); County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. 46 (1874).
In Ker & Co. v. Couden, 223 U. S. 268 (1912), Mr. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, held that under the governing Spanish law, lands added to the shore by accretion in the Philippines belonged to the public domain rather than to the adjacent estate.
It has been held that a State -may, without paying compensation, deprive a riparian owner of his common-law right to utilize the flowing water, St. Anthony Falk Water Power Co. v. Water Comm’rs, 168 U. S. 349 (1897), or to build a wharf over the water, Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1894). It has also been held that the State may fill its tidelands and thus block the riparian owner’s natural access to the water. Port of Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 255 U. S. 56 (1921).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires the Court to decide whether a convicted criminal's period of supervised release is tolled-in effect, paused-during his pretrial detention for a new criminal offense. Specifically, the question is whether that pretrial detention qualifies as "imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime." 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). Given the text and statutory context of § 3624(e), we conclude that if the court's later imposed sentence credits the period of pretrial detention as time served for the new offense, then the pretrial detention also tolls the supervised-release period.
I
A
In 2004, petitioner Jason Mont began distributing cocaine and crack cocaine in northern Ohio. After substantial drug sales to a confidential informant and a search of his home that uncovered handguns and $ 2,700 in cash, a federal grand jury indicted Mont for multiple drug and firearm offenses. He later pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and to possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000 ed.) ; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000 ed.).
The District Court sentenced Mont to 120 months' imprisonment, later reduced to 84 months, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. Mont was released from federal prison on March 6, 2012, and his supervised release was "slated to end on March 6, 2017." 723 Fed. Appx. 325, 326 (CA6 2018) ; see 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (a "term of supervised release commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment"). Among other standard conditions, Mont's supervised release required that he "not commit another federal, state, or local crime," "not illegally possess a controlled substance," and "refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance." Judgment in No. 4:05-cr-00229 (ND Ohio), Doc. 37, p. 111.
Mont did not succeed on supervised release. In March 2015, an Ohio grand jury charged him with two counts of marijuana trafficking in a sealed indictment. Mont was arrested and released on bond while awaiting trial for those charges. Things only got worse from there. In October 2015, Mont tested positive for cocaine and oxycodone during a routine drug test conducted as part of his supervised release. But Mont's probation officer did not immediately report these violations to the District Court; instead, the officer referred him for additional substance-abuse counseling. Mont proceeded to test positive in five more random drug tests over the next few months. He also used an " 'unknown' liquid to try to pass two subsequent drug tests." 723 Fed. Appx. at 326. In January 2016, Mont's probation officer finally reported the supervised-release violations, including Mont's use of drugs and attempts to adulterate his urine samples. The violation report also informed the District Court about the pending state charges and the anticipated trial date of March 2016 in state court. The District Court declined to issue an arrest warrant at that time, but it asked to " 'be notified of the resolution of the state charges.' " Ibid. ; see 18 U.S.C. § 3606 (explaining that the District Court "may issue a warrant for the arrest" of the releasee for "violation of a condition of release").
On June 1, 2016, approximately four years and three months into his 5-year term of supervised release, Mont was arrested again on new state charges of trafficking in cocaine, and his bond was revoked on the earlier marijuana-trafficking charges. He was incarcerated in the Mahoning County Jail and has remained in state custody since that date. Mont's probation officer filed a report with the District Court stating that he had violated the terms of his release based on these new state offenses. The officer later advised the court that because Mont's incarceration rendered him unavailable for supervision, the Probation Office was "toll[ing]" his federal supervision. App. 21. The officer promised to keep the court apprised of the pending state charges and stated that, if Mont were convicted, the officer would ask the court to take action at that time.
In October 2016, Mont entered into plea agreements with state prosecutors in exchange for a predetermined 6-year sentence. The state trial court accepted Mont's guilty pleas on October 6, 2016, and set the cases for sentencing in December 2016.
Three weeks later, Mont filed a written admission in the District Court "acknowledg[ing]" that he had violated his conditions of supervised release "by virtue of his conviction following guilty pleas to certain felony offenses" in state court. Record in No. 4:05-cr-00229 (ND Ohio), Doc. 92, p. 419. Even though he had yet to be sentenced for the state offenses, Mont sought a hearing on the supervised-release violations at the court's "earliest convenience." Ibid. The court initially scheduled a hearing for November 9, 2016, but then, over Mont's objection, rescheduled the hearing several times to allow for "the conclusion of the State sentencing." App. 8; 723 Fed. Appx. at 327.
On March 21, 2017, Mont was sentenced in state court to six years' imprisonment. The judge "credited the roughly ten months that Mont had already been incarcerated pending a disposition as time served." Id., at 327. The District Court issued a warrant on March 30, 2017, and ultimately set a supervised-release hearing for June 28, 2017.
B
Two days before that hearing, Mont challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court based on the fact that his supervised release had initially been set to expire on March 6, 2017. The court concluded that it had authority to supervise Mont, revoked his supervised release, and ordered him to serve an additional 42 months' imprisonment to run consecutive to his state sentence. The court held that it retained jurisdiction to revoke the release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i), which preserves, for a "reasonably necessary" period of time, the court's power to adjudicate violations and revoke a term of supervised release after the term has expired "if, before its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation." The court further held that it retained authority to revoke Mont's term of supervised release because it gave "notice by way of a summons" on November 1, 2016, when it originally scheduled the hearing. App. 22. The court also concluded that the delay between the guilty pleas in October 2016 and the hearing date in June 2017 was "reasonably necessary." Id., at 24.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed on alternative grounds. The court could find no evidence in the record that a summons had issued within the meaning of § 3583(i). 723 Fed. Appx. at 329, n. 5. But because Circuit precedent provided an alternative basis for affirmance, the court did not further consider the Government's argument that the District Court retained jurisdiction under § 3583(i). Instead, the court held that Mont's supervised-release period was tolled while he was held in pretrial detention in state custody under § 3624(e), which provides:
"(e) Supervision After Release.-... The term of supervised release commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment and runs concurrently with any Federal, State, or local term of probation or supervised release or parole for another offense to which the person is subject or becomes subject during the term of supervised release. A term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days." (Emphasis added.)
Relying on Circuit precedent, the Sixth Circuit explained that when a defendant is convicted of the offense for which he was held in pretrial detention for longer than 30 days and " 'his pretrial detention is credited as time served toward his sentence, then the pretrial detention is "in connection with" a conviction and tolls the period of supervised release under § 3624.' " Id., at 328 (quoting United States v. Goins, 516 F. 3d 416, 417 (CA6 2008) ). Because Mont's term of supervised release had been tolled between June 2016 and March 2017, there was ample time left on his supervised-release term when the warrant issued on March 30, 2017.
The Courts of Appeals disagree on whether § 3624(e) tolls supervised release for periods of pretrial detention lasting longer than 30 days when that incarceration is later credited as time served on a conviction. Compare United States v. Ide, 624 F. 3d 666, 667 (CA4 2010) (supervised-release period tolls); United States v. Molina-Gazca, 571 F. 3d 470, 474 (CA5 2009) (same); United States v. Johnson, 581 F. 3d 1310, 1312-1313 (CA11 2009) (same); Goins, supra, at 417 (same), with United States v. Marsh, 829 F. 3d 705, 709 (CADC 2016) (supervised-release period does not toll); United States v. Morales-Alejo, 193 F. 3d 1102, 1106 (CA9 1999) (same). We granted certiorari to resolve this split of authority. 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 451, 202 L.Ed.2d 346 (2018).
II
We hold that pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new conviction is "imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction" and thus tolls the supervised-release term under § 3624(e). This is so even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited. In our view, this reading is compelled by the text and statutory context of § 3624(e).
A
Section 3624(e) provides for tolling when a person "is imprisoned in connection with a conviction." This phrase, sensibly read, includes pretrial detention credited toward another sentence for a new conviction.
First, the definition of "is imprisoned" may well include pretrial detention. Both now and at the time Congress created supervised release, see § 212(a)(2), 98 Stat. 1999-2000, the term "imprison" has meant "[t]o put in a prison," "to incarcerate," "[t]o confine a person, or restrain his liberty, in any way." Black's Law Dictionary 681 (5th ed. 1979); 5 Oxford English Dictionary 113 (1933); accord, Black's Law Dictionary 875 (10th ed. 2014). These definitions encompass pretrial detention, and, despite the dissent's reliance on a narrower definition, post, at ---- - ---- (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), even Mont has not pressed any serious argument to the contrary. As the Sixth Circuit previously recognized, if imprisonment referred only to "confinement that is the result of a penalty or sentence, then the phrase 'in connection with a conviction' [would] becom[e] entirely superfluous." Goins, supra, at 421.
Second, the phrase "in connection with a conviction" encompasses a period of pretrial detention for which a defendant receives credit against the sentence ultimately imposed. The Court has often recognized that "in connection with" can bear a "broad interpretation." Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 85, 126 S.Ct. 1503, 164 L.Ed.2d 179 (2006) (interpreting "in connection with the purchase or sale" broadly in the context of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) ); see, e.g., United States v. American Union Transport, Inc., 327 U.S. 437, 443, 66 S.Ct. 644, 90 L.Ed. 772 (1946) (describing the phrase "in connection with" in the Shipping Act, 1916, 39 Stat. 728, as "broad and general"). The Court has also recognized that " 'in connection with' is essentially indeterminate because connections, like relations, stop nowhere." Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48, 59, 133 S.Ct. 2191, 186 L.Ed.2d 275 (2013) (quotation altered). Here, however, we need not consider the outer bounds of the term "in connection with," as pretrial incarceration is directly tied to the conviction when it is credited toward the new sentence. The judgment of the state court stated as much, crediting the pretrial detention that Mont served while awaiting trial and sentencing for his crimes against his ultimate sentence for those same crimes.
This reading of "imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction" is buttressed by the fact that Congress, like most States, instructs courts calculating a term of imprisonment to credit pretrial detention as time served on a subsequent conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(1) ; Tr. of Oral Arg. 54 (statement of the Assistant Solicitor General representing that the same rule applies in 45 States and the District of Columbia). Thus, it makes sense that the phrase "imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction" would include pretrial detention later credited as time served, especially since both provisions were passed as part of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. See § 212(a)(2), 98 Stat. 2008-2009. If Congress intended a narrower interpretation, it could have easily used narrower language, such as "after a conviction" or "following a conviction." See e.g., Bail Reform Act of 1984, § 209(d)(4), 98 Stat. 1987 (adding Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(h), allowing courts to direct forfeiture of property "after conviction of the offense charged" (emphasis added)). We cannot override Congress' choice to employ the more capacious phrase "in connection with."
Third, the text undeniably requires courts to retrospectively calculate whether a period of pretrial detention should toll a period of supervised release. Whereas § 3624(e) instructs courts precisely when the supervised-release clock begins-"on the day the person is released"-the statute does not require courts to make a tolling determination as soon as a defendant is arrested on new charges or to continually reassess the tolling calculation throughout the period of his pretrial detention. Congress contemplated the opposite by including a minimum-incarceration threshold: tolling occurs "unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days." § 3624(e). This calculation must be made after either release from custody or entry of judgment; there is no way for a court to know on day 5 of a defendant's pretrial detention whether the period of custody will extend beyond 30 days. Thus, at least some uncertainty as to whether supervised release is tolled is built into § 3624(e) by legislative design. This fact confirms that courts should make the tolling calculation upon the defendant's release from custody or upon entry of judgment.
B
The statutory context also supports our reading. Supervised release is "a form of postconfinement monitoring" that permits a defendant a kind of conditional liberty by allowing him to serve part of his sentence outside of prison. Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 697, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000). Recognizing that Congress provided for supervised release to facilitate a "transition to community life," we have declined to offset a term of supervised release by the amount of excess time a defendant spent in prison after two of his convictions were declared invalid. United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59-60, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000). As we explained: "The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release" because "[s]upervised release has no statutory function until confinement ends." Id., at 59, 120 S.Ct. 1114. This understanding of supervised release informs our reading of the tolling provision.
Consider § 3624(e) itself. The sentence preceding the one at issue here specifies that supervised release "runs concurrently" with "probation or supervised release or parole for another offense." § 3624(e) (emphasis added). But the next sentence (the one at issue here) excludes periods of "imprison[ment]" served "in connection with a conviction." The juxtaposition of these two sentences reinforces the fact that prison time is "not interchangeable" with supervised release. Id., at 59, 120 S.Ct. 1114. Permitting a period of probation or parole to count toward supervised release but excluding a period of incarceration furthers the statutory design of "successful[ly] transition[ing]" a defendant from "prison to liberty." Johnson, supra, at 708-709, 120 S.Ct. 1795. Allowing pretrial detention credited toward another sentence to toll the period of supervised release is consistent with that design. Cf. A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 167 (2012) (explaining that "the whole-text canon" requires consideration of "the entire text, in view of its structure" and "logical relation of its many parts").
Second, it would be an exceedingly odd construction of the statute to give a defendant the windfall of satisfying a new sentence of imprisonment and an old sentence of supervised release with the same period of pretrial detention. Supervised release is a form of punishment that Congress prescribes along with a term of imprisonment as part of the same sentence. See generally § 3583. And Congress denies defendants credit for time served if the detention time has already "been credited against another sentence." § 3585(b). Yet Mont's reading of § 3624(e) would deprive the Government of its lawfully imposed sentence of supervised release while the defendant is serving a separate sentence of incarceration-one often imposed by a different sovereign. Under our view, in contrast, time in pretrial detention constitutes supervised release only if the charges against the defendant are dismissed or the defendant is acquitted. This ensures that the defendant is not faulted for conduct he might not have committed, while otherwise giving full effect to the lawful judgment previously imposed on the defendant.
C
In response to these points, Mont follows the D.C. Circuit in arguing that the present tense of the statute (" 'is imprisoned' ") forbids any backward looking tolling analysis. See Marsh, 829 F. 3d at 709. Mont contends that, when a defendant is held in pretrial detention, a court cannot say at that moment that he "is imprisoned in connection with a conviction." He relies on the Dictionary Act, which provides that "[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise[,] words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present." 1 U.S.C. § 1.
Mont's argument confuses the rule ("any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction") with a court's analysis of whether that rule was satisfied. Of course, the determination whether supervised release has been tolled cannot be made at the exact moment when the defendant is held in pretrial detention. Rather, the court must await the outcome of those separate proceedings before it will know whether "imprison[ment]" is tied to a conviction. But the statute does not require the court to make a contemporaneous assessment. Quite the opposite: As discussed, the statute undeniably contemplates that there will be uncertainty about the status of supervised release when a defendant has been held for a short period of time and it is unclear whether the imprisonment will exceed 30 days. There is no reason the statute would preclude postponing calculation just because the custody period extends beyond 30 days. Once the court makes the calculation, it will determine whether the relevant period ultimately qualified as a period "in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction" for 30 or more days. In short, the present-tense phrasing of the statute does not address whether a judge must be able to make a supervised-release determination at any given time.
Moreover, any uncertainty about whether supervised release is tolled matters little from either the court's or the defendant's perspective. As for the court, the defendant need not be supervised when he is held in custody, so it does not strike us as "odd" to make a delayed determination concerning tolling. Marsh, supra, at 710. The court need not monitor the defendant's progress in transitioning back into the community because the defendant is not in the community. And if the court is concerned about losing authority over the defendant because of an impending conclusion to supervised release, it can simply issue a summons or warrant under § 3583(i) for alleged violations.
As for the defendant, there is nothing unfair about not knowing during pretrial detention whether he is also subject to court supervision. The answer to that question cannot meaningfully influence his behavior. A defendant in custody will be unable to comply with many ordinary conditions of supervised release intended to reacclimate him to society-for example, making restitution payments, attending substance-abuse counseling, meeting curfews, or participating in job training. The rules he can "comply" with are generally mandated by virtue of being in prison-for example, no new offenses or use of drugs. See §§ 3563(a)-(b) (listing mandatory and discretionary conditions). In this case, Mont's supervised-release conditions required that he "work regularly at a lawful occupation" and "support his... dependants and meet other family responsibilities." Judgment in No. 4:05-cr-00229 (ND Ohio), Doc. 37, at 111. Mont could not fulfill these conditions while sitting in an Ohio jail, and his probation officer correctly deemed him "unavailable for supervision." App. 21.
III
Applying § 3624(e) to Mont, the pretrial-detention period tolled his supervised release beginning in June 2016. Mont therefore had about nine months remaining on his term of supervised release when the District Court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to an additional 42 months' imprisonment. And because § 3624(e) independently tolled the supervised-release period, it is immaterial whether the District Court could have issued a summons or warrant under § 3583(i) to preserve its authority.
* * *
In light of the statutory text and context of § 3624(e), pretrial detention qualifies as "imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction" if a later imposed sentence credits that detention as time served for the new offense. Such pretrial detention tolls the supervised-release period, even though the District Court may need to make the tolling determination after the conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice BREYER, Justice KAGAN, and Justice GORSUCH join, dissenting.
A term of supervised release is tolled when an offender "is imprisoned in connection with a conviction." 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). The question before the Court is whether pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new offense has this tolling effect. The Court concludes that it does, but it reaches that result by adopting a backward-looking approach at odds with the statute's language and by reading the terms "imprisoned" and "in connection with" in unnatural isolation. Because I cannot agree that a person "is imprisoned in connection with a conviction" before any conviction has occurred, I respectfully dissent.
I
A
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 empowers a court to impose a term of supervised release following imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(a), (b).
The clock starts running on a supervised release term when the offender exits the jailhouse doors. § 3624(e). During the term, offenders are bound to follow court-imposed conditions. Some apply to all supervised release terms, such as a requirement to refrain from committing other crimes. § 3583(d). Others apply only at a sentencing court's discretion, such as a condition that the offender allow visits from a probation officer. See § 3563(b)(16); § 3583(d). The probation officer, in turn, is tasked with monitoring and seeking to improve the offender's "conduct and condition" and reporting to the sentencing court, among other duties. § 3603. During the supervised release term, the court has the power to change its conditions and to extend the term if less than the maximum term was previously imposed. § 3583(e)(2). If an offender violates any of the conditions of release, the court can revoke supervised release and require the person to serve all or part of the supervised release term in prison, without giving credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision. § 3583(e)(3).
In the normal course, a supervised release term ends after the term specified by the district court. But, crucially, the term "does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days." § 3624(e). In other words, certain periods of "imprisonment" postpone the expiration of the supervised release term.
A district court's revocation power generally lasts only as long as the supervised release term. If the court issues a warrant or summons for an alleged violation before the term expires, however, the court's revocation power can extend for a "reasonably necessary" period beyond the term's expiration. § 3583(i).
B
Though the mechanics of supervised release tolling may seem arcane, these calculations can have weighty consequences. For petitioner Jason Mont, tolling enabled a court to order an additional 3½ years of federal imprisonment after he serves his current state sentence.
Mont was convicted in 2005 for federal drug and gun crimes. The District Court sentenced him to prison time and to five years of supervised release. In 2012, Mont was released from prison and his supervised release term began. Left to run its course, the term would have ended on March 6, 2017.
Mont's time on supervised release did not go well. In January 2016, his probation officer informed the District Court that Mont had failed two drug tests and tried to pass two further drug tests by using an " 'unknown' " liquid. 723 Fed. Appx. 325, 326 (CA6 2018). The officer noted that Mont also had been charged with state marijuana-trafficking offenses. Upon learning of these alleged violations of the supervised release conditions, the District Court could have issued a warrant for Mont's arrest, but it did not do so at that time.
On June 1, 2016, Mont was arrested on a new state indictment for trafficking cocaine, and the State took him into custody. The probation officer reported the arrest to the District Court, but the record does not reflect any action by the court in response. After several months in custody, Mont pleaded guilty to certain of the state charges. He also admitted to the District Court that he had violated the terms of his supervised release, and he requested a hearing. The District Court set a November hearing to consider his alleged supervised release violation, but continuances delayed that hearing. Months more passed as Mont, still detained, awaited sentencing. In the meantime, the original end date of his federal supervised release term-March 6, 2017-came and went. On March 21, 2017, the state court sentenced Mont to six years in prison and retroactively credited the approximately 10 months he had spent in pretrial detention toward his sentence.
At that point, Mont's probation officer reported Mont's state convictions and sentences to the Federal District Court, which-after its many earlier opportunities-finally issued a warrant for Mont's arrest on March 30, 2017. Mont objected, claiming that the court had no power to issue the warrant because his supervised release term had expired on March 6. The District Court rejected that contention and sentenced Mont to 42 months in prison, to run consecutively to his state sentence.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. In its view, the District Court had jurisdiction to revoke Mont's supervised release because his pretrial detention triggered the tolling provision in § 3624(e) and thus shifted back the end date of his supervised release term. The Sixth Circuit construed the tolling provision to apply to Mont's detention because his state-court indictment ultimately led to a conviction and Mont subsequently received credit for the period of detention as time served for that conviction.
II
The majority errs by affirming the Sixth Circuit's construction of the tolling statute. Most naturally read, a person "is imprisoned in connection with a conviction" only while he or she serves a prison term after a conviction. The statute does not allow for tolling when an offender is in pretrial detention and a conviction is no more than a possibility.
The first clue to the meaning of § 3624(e) is its present-tense construction. In normal usage, no one would say that a person "is imprisoned in connection with a conviction" before any conviction has occurred, because the phrase would convey something that is not yet-and, indeed, may never be-true: that the detention has the requisite connection to a conviction. After all, many detained individuals are never convicted because they ultimately are acquitted or have their cases dismissed. Until a conviction happens, it is impossible to tell whether any given pretrial detention is "connect[ed] with" a conviction or not.
Reading the phrase "is imprisoned" to require a real-time assessment of the character of a conviction does not just match the colloquial sense of the phrase; it also gives meaning to the tense of the words Congress chose. The Court generally "look[s] to Congress' choice of verb tense to ascertain a statute's temporal reach." Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438, 448, 130 S.Ct. 2229, 176 L.Ed.2d 1152 (2010). Doing so abides by the Dictionary Act, which provides that "words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present" absent contextual clues to the contrary, 1 U.S.C. § 1, and thus "the present tense generally does not include the past," Carr, 560 U.S. at 448, 130 S.Ct. 2229. Applying this presumption here leads to the straightforward result that the phrase "is imprisoned" does not mean "was imprisoned." Adhering to the present-tense framework of the statute, then, pretrial detention does not meet the statutory definition, no matter what later happens.
The other language in § 3624(e) -"imprisoned in connection with a conviction"-confirms this result. Had Congress wanted to toll supervised release during pretrial confinement, it could have chosen an alternative to the word "imprisoned" that more readily conveys that intent, such as "confined" or "detained." See Black's Law Dictionary 362 (10th ed. 2014) (defining "confinement" as "the quality, state, or condition of being imprisoned or restrained"); id., at 543 (defining "detention" as "[t]he act or an instance of holding a person in custody; confinement or compulsory delay"). Instead, Congress selected a word-"imprisoned"-that is most naturally understood in context to mean postconviction incarceration.
Congress regularly uses the word "imprisoned" (or "imprisonment") to refer to a prison term following a conviction. The United States Code is littered with statutes providing that an individual shall be "imprisoned" following a conviction for a specific offense. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832, 2199, 2344. Congress also classifies crimes as felonies, misdemeanors, or infractions based on "the maximum term of imprisonment authorized." § 3559(a). And even in the Sentencing Reform Act itself, which added the tolling provision at issue, Congress used the word "imprisonment" to refer to incarceration after a conviction. See § 3582(a) (describing the factors courts consider when imposing "a term of imprisonment"); § 3582(b) (referring to "a sentence to imprisonment"); § 3582(c)(1)(B) (discussing when courts may "modify an imposed term of imprisonment").
This Court also has previously equated the word "imprisonment" with a "prison term" or a "sentence"-phrases that imply post-trial detention. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 327, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (referring in passing to "imprisonment" as a "prison term"); Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474, 484, 130 S.Ct. 2499, 177 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ("[T]erm of imprisonment" can refer "to the sentence that the judge imposes" or "the time that the prisoner actually serves" of such a sentence); see also Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 37, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972) ("[N]o person may be imprisoned for any offense... unless he was represented by counsel at his trial").
To be sure, dictionary definitions of the word "imprison" sweep more broadly than just post-trial incarceration. See ante, at ----. But the word "imprisoned" does not appear in this statute in isolation; Congress referred to imprisonment "in connection with a conviction." As part of that phrase and given its usual meaning, the word "imprisoned" is best read as referring to the state of an individual serving time following a conviction.
The present tense of the statute and the phrase "imprisoned in connection with a conviction" thus lead to the same conclusion: Pretrial detention does not toll supervised release.
III
The majority justifies a contrary interpretation of the tolling provision only by jettisoning the present-tense view of the statute and affording snippets of text broader meaning than they merit in context.
The majority's first error is its conclusion that courts can take a wait-and-see approach to tolling. If a conviction ultimately materializes and a court credits the offender's pretrial custody toward the resulting sentence, the majority reasons, then the pretrial detention retroactively will toll supervised release. If not, then there will be no tolling. See ante, at ---- - ----. The offender's supervised release status thus will be uncertain until the court calculates tolling either "upon the defendant's release from custody or upon entry of judgment." Ante, at ----.
The majority's retrospective approach cannot be squared with the language of § 3624(e). Because Congress phrased the provision in the present tense, the statute calls for a contemporaneous assessment of whether a person "is imprisoned" with the requisite connection to a conviction. The majority erroneously
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal issue in this case is whether a federal district court lawfully may enjoin a plaintiff who has prevailed in a trial in state court from executing the judgment in its favor pending appeal of that judgment to a state appellate court.
I
Getty Oil Co. and appellant Pennzoil Co. negotiated an agreement under which Pennzoil was to purchase about three-sevenths of Getty’s outstanding shares for $110 a share. Appellee Texaco Inc. eventually purchased the shares for $128 a share. On February 8, 1984, Pennzoil filed a complaint against Texaco in the Harris County District Court, a state court located in Houston, Texas, the site of Pennzoil’s corporate headquarters. The complaint alleged that Texaco tortiously had induced Getty to breach a contract to sell its shares to Pennzoil; Pennzoil sought actual damages of $7.53 billion and punitive damages in the same amount. On November 19, 1985, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Pennzoil, finding actual damages of $7.53 billion and punitive damages of $3 billion. The parties anticipated that the judgment, including prejudgment interest, would exceed $11 billion.
Although the parties disagree about the details, it was clear that the expected judgment would give Pennzoil significant rights under Texas law. By recording an abstract of a judgment in the real property records of any of the 254 counties in Texas, a judgment creditor can secure a lien on all of a judgment debtor’s real property located in that county. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§52.001-52.006 (1984). If a judgment creditor wishes to have the judgment enforced by state officials so that it can take possession of any of the debtor’s assets, it may secure a writ of execution from the clerk of the court that issued the judgment. See Tex. Rule Civ. Proc. 627. Rule 627 provides that such a writ usually can be obtained “after the expiration of thirty days from the time a final judgment is signed.” But the judgment debtor “may-suspend the execution of the judgment by filing a good and sufficient bond to be approved by the clerk.” Rule 364(a). See Rule 368. For a money judgment, “the amount of the bond . . . shall be at least the amount of the judgment, interest, and costs.” Rule 364(b).
Even before the trial court entered judgment, the jury’s verdict cast a serious cloud on Texaco’s financial situation. The amount of the bond required by Rule 364(b) would have been more than $13 billion. It is clear that Texaco would not have been able to post such a bond. Accordingly, “the business and financial community concluded that Pennzoil would be able, under the lien and bond provisions of Texas law, to commence enforcement of any judgment entered on the verdict before Texaco’s appeals had been resolved.” App. to Juris. Statement A87 (District Court’s Supplemental Finding of Fact 40, Jan. 10, 1986). The effects on Texaco were substantial: the price of its stock dropped markedly; it had difficulty obtaining credit; the rating of its bonds was lowered; and its trade creditors refused to sell it crude oil on customary terms. Id., at A90-A98 (District Court’s Supplemental Findings of Fact 49-70).
Texaco did not argue to the trial court that the judgment, or execution of the judgment, conflicted with federal law. Rather, on December 10, 1985 — before the Texas court entered judgment — Texaco filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in White Plains, New York, the site of Texaco’s corporate headquarters. Texaco alleged that the Texas proceedings violated rights secured to Texaco by the Constitution and various federal statutes. It asked the District Court to enjoin Pennzoil from taking any action to enforce the judgment. Pennzoil’s response, and basic position, was that the District Court could not hear the case. First, it argued that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2283, barred issuance of an injunction. It further contended that the court should abstain under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). Third, it argued that the suit was in effect an appeal from the Texas trial court and that the District Court had no jurisdiction under the principles of Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462 (1983).
The District Court rejected all of these arguments. 626 F. Supp. 250 (1986). It found the Anti-Injunction Act inapplicable because Texaco’s complaint rested on 42 U. S. C. § 1983. See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972) (holding that §1983 falls within the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act). It found Younger abstention unwarranted because it did not believe issuance of an injunction would “interfere with a state official’s pursuit of a fundamental state interest.” 626 F. Supp., at 260. As to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the court noted only that it was not “attempting to sit as a final or intermediate appellate state court as to the merits of the Texas action.. . . Our only intention is to assure Texaco its constitutional right to raise claims that we view as having a good chance of success.” Id., at 254 (citation and footnote omitted).
The District Court justified its decision to grant injunctive relief by evaluating the prospects of Texaco’s succeeding in its appeal in the Texas state courts. It considered the merits of the various challenges Texaco had made before the Texas Court of Appeals and concluded that these challenges “present generally fair grounds for litigation.” Ibid. It then evaluated the constitutionality of the Texas lien and bond requirements by applying the test articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976). It concluded that application of the lien and bond provisions effectively would deny Texaco a right to appeal. It thought that the private interests and the State’s interests favored protecting Texaco’s right to appeal. Relying on its view of the merits of the state-court appeal, the court found the risk of erroneous deprivation “quite severe.” 626 F. Supp., at 257. Finally, it viewed the administrative burden on the State as “slight.” Ibid. In light of these factors, the District Court concluded that Texaco’s constitutional claims had “a very clear probability of success.” Id., at 258. Accordingly, the court issued a preliminary injunction.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 784 F. 2d 1133 (1986). It first addressed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and rejected the portion of the District Court’s opinion that evaluated the merits of the state-court judgment. It held, however, that the doctrine did not completely bar the District Court’s jurisdiction. It concluded that the due process and equal protection claims, not presented by Texaco to the Texas courts, were within the District Court’s jurisdiction because they were not “‘inextricably intertwined’” with the state-court action. Id., at 1144 (quoting District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, supra, at 483, n. 16).
Next, the court considered whether Texaco had stated a claim under §1983. The question was whether Texaco’s complaint sought to redress action taken “under color of” state law, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The court noted that “Pennzoil would have to act jointly with state agents by calling on state officials to attach and seize Texaco’s assets.” 784 F. 2d, at 1145. Relying on its reading of Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922 (1982), the court concluded that the enjoined action would have been taken under color of state law, and thus that Texaco had stated a claim under § 1983. 784 F. 2d, at 1145-1147. Because § 1983 is an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, see Mitchum v. Foster, supra, the court also found that the Anti-Injunction Act did not prevent the District Court from granting the relief sought by Texaco.
Finally, the court held that abstention was unnecessary. First, it addressed Pullman abstention, see Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941). It rejected that ground of abstention, holding that “the mere possibility that the Texas courts would find Rule 364 [concerning the supersedeas bond requirements] unconstitutional as applied does not call for Pullman abstention.” 784 F. 2d, at 1149. Next, it rejected Younger abstention. It thought that “[t]he state interests, at stake in this proceeding differ in both kind and degree from those present in the six cases in which the Supreme Court held that Younger applied.” Ibid. Moreover, it thought that Texas had failed to “provide adequate procedures for adjudication of Texaco’s federal claims.” Id., at 1150. Turning to the merits, it agreed with the District Court that Texaco had established a likelihood of success on its constitutional claims and that the balance of hardships favored Texaco. Accordingly, it affirmed the grant of in-junctive relief.
Pennzoil filed a jurisdictional statement in this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2). 477 U. S. 903 (1986). We reverse.
II
The courts below should have abstained under the principles of federalism enunciated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals failed to recognize the significant interests harmed by their unprecedented intrusion into the Texas judicial system. Similarly, neither of those courts applied the appropriate standard in determining whether adequate relief was available in the Texas courts.
A
The first ground for the Younger decision was “the basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law.” Id., at 43. The Court also offered a second explanation for its decision:
“This underlying reason ... is reinforced by an even more vital consideration, the notion of ‘comity/ that is, a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. . . . The concept does not mean blind deference to ‘States’ Rights’ any more than it means centralization of control over every important issue in our National Government and its courts. The Framers rejected both these courses. What the concept does represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.” Id., at 44.
This concern mandates application of Younger abstention not only when the pending state proceedings are criminal, but also when certain civil proceedings are pending, if the State’s interests in the proceeding are so important that exercise of the federal judicial power would disregard the comity between the States and the National Government. E. g., Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, 603-605 (1975).
Another important reason for abstention is to avoid unwarranted determination of federal constitutional questions. When federal courts interpret state statutes in a way that raises federal constitutional questions, “a constitutional determination is predicated on a reading of the statute that is not binding on state courts and may be discredited at any time — thus essentially rendering the federal-court decision advisory and the litigation underlying it meaningless.” Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S. 415, 428 (1979). See Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 445 (1977). This concern has special significance in this case. Because Texaco chose not to present to the Texas courts the constitutional claims asserted in this case, it is impossible to be certain that the governing Texas statutes and procedural rules actually raise these claims. Moreover, the Texas Constitution contains an “open courts” provision, Art. I, § 13, that appears to address Texaco’s claims more specifically than the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, when this case was filed in federal court, it was entirely possible that the Texas courts would have resolved this case on state statutory or constitutional grounds, without reaching the federal constitutional questions Texaco raises in this case. As we have noted, Younger abstention in situations like this “offers the opportunity for narrowing constructions that might obviate the constitutional problem and intelligently mediate federal constitutional concerns and state interests.” Moore v. Sims, supra, at 429-430.
Texaco’s principal argument against Younger abstention is that exercise of the District Court’s power did not implicate a “vital” or “important” state interest. Brief for Appellee 24-32. This argument reflects a misreading of our precedents. This Court repeatedly has recognized that the States have important interests in administering certain aspects of their judicial systems. E. g., Trainor v. Hernandez, supra, at 441; Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U. S. 423, 432 (1982). In Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327 (1977), we held that a federal court should have abstained from adjudicating a challenge to a State’s contempt process. The Court’s reasoning in that case informs our decision today:
“A State’s interest in the contempt process, through which it vindicates the regular operation of its judicial system, so long as that system itself affords the opportunity to pursue federal claims within it, is surely an important interest. Perhaps it is not quite as important as is the State’s interest in the enforcement of its criminal laws, Younger, supra, or even its interest in the maintenance of a quasi-criminal proceeding such as was involved in Huffman, supra. But we think it is of sufficiently great import to require application of the principles of those cases.” Id., at 335.
Our comments on why the contempt power was sufficiently important to justify abstention also are illuminating: “Contempt in these cases, serves, of course, to vindicate and preserve the private interests of competing litigants, . . . but its purpose is by no means spent upon purely private concerns. It stands in aid of the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory.” Id., at 336, n. 12 (citations omitted).
The reasoning of Juidice controls here. That case rests on the importance to the States of enforcing the orders and judgments of their courts. There is little difference between the State’s interest in forcing persons to transfer property in response to a court’s judgment and in forcing persons to respond to the court’s process on pain of contempt. Both Juidice and this case involve challenges to the processes by which the State compels compliance with the judgments of its courts. Not only would federal injunctions in such cases interfere with the execution of state judgments, but they would do so on grounds that challenge the very process by which those judgments were obtained. So long as those challenges relate to pending state proceedings, proper respect for the ability of state courts to resolve federal questions presented in state-court litigation mandates that the federal court stay its hand.
B
Texaco also argues that Younger abstention was inappropriate because no Texas court could have heard Texaco’s constitutional claims within the limited time available to Texaco. But the burden on this point rests on the federal plaintiff to show “that state procedural law barred presentation of [its] claims.” Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S., at 432. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S., at 45 (‘“The accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts, even though this involves a challenge of the validity of some statute, unless it plainly appears that this course would not afford adequate protection’”) (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240, 244 (1926)).
Moreover, denigrations of the procedural protections afforded by Texas law hardly come from Texaco with good grace, as it apparently made no effort under Texas law to secure the relief sought in this case. Cf. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., supra, at 435 (rejecting on similar grounds an assertion about the inhospita-bility of state procedures to federal claims). Article VI of the United States Constitution declares that “the Judges in every State shall be bound” by the Federal Constitution, laws, and treaties. We cannot assume that state judges will interpret ambiguities in state procedural law to bar presentation of federal claims. Cf. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U. S. 619, 629 (1986) (assuming that a state administrative commission would “construe its own statutory mandate in the light of federal constitutional principles”). Accordingly, when a litigant has not attempted to present his federal claims in related state-court proceedings, a federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.
The “open courts” provision of the Texas Constitution, Article I, § 13, see nn. 10, 11, supra, has considerable relevance here. This provision has appeared in each of Texas’ six Constitutions, dating back to the Constitution of the Republic of Texas in 1836. See LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S. W. 2d 335, 339, and n. 4 (Tex. 1986). According to the Texas Supreme Court, the provision “guarantees all litigants . . . the right to their day in court.” Id., at 341. “The common thread of [the Texas Supreme Court’s] decisions construing the open courts provision is that the legislature has no power to make a remedy by due course of law contingent on an impossible condition.” Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S. W. 2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1984). In light of this demonstrable and longstanding commitment of the Texas Supreme Court to provide access to the state courts, we are reluctant to conclude that Texas courts would have construed state procedural rules to deny Texaco an effective opportunity to raise its constitutional claims.
Against this background, Texaco’s submission that the Texas courts were incapable of hearing its constitutional claims is plainly insufficient. Both of the courts below found that the Texas trial court had the power to consider constitutional challenges to the enforcement provisions. The Texas Attorney General filed a brief in the proceedings below, arguing that such relief was available in the Texas courts. See Brief for Intervenor-Appellant in Nos. 86-7046, 86-7052 (CA2), pp. 32-33. Texaco has cited no statute or case clearly indicating that Texas courts lack such power. Accordingly, Texaco has failed to meet its burden on this point.
In sum, the lower courts should have deferred on principles of comity to the pending state proceedings. They erred in accepting Texaco’s assertions as to the inadequacies of Texas procedure to provide effective relief. It is true that this case presents an unusual fact situation, never before addressed by the Texas courts, and that Texaco urgently desired prompt relief. But we cannot say that those courts, when this suit was filed, would have been any less inclined than a federal court to address and decide the federal constitutional claims. Because Texaco apparently did not give the Texas courts an opportunity to adjudicate its constitutional claims, and because Texaco cannot demonstrate that the Texas courts were not then open to adjudicate its claims, there is no basis for concluding that the Texas law and procedures were so deficient that Younger abstention is inappropriate. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court should have abstained.
Ill
In this opinion, we have addressed the situation that existed on the morning of December 10, 1985, when this case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. We recognize that much has transpired in the Texas courts since then. Later that day, the Texas trial court entered judgment. See n. 5, supra. On February 12 of this year, the Texas Court of Appeals substantially affirmed the judgment. See ibid. We are not unmindful of the unique importance to Texaco of having its challenges to that judgment authoritatively considered and resolved. We of course express no opinion on the merits of those challenges. Similarly, we express no opinion on the claims Texaco has raised in this case against the Texas bond and lien provisions, nor on the possibility that Texaco now could raise these claims in the Texas courts, see n. 16, supra. Today we decide only that it was inappropriate for the District Court to entertain these claims. If, and when, the Texas courts render a final decision on any federal issue presented by this litigation, review may be sought in this Court in the customary manner.
IV
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to vacate its order and dismiss the complaint. The judgment of this Court shall issue forthwith.
It is so ordered.
A writ of execution is “[ajddressed to any sheriff or constable in the State of Texas [and] enables the official to levy on a debtor’s nonexempt real and personal property, within the official’s county.” 5 W. Dorsaneo, Texas Litigation Guide § 132.02[1], p. 132-7 (1986).
If the judgment debtor files a motion for new trial, the clerk cannot issue a writ of execution until the motion for new trial is denied or overruled by operation of law. Rule 627. If a trial judge does not act on a motion for new trial, it is deemed to be overruled by operation of law 75 days after the judgment originally was signed. Rule 329b(c).
Filing a supersedeas bond would not prevent Pennzoil from securing judgment liens against Texaco’s real property. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §52.002 (1984) (directing clerk to issue an abstract of the judgment “[o]n application of a person in whose favor a judgment is rendered”; no exception for superseded judgments); Thulemeyer v. Jones, 37 Tex. 560, 571 (1872). The bond’s only effect would be to prevent Pennzoil from executing the judgment and obtaining Texaco’s property.
A judgment debtor also may suspend execution by filing “cash or other negotiable obligation of the government of the United States of America or any agency thereof, or with leave of court, ... a negotiable obligation of any bank ... in the amount fixed for the surety bond.” Rule 14c.
Later the same day, the Texas court entered a judgment against Texaco for $11,120,976,110.83, including prejudgment interest of approximately $600 million. During the pendency of the federal action — that now concerns only the validity of the Texas judgment enforcement procedures — the state-court action on the merits has proceeded. Texaco filed a motion for new trial, that was deemed denied by operation of law under Rule 329b(c). See n. 2, supra. Subsequently, Texaco appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, challenging the judgment on a variety of state and federal grounds. The Texas Court of Appeals rendered a decision on that appeal on February 12, 1987. That decision affirmed the trial court’s judgment in most respects, but remitted $2 billion of the punitive damages award, reducing the principal of the judgment to $8.53 billion.
So far as we know, Texaco has never presented to the Texas courts the challenges it makes in this case against the bond and lien provisions under federal law. Three days after it filed its federal lawsuit, Texaco did ask the Texas trial court informally for a hearing concerning possible modification of the judgment under Texas law. That request eventually was denied, because it failed to comply with Texas procedural rules.
Texaco claimed that the judgment itself conflicted with the Pull Faith and Credit Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Williams Act, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Texaco also argued that application of the Texas bond and lien provisions would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The operative portion of the injunction provided:
“[I]t is hereby . . . ORDERED that defendant, Pennzoil Company, its employees, agents, attorneys and servants, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are jointly and severally enjoined and restrained, pending the trial and ultimate disposition of this action, or the further order of this Court, from taking any action of any kind whatsoever to enforce or attempt to enforce the Judgment entered in an action in the District Court for the 151st Judicial District of Texas entitled Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc., including, without limitation, attempting to obtain or file any judgment lien or abstract of judgment related to said Judgment (pursuant to Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 52.001, et seq., or otherwise), or initiating or commencing steps to execute on said Judgment . . . .” App. to Juris. Statement A52-A53.
The order also required Texaco to post a bond of $1 billion to secure the grant of the preliminary injunction. Id., at A53.
Although the District Court had entered only a preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals concluded that the record was sufficiently undisputed to justify entering a permanent injunction. Thus, it did not remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings on the merits. 784 F. 2d 1133, 1156 (1986).
In some cases, the probability that any federal adjudication would be effectively advisory is so great that this concern alone is sufficient to justify abstention, even if there are no pending state proceedings in which the question could be raised. See Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941). Because appellant has not argued in this Court that Pullman abstention is proper, we decline to address Justice Blackmun’s conclusion that Pullman abstention is the appropriate disposition of this case. We merely note that considerations similar to those that mandate Pullman abstention are relevant to a court’s decision whether to abstain under Younger. Cf. Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S. 415, 428 (1979). The various types of abstention are not rigid pigeonholes into which federal courts must try to fit cases. Rather, they reflect a complex of considerations designed to soften the tensions inherent in a system that contemplates parallel judicial processes.
Article I, § 13, provides: “All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.”
See LeCroy v. Hanlon, 713 S. W. 2d 335, 340-341 (Tex. 1986) (“The open courts provision must have been intended to provide rights in addition to those in the due process provision or the former would be surplus-age. Furthermore, the due process provision’s general guarantees contrast with the open courts provision’s specific guarantee of a right of access to the courts”); id., at 338 (noting that the Texas Supreme Court “has been in the mainstream” of the movement of “state courts ... to look to their own constitutions to protect individual rights”) (citing, inter alia, Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 489 (1977)). See also Dillingham v. Putnam, 109 Tex. 1, 14 S. W. 303 (1890) (invalidating a previous supersedeas bond statute because it effectively prevented certain parties from securing an appeal).
The relevance of the open courts provision to this ease is not limited to its indication that the Texas courts may well accept Texaco’s challenge on state constitutional grounds, obviating the need for consideration of the federal constitutional questions. As we explain infra, at 15-16, this provision also undercuts Texaco’s claim that no Texas court was open to hear its constitutional claims.
Thus, contrary to Justice Stevens’ suggestion, the State of Texas has an interest in this proceeding “that goes beyond its interest as adjudicator of wholly private disputes.” Post, at 30, n. 2. Our opinion does not hold that Younger abstention is always appropriate whenever a civil proceeding is pending in a state court. Rather, as in Juidice, we rely on the State’s interest in protecting “the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory,” 430 U. S., at 336, n. 12 (citations omitted).
Texaco also suggests that abstention is unwarranted because of the absence of a state judicial proceeding with respect to which the Federal District Court should have abstained. Texaco argues that “the Texas judiciary plays no role” in execution of judgments. Brief for Appellee 25. We reject this assertion. There is at least one pending judicial proceeding in the state courts; the lawsuit out of which Texaco’s constitutional claims arose is now pending before a Texas Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. As we explain infra this page and 15-17, we are not convinced that Texaco could not have secured judicial relief in those proceedings.
See 784 F. 2d, at 1139; App. to Juris. Statement A104 (District Court’s Supplemental Finding of Fact 94).
Texaco relies on the language of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 364, that lists no exceptions to the requirement that an appellant file a bond to suspend execution of a money judgment pending appeal. Texaco also relies on cases noting that Rule 364 requires appellants to post bond in the full amount of the judgment. E. g., Kennesaw Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Streetman, 644 S. W. 2d 915, 916-917 (Tex. App. 1983) (writ refused n.r.e.). But these cases do not involve claims that the requirements of Rule 364 violate other statutes or the Federal Constitution. Thus, they have “absolutely nothing to say with respect to” Texaco’s claims that Rule 364 violates the Federal Constitution. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, 610 (1975).
Also, the language of Rule 364 suggests that a trial court could suspend the bond requirement if it concluded that application of the bond requirement would violate the Federal Constitution. Rule 364(a) provides: “Unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, an appellant may suspend the execution of the judgment by a good and sufficient bond” (emphasis added). Texaco has failed to demonstrate that Texas courts would not construe the phrase “otherwise provided by law” to encompass claims made under the Federal Constitution. We cannot assume that Texas courts would refuse to construe the Rule, or to apply their inherent powers, to provide a forum to adjudicate substantial federal constitutional claims.
We recognize that the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case. See Tex. Rule Civ. Proc. 329b(e); n. 5, supra. Thus, relief is no longer available to Texaco from the trial court. But Texaco cannot escape Younger abstention by failing to assert its state remedies in a timely manner. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., supra, at 607-609. In any event, the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Appeals arguably have the authority to suspend the supersedeas requirement to protect their appellate jurisdiction. See Pace v. McEwen, 604 S. W. 2d 231, 233 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980) (no writ) (suggesting that a Texas Court of Appeals has such authority).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law permits federal courts to resolve certain nonfederal controversies between "citizens" of different States. This rule is easy enough to apply to humans, but can become metaphysical when applied to legal entities. This case asks how to determine the citizenship of a "real estate investment trust," an inanimate creature of Maryland law. We answer: While humans and corporations can assert their own citizenship, other entities take the citizenship of their members.
I
This action began as a typical state-law controversy, one involving a contract dispute and an underground food-storage warehouse fire. A group of corporations whose food perished in that 1991 fire continues to seek compensation from the warehouse's owner, now known as Americold Realty Trust. After the corporations filed their latest suit in Kansas court, Americold removed the suit to the Federal District Court for the District of Kansas. The District Court accepted jurisdiction and resolved the dispute in favor of Americold.
On appeal, however, the Tenth Circuit asked for supplemental briefing on whether the District Court's exercise of jurisdiction was appropriate. The parties responded that the District Court possessed jurisdiction because the suit involved "citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1), 1441(b).
The Tenth Circuit disagreed. The court considered the corporate plaintiffs citizens of the States where they were chartered and had their principal places of business: Delaware, Nebraska, and Illinois. See ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 776 F.3d 1175, 1182 (2015) ; § 1332(c)(1) (specifying the citizenship of corporations for jurisdictional purposes). The court applied a different test to determine Americold's citizenship because Americold is a "real estate investment trust," not a corporation. Distilling this Court's precedent, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that the citizenship of any "non-corporate artificial entity" is determined by considering all of the entity's "members," which include, at minimum, its shareholders. Id., at 1180-1181 (citing Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 110 S.Ct. 1015, 108 L.Ed.2d 157 (1990) ). As there was no record of the citizenship of Americold's shareholders, the court concluded that the parties failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs were "citizens of different States" than the defendants. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806).
We granted certiorari to resolve confusion among the Courts of Appeals regarding the citizenship of unincorporated entities. 576 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 27, 192 L.Ed.2d 997 (2015). We now affirm.
II
Exercising its powers under Article III, the First Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over controversies between a "citizen" of one State and "a citizen of another State." 1 Stat. 78. For a long time, however, Congress failed to explain how to determine the citizenship of a nonbreathing entity like a business association. In the early 19th century, this Court took that silence literally, ruling that only a human could be a citizen for jurisdictional purposes. Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61, 86-91, 3 L.Ed. 38 (1809). If a "mere legal entity" like a corporation were sued, the relevant citizens were its "members," or the "real persons who come into court" in the entity's name. Id., at 86, 91.
This Court later carved a limited exception for corporations, holding that a corporation itself could be considered a citizen of its State of incorporation. See Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844). Congress etched this exception into the U.S. Code, adding that a corporation should also be considered a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) (1958 ed.). But Congress never expanded this grant of citizenship to include artificial entities other than corporations, such as joint-stock companies or limited partnerships. For these unincorporated entities, we too have "adhere[d] to our oft-repeated rule that diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or against the entity depends on the citizenship of 'all [its] members.' " Carden, 494 U.S., at 195-196, 110 S.Ct. 1015 (quoting Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677, 682, 9 S.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800 (1889) ).
Despite our oft-repetition of the rule linking unincorporated entities with their "members," we have never expressly defined the term. But we have equated an association's members with its owners or " 'the several persons composing such association.' " Carden, 494 U.S., at 196, 110 S.Ct. 1015 (quoting Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 456, 20 S.Ct. 690, 44 L.Ed. 842 (1900) ). Applying this principle with reference to specific States' laws, we have identified the members of a joint-stock company as its shareholders, the members of a partnership as its partners, the members of a union as the workers affiliated with it, and so on. See Carden, 494 U.S., at 189-190, 110 S.Ct. 1015 (citing Chapman, 129 U.S., at 682, 9 S.Ct. 426 ; Great Southern, 177 U.S., at 457, 20 S.Ct. 690 ; and Steelworkers v. R.H. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145, 146, 86 S.Ct. 272, 15 L.Ed.2d 217 (1965) ).
This case asks us to determine the citizenship of Americold Realty Trust, a "real estate investment trust" organized under Maryland law. App. 93. As Americold is not a corporation, it possesses its members' citizenship. Nothing in the record designates who Americold's members are. But Maryland law provides an answer.
In Maryland, a real estate investment trust is an "unincorporated business trust or association" in which property is held and managed "for the benefit and profit of any person who may become a shareholder." Md. Corp. & Assns. Code Ann. §§ 8-101(c), 8-102 (2014). As with joint-stock companies or partnerships, shareholders have "ownership interests" and votes in the trust by virtue of their "shares of beneficial interest." §§ 8-704(b)(5), 8-101(d). These shareholders appear to be in the same position as the shareholders of a joint-stock company or the partners of a limited partnership-both of whom we viewed as members of their relevant entities. See Carden, 494 U.S., at 192-196, 110 S.Ct. 1015 ; see also § 8-705(a) (linking the term "beneficial interests" with "membership interests" and "partnership interests"). We therefore conclude that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Americold's members include its shareholders.
III
Americold disputes this conclusion. It cites a case called Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 100 S.Ct. 1779, 64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980), to argue that anything called a "trust" possesses the citizenship of its trustees alone, not its shareholder beneficiaries as well. As we have reminded litigants before, however, "Navarro had nothing to do with the citizenship of [a] 'trust.' " Carden, 494 U.S., at 192-193, 110 S.Ct. 1015. Rather, Navarro reaffirmed a separate rule that when a trustee files a lawsuit in her name, her jurisdictional citizenship is the State to which she belongs-as is true of any natural person. 446 U.S., at 465, 100 S.Ct. 1779. This rule coexists with our discussion above that when an artificial entity is sued in its name, it takes the citizenship of each of its members.
That said, Americold's confusion regarding the citizenship of a trust is understandable and widely shared. See Emerald Investors Trust v. Gaunt Parsippany Partners, 492 F.3d 192, 201-206 (C.A.3 2007) (discussing various approaches among the Circuits). The confusion can be explained, perhaps, by tradition. Traditionally, a trust was not considered a distinct legal entity, but a "fiduciary relationship" between multiple people. Klein v. Bryer, 227 Md. 473, 476-477, 177 A.2d 412, 413 (1962) ; Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 2 (1957). Such a relationship was not a thing that could be haled into court; legal proceedings involving a trust were brought by or against the trustees in their own name. Glenn v. Allison, 58 Md. 527, 529 (1882) ; Deveaux, 5 Cranch, at 91. And when a trustee files a lawsuit or is sued in her own name, her citizenship is all that matters for diversity purposes. Navarro, 446 U.S., at 462-466, 100 S.Ct. 1779. For a traditional trust, therefore, there is no need to determine its membership, as would be true if the trust, as an entity, were sued.
Many States, however, have applied the "trust" label to a variety of unincorporated entities that have little in common with this traditional template. Maryland, for example, treats a real estate investment trust as a "separate legal entity" that itself can sue or be sued. Md. Corp. & Assns. Code Ann. §§ 8-102(2), 8-301(2). So long as such an entity is unincorporated, we apply our "oft-repeated rule" that it possesses the citizenship of all its members. Carden, 494 U.S., at 195, 110 S.Ct. 1015. But neither this rule nor Navarro limits an entity's membership to its trustees just because the entity happens to call itself a trust.
We therefore decline to apply the same rule to an unincorporated entity sued in its organizational name that applies to a human trustee sued in her personal name. We also decline an amicus ' invitation to apply the same rule to an unincorporated entity that applies to a corporation-namely, to consider it a citizen only of its State of establishment and its principal place of business. See Brief for National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts 11-21. When we last examined the "doctrinal wall" between corporate and unincorporated entities in 1990, we saw no reason to tear it down. Carden, 494 U.S., at 190, 110 S.Ct. 1015. Then as now we reaffirm that it is up to Congress if it wishes to incorporate other entities into 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)'s special jurisdictional rule.
* * *
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the scope of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965 (Hague Service Convention), 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638. The purpose of that multilateral treaty is to simplify, standardize, and generally improve the process of serving documents abroad. Preamble, ibid. ; see Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 698, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988). To that end, the Hague Service Convention specifies certain approved methods of service and "pre-empts inconsistent methods of service" wherever it applies. Id., at 699, 108 S.Ct. 2104. Today we address a question that has divided the lower courts: whether the Convention prohibits service by mail. We hold that it does not.
I
A
Petitioner Water Splash is a corporation that produces aquatic playground systems. Respondent Menon is a former employee of Water Splash. In 2013, Water Splash sued Menon in state court in Texas, alleging that she had begun working for a competitor while still employed by Water Splash. 472 S.W.3d 28, 30 (Tex.App.2015). Water Splash asserted several causes of action, including unfair competition, conversion, and tortious interference with business relations. Because Menon resided in Canada, Water Splash sought and obtained permission to effect service by mail. Ibid. After Menon declined to answer or otherwise enter an appearance, the trial court issued a default judgment in favor of Water Splash. Menon moved to set aside the judgment on the ground that she had not been properly served, but the trial court denied the motion. Ibid.
Menon appealed, arguing that service by mail does not "comport with the requirements of the Hague Service Convention." Ibid. The Texas Court of Appeals majority sided with Menon and held that the Convention prohibits service of process by mail. Id., at 32. Justice Christopher dissented. Id ., at 34. The Court of Appeals declined to review the matter en banc, App. 95-96, and the Texas Supreme Court denied discretionary review, id., at 97-98.
The disagreement between the panel majority and Justice Christopher tracks a broader conflict among courts as to whether the Convention permits service through postal channels. Compare, e.g., Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp. , 889 F.2d 172, 173-174 (C.A.8 1989) (holding that the Convention prohibits service by mail), and Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374, 385 (C.A.5 2002) (same), with, e.g., Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 802 (C.A.9 2004) (holding that the Convention allows service by mail), and Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 838-840 (C.A.2 1986) (same). We granted certiorari to resolve that conflict. 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 547, 196 L.Ed.2d 442 (2016).
B
The "primary innovation" of the Hague Service Convention-set out in Articles 2-7-is that it "requires each state to establish a central authority to receive requests for service of documents from other countries." Schlunk, supra, at 698, 108 S.Ct. 2104. When a central authority receives an appropriate request, it must serve the documents or arrange for their service, Art. 5, and then provide a certificate of service, Art. 6.
Submitting a request to a central authority is not, however, the only method of service approved by the Convention. For example, Article 8 permits service through diplomatic and consular agents; Article 11 provides that any two states can agree to methods of service not otherwise specified in the Convention; and Article 19 clarifies that the Convention does not preempt any internal laws of its signatories that permit service from abroad via methods not otherwise allowed by the Convention.
At issue in this case is Article 10 of the Convention, the English text of which reads as follows:
"Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with-
"(a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad,
"(b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination,
"(c) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination." 20 U.S.T., at 363.
Articles 10(b) and 10(c), by their plain terms, address additional methods of service that are permitted by the Convention (unless the receiving state objects). By contrast, Article 10(a) does not expressly refer to "service." The question in this case is whether, despite this textual difference, the Article 10(a) phrase "send judicial documents" encompasses sending documents for the purposes of service .
II
A
In interpreting treaties, "we begin with the text of the treaty and the context in which the written words are used." Schlunk, 486 U.S., at 699, 108 S.Ct. 2104 (internal quotation marks omitted). For present purposes, the key word in Article 10(a) is "send." This is a broad term, and there is no apparent reason why it would exclude the transmission of documents for a particular purpose (namely, service). Moreover, the structure of the Hague Service Convention strongly counsels against such a reading.
The key structural point is that the scope of the Convention is limited to service of documents. Several elements of the Convention indicate as much. First, the preamble states that the Convention is intended "to ensure that judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served abroad shall be brought to the notice of the addressee in sufficient time." (Emphasis added.) And Article 1 defines the Convention's scope by stating that the Convention "shall apply in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad ." (Emphasis added.) Even the Convention's full title reflects that the Convention concerns "Service Abroad."
We have also held as much. Schlunk, 486 U.S., at 701, 108 S.Ct. 2104 (stating that the Convention "applies only to documents transmitted for service abroad"). As we explained, a preliminary draft of Article 1 was criticized "because it suggested that the Convention could apply to transmissions abroad that do not culminate in service." Ibid. The final version of Article 1, however, "eliminates this possibility." Ibid. The wording of Article 1 makes clear that the Convention "applies only when there is both transmission of a document from the requesting state to the receiving state, and service upon the person for whom it is intended." Ibid.
In short, the text of the Convention reveals, and we have explicitly held, that the scope of the Convention is limited to service of documents. In light of that, it would be quite strange if Article 10(a)-apparently alone among the Convention's provisions-concerned something other than service of documents.
Indeed, under that reading, Article 10(a) would be superfluous. The function of Article 10 is to ensure that, absent objection from the receiving state, the Convention "shall not interfere" with the activities described in 10(a), 10(b) and 10(c). But Article 1 already "eliminates [the] possibility" that the Convention would apply to any communications that "do not culminate in service," id., at 701, 108 S.Ct. 2104 so it is hard to imagine how the Convention could interfere with any non-service communications. Accordingly, in order for Article 10(a) to do any work, it must pertain to sending documents for the purposes of service.
Menon attempts to avoid this superfluity problem by suggesting that Article 10(a) does refer to serving documents-but only some documents. Specifically, she makes a distinction between two categories of service. According to Menon, Article 10(a) does not apply to service of process (which we have defined as "a formal delivery of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the defendant with notice of a pending action," id., at 700, 108 S.Ct. 2104 ). But Article 10(a) does apply, Menon suggests, to the service of "post-answer judicial documents" (that is, any additional documents which may have to be served later in the litigation). Brief for Respondent 30-31. The problem with this argument is that it lacks any plausible textual footing in Article 10.
If the drafters wished to limit Article 10(a) to a particular subset of documents, they presumably would have said so-as they did, for example, in Article 15, which refers to "a writ of summons or an equivalent document." Instead, Article 10(a) uses the term "judicial documents"-the same term that is featured in 10(b) and 10(c). Accordingly, the notion that Article 10(a) governs a different set of documents than 10(b) or 10(c) is hard to fathom. And it certainly derives no support from the use of the word "send," whose ordinary meaning is broad enough to cover the transmission of any judicial documents (including litigation-initiating documents). Nothing about the word "send" suggests that Article 10(a) is narrower than 10(b) and 10(c), let alone that Article 10(a) is somehow limited to "post-answer" documents.
Ultimately, Menon wishes to read the phrase "send judicial documents" as "serve a subset of judicial documents." That is an entirely atextual reading, and Menon offers no sustained argument in support of it. Therefore, the only way to escape the conclusion that Article 10(a) includes service of process is to assert that it does not cover service of documents at all-and, as shown above, that reading is structurally implausible and renders Article 10(a) superfluous.
B
The text and structure of the Hague Service Convention, then, strongly suggest that Article 10(a) pertains to service of documents. The only significant counterargument is that, unlike many other provisions in the Convention, Article 10(a) does not include the word "service" or any of its variants. The Article 10(a) phrase "send judicial documents," the argument goes, should mean something different than the phrase "effect service of judicial documents" in the other two subparts of Article 10.
This argument does not win the day for several reasons. First, it must contend with the compelling structural considerations discussed above. See Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 397, 105 S.Ct. 1338, 84 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985) (treaty interpretation must take account of the "context in which the written words are used"); cf. University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2529, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013) ("Just as Congress' choice of words is presumed to be deliberate, so too are its structural choices").
Second, the argument fails on its own terms. Assume for a second that the word "send" must mean something other than "serve." That would not imply that Article 10(a) must exclude service. Instead, "send[ing]" could be a broader concept that includes service but is not limited to it. That reading of the word "send" is probably more plausible than interpreting it to exclude service, and it does not create the same superfluity problem.
Third, it must be remembered that the French version of the Convention is "equally authentic" to the English version. Schlunk, 486 U.S., at 699, 108 S.Ct. 2104. Menon does not seriously engage with the Convention's French text. But the word "adresser"-the French counterpart to the word "send" in Article 10(a)-"has been consistently interpreted as meaning service or notice." Hague Conference on Private Int'l Law, Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention ¶ 279, p. 91 (4th ed. 2016).
In short, the most that could possibly be said for this argument is that it creates an ambiguity as to Article 10(a)'s meaning. And when a treaty provision is ambiguous, the Court "may look beyond the written words to the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the parties." Schlunk, supra, at 700, 108 S.Ct. 2104 (internal quotation marks omitted). As discussed below, these traditional tools of treaty interpretation comfortably resolve any lingering ambiguity in Water Splash's favor.
III
Three extratextual sources are especially helpful in ascertaining Article 10(a)'s meaning: the Convention's drafting history, the views of the Executive, and the views of other signatories.
Drafting history has often been used in treaty interpretation. See Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 507, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008) ; Saks, supra, at 400, 105 S.Ct. 1338 ; see also Schlunk, supra, at 700, 108 S.Ct. 2104 (analyzing the negotiating history of the Hague Service Convention). Here, the Convention's drafting history strongly suggests that Article 10(a) allows service through postal channels.
Philip W. Amram was the member of the United States delegation who was most closely involved in the drafting of the Convention. See S. Exec. Rep. No. 6, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (App.) (1967) (S. Exec. Rep.) (statement of State Department Deputy Legal Adviser Richard D. Kearney). A few months before the Convention was signed, he published an article describing and summarizing it. In that article, he stated that "Article 10 permits direct service by mail ... unless [the receiving] state objects to such service." The Proposed International Convention on the Service of Documents Abroad, 51 A.B.A.J. 650, 653 (1965).
Along similar lines, the Rapporteur's report on a draft version of Article 10-which did not materially differ from the final version-stated that the "provision of paragraph 1 also permits service ... by telegram" and that the drafters "did not accept the proposal that postal channels be limited to registered mail." 1 Ristau § 4-3-5(a), at 149. In other words, it was clearly understood that service by postal channels was permissible, and the only question was whether it should be limited to registered mail.
The Court also gives "great weight" to "the Executive Branch's interpretation of a treaty." Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1, 15, 130 S.Ct. 1983, 176 L.Ed.2d 789 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the half century since the Convention was adopted, the Executive has consistently maintained that the Hague Service Convention allows service by mail.
When President Johnson transmitted the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent, he included a report by Secretary of State Dean Rusk. That report stated that "Article 10 permits direct service by mail ... unless [the receiving] state objects to such service." Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters: Message From the President of the United States, S. Exec. Doc. C, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1967).
In 1989, the Eighth Circuit issued Bankston, the first Federal Court of Appeals decision holding that the Hague Service Convention prohibits service by mail. 889 F.2d, at 174. The State Department expressed its disagreement with Bankston in a letter addressed to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the National Center for State Courts. See Notice of Other Documents (1), United States Department of State Opinion Regarding the Bankston Case and Service by Mail to Japan Under the Hague Service Convention, 30 I.L.M. 260, 260-261 (1991) (excerpts of Mar. 14, 1990, letter). The letter stated that "Bankston is incorrect to the extent that it suggests that the Hague Convention does not permit as a method of service of process the sending of a copy of a summons and complaint by registered mail to a defendant in a foreign country." Id., at 261. The State Department takes the same position on its website.
Finally, this Court has given "considerable weight" to the views of other parties to a treaty. Abbott, 560 U.S., at 16, 130 S.Ct. 1983 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1224, 1233, 188 L.Ed.2d 200 (2014) (noting the importance of "read[ing] the treaty in a manner consistent with the shared expectations of the contracting parties" (internal quotation marks omitted)). And other signatories to the Convention have consistently adopted Water Splash's view.
Multiple foreign courts have held that the Hague Service Convention allows for service by mail. In addition, several of the Convention's signatories have either objected, or declined to object, to service by mail under Article 10, thereby acknowledging that Article 10 encompasses service by mail. Finally, several Special Commissions -comprising numerous contracting States-have expressly stated that the Convention does not prohibit service by mail. By contrast, Menon identifies no evidence that any signatory has ever rejected Water Splash's view.
In short, the traditional tools of treaty interpretation unmistakably demonstrate that Article 10(a) encompasses service by mail. To be clear, this does not mean that the Convention affirmatively authorizes service by mail. Article 10(a) simply provides that, as long as the receiving state does not object, the Convention does not "interfere with ... the freedom" to serve documents through postal channels. In other words, in cases governed by the Hague Service Convention, service by mail is permissible if two conditions are met: first, the receiving state has not objected to service by mail; and second, service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law. See Brockmeyer, 383 F.3d, at 803-804.
Because the Court of Appeals concluded that the Convention prohibited service by mail outright, it had no occasion to consider whether Texas law authorizes the methods of service used by Water Splash. We leave that question, and any other remaining issues, to be considered on remand to the extent they are properly preserved.
For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See Black's Law Dictionary 1568 (10th ed. 2014) (defining "send," in part, as "[t]o cause to be moved or conveyed from a present location to another place; esp., to deposit (a writing or notice) in the mail").
The argument also assumes that the scope of the Convention is not limited to service of process (otherwise, Article 10(a) would be superfluous even under Menon's reading). Schlunk can be read to suggest that this assumption is wrong. 486 U.S., at 700-701, 108 S.Ct. 2104 ; see 1 B. Ristau, International Judicial Assistance § 4-1-4(2), p. 112 (1990 rev. ed.) (Ristau) (stating that the English term "service" in the Convention "means the formal delivery of a legal document to the addressee in such a manner as to legally charge him with notice of the institution of a legal proceeding"). For the purposes of this discussion, we will assume, arguendo, that Menon's assumption is correct.
Another plausible explanation for the distinct terminology of Article 10(a) is that it is the only provision in the Convention that specifically contemplates direct service, without the use of an intermediary. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13 ("[I]n contrast to Article 10(a), all other methods of service identified in the Convention require the affirmative engagement of an intermediary to effect 'service' "). The use of the word "send" may simply have been intended to reflect that distinction.
Two years later, Amram testified to the same effect before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. S. Exec. Rep., at 13 (stating that service by central authority "is not obligatory," and that other available techniques included "direct service by mail").
Dept. of State, Legal Considerations: International Judicial Assistance: Service of Process (stating that "[s]ervice by registered ... mail ... is an option in many countries in the world," but that it "should ... not be used in the countries party to the Hague Service Convention that objected to the method described in Article 10(a) (postal channels)"), online at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/judicial/service-of-process.html (all Internet materials as last visited May 19, 2017).
See, e.g., Wang v. Lin, [2016] 132 O.R.3d 48, 61 (Can.Ont.Sup.Ct. J.); Crystal Decisions (U.K.), Ltd. v. Vedatech Corp., EWHC (Ch) 1872 (2004), 2004 WL 1959749 ¶ 21 (High Court, Eng.) ; R. v. Re Recognition of an Italian Judgt., 2000 WL 33541696, ¶ 4 (D.F.Thes.2000) ; Case C-412/97, ED Srl v. Italo Fenocchio, 1999 E.C.R. I-3845, 3877-3878, ¶ 6 [2000] 3 C.M.L.R. 855; see also Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 802 (C.A.9 2004) (noting that foreign courts are "essentially unanimous" in the view "that the meaning of 'send' in Article 10(a) includes 'serve' ").
Canada, for example, has stated that it "does not object to service by postal channels." By contrast, the Czech Republic has adopted Czechoslovakia's position that "judicial documents may not be served ... through postal channels." Dutch Govt. Treaty Database: Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters: Parties With Reservations, Declarations and Objections, (entries for Canada and the Czech Republic) online at https://treatydatabase.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/004235_b; see also, e.g., ibid. (entries for Latvia, Australia, and Slovenia). In addition, some states have objected to all of the channels of transmission listed in Article 10, referring to them collectively with the term "service." See, e.g., ibid. (entries for Bulgaria, Hungary, Kuwait, and Turkey).
Hague Conference on Private International Law, Conclusions and Recommendations Adopted by the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Apostille, Evidence and Service Conventions ¶ 55, p. 11 (Oct. 28-Nov. 4, 2003) ("reaffirm[ing]" the Special Commission's "clear understanding that the term 'send' in Article 10(a) is to be understood as meaning 'service' through postal channels"), online at https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/lse_concl_e.pdf; Hague Conference on Private International Law, Report on the Work of the Special Commission of April 1989 on the Operation of the Hague Conventions of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters ¶ 16, p. 5 (Apr. 1989) (criticizing "certain courts in the United States" which "had concluded that service of process abroad by mail was not permitted under the Convention"), online at https://assets.hcch.net/upload/scrpt89e_20.pdf; Report on the Work of the Special Commission on the Operation of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 21-25, 1977, 17 I. L. M. 312, 326 (1978) (observing that "most of the States made no objection to the service of judicial documents coming from abroad directly by mail in their territory" (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.
Mr. Justice Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated appeals present as a key question the validity under § 1 of the Sherman Act of block booking of copyrighted feature motion pictures for television exhibition. We hold that the tying agreements here are illegal and in violation of the Act.
The United States brought separate civil antitrust actions in the Southern District of New York in 1957 against six major distributors of pre-1948 copyrighted motion picture feature films for television exhibition, alleging that each defendant had engaged in block booking in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaints asserted that the defendants had, in selling to television stations, conditioned the license or sale of one or more feature films upon the acceptance by the station of a package or block containing one or more unwanted or inferior films. No combination or conspiracy among the distributors was alleged; nor was any monopolization or attempt to monopolize under § 2 of the Sherman Act averred. The sole claim of illegality rested on the manner in which each defendant had marketed its product. The successful pressure applied to television station customers to accept inferior films along with desirable pictures was the gravamen of the complaint.
After a lengthy consolidated trial, the district judge filed exhaustive findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a carefully reasoned opinion, 189 F. Supp. 373, in which he found that the actions of the defendants constituted violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The conclusional finding of fact and law was that
“. . . the several defendants have each, from time to time and to the extent set forth in the specific findings of fact, licensed or offered to license one or more feature films to television stations on condition that the licensee also license one or more other such feature films, and have, from time to time and to the extent set forth in the specific findings of fact, refused, expressly or impliedly, to license feature films to television stations unless one or more other such feature films were accepted by the licensee.” 189 F. Supp., at 397-398.
The judge recognized that there was keen competition between the defendant distributors, and therefore rested his conclusion solely on the individual behavior of each in engaging in block booking. In reaching his decision he carefully considered the evidence relating to each of the 68 licensing agreements that the Government had contended involved block booking. He concluded that only 25 of the contracts were illegally entered into. Nine of these belonged to defendant C & C Super Corp., which had an admitted policy of insisting on block booking that it sought to justify on special grounds.
Of the others, defendant Loew’s, Incorporated, had in two negotiations that resulted in licensing agreements declined to furnish stations KWTV of Oklahoma City and WBRE of Wilkes-Barre with individual film prices and had refused their requests for permission to select among the films in the groups. Loew’s exacted from KWTV a contract for the entire Loew’s library of 723 films, involving payments of $314,725.20. The WBRE agreement was for a block of 100 films, payments to total $15,000.
Defendant Screen Gems, Inc., was also found to have block booked two contracts, both with WTOP of Washington, D. C., one calling for a package of 26 films and payments of $20,800 and the other for 52 films and payments of $40,000. The judge accepted the testimony of station officials that they had requested the right to select films and that their requests were refused.
Associated Artists Productions, Inc., negotiated four contracts that were found to be block booked. Station WTOP was to pay $118,800 for the license of 99 pictures, which were divided into three groups of 33 films, based on differences in quality. To get “Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” “Casablanca,” “Johnny Belinda,” “Sergeant York,” and “The Man Who Came to Dinner,” among others, WTOP also had to take such films as “Nancy Drew Troubleshooter,” “Tugboat Annie Sails Again,” “Kid Nightingale,” “Gorilla Man,” and “Tear Gas Squad.” A similar contract for 100 pictures, involving a license fee of $140,000, was entered into by WMAR of Baltimore. Triangle Publications, owner and operator of five stations, was refused the right to select among Associated’s packages, and ultimately purchased the entire library of 754 films for a price of $2,262,000 plus 10% of gross receipts. Station WJAR of Providence, which licensed a package of 58 features for a fee of $25,230, had asked first if certain films it considered undesirable could be dropped from the offered packages and was told that the packages could not be split.
Defendant National Telefilm Associates was found to have entered into five block booked contracts. Station WMAR wanted only 10 Selznick films, but was told that it could not have them unless it also bought 24 inferior films from the “TNT” package and 12 unwanted “Fabulous 40’s.” It bought all of these, for a total of $62,240. Station WBRE, before buying the “Fox 52” package in its entirety for $7,358.50, requested and was refused the right to eliminate undesirable features. Station WWLP of Springfield, Massachusetts, inquired about the possibility of splitting two of the packages, was told this was not possible, and then bought a total of 59 films in two packages for $8,850. A full package contract for National’s “Rocket 86” group of 86 films was entered into by KPIX of San Francisco, payments to total $232,200, after KPIX requested and was denied permission to eliminate undesirable films from the package. Station WJAR wanted to drop 10 or 12 British films from this defendant’s “Champagne 58” package, was told that none could be deleted, and then bought the block for $31,000.
The judge found that defendant United Artists Corporation had in three consummated negotiations conditioned the sale of films on the purchase of an entire package. The “Top 39” were licensed by WAAM of Baltimore for $40,000 only after receipt of a refusal to sell 13 of the 39 films in the package. Station WHTN of Huntington, West Virginia, purchased “Award 52” for $16,900 after United Artists refused to deal on any basis other than purchase of the entire 52 films. Thirty-nine films were purchased by WWLP for $5,850 after an initial inquiry about selection of titles was refused.
Since defendant C & C was found to have had an overall policy of block booking, the court did not analyze the particular circumstances of the nine negotiations which had resulted in the licensing of packages of films. C & C’s policies resulted in at least one station having to take a package in which “certain of the films were unplayable since they had a foreign language sound track.” 189 F. Supp., at 389.
The court entered separate final judgments against the defendants, wherein each was enjoined from
“(A) Conditioning or tying, or attempting to condition or tie, the purchase or license of the right to exhibit any feature film over any television station upon the purchase or license of any other film;
“(B) Conditioning the purchase or license of the right to exhibit any feature film over any television station upon the purchase or license for exhibition over any other television station of that feature film, or any other film ;
“(C) Entering into any agreement to sell or license the right to exhibit any feature film over any television station in which the differential between the price or fee for such feature film when sold or licensed alone and the price or fee for the same film when sold or licensed with one or more other film [sic] has the effect of conditioning the sale or license of such film upon the sale or license of one or more other films.”
All of the defendants except National Telefilm appeal from the decree. The appeals of defendants Loew’s, Screen Gems, Associated Artists, and United Artists raise identical issues and are consolidated as No. 43. The appeal of defendant C & C raises additional issues, and is therefore separately numbered as No. 44. The Government, although it won on the merits below, asserts in a cross-appeal (No. 42) that the scope and specificity of the decree entered by the District Court were inadequate to prevent the continued attainment of illegal objectives. It seeks to have the decree broadened in a number of ways. All of the defendants below oppose these modifications. The cases are here on direct appeal from the District Court under § 2 of the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29. We noted probable jurisdiction, 368 U. S. 973, and consolidated the appeals. We shall consider No. 43 first, since appellants there raise the fundamental question whether their activities were in violation of the antitrust laws. We shall thereafter consider No. 44, the special arguments of appellant C & C, and finally No. 42, the Government’s request for broadening the decree.
I.
This case raises the recurring question of whether specific tying arrangements violate § 1 of the Sherman Act. This Court has recognized that “[t]ying agreements serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition,” Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 305-306. They are an object of antitrust concern for two reasons — they may force buyers into giving up the purchase of substitutes for the tied product, see Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 605, and they may destroy the free access of competing suppliers of the tied product to the consuming market, see International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 396. A tie-in contract may have one or both of these undesirable effects when the seller, by virtue of his position in the market for the tying product, has economic leverage sufficient to induce his customers to take the tied product along with the tying item. The standard of illegality is that the seller must have "sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product . . . Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 6. Market dominance — some power to control price and to exclude competition — is by no means the only test of whether the seller has the requisite economic power. Even absent a showing of market dominance, the crucial economic power may be inferred from the tying product’s desirability to consumers or from uniqueness in its attributes.
The requisite economic power is presumed when the tying product is patented or copyrighted, International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392; United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131. This principle grew out of a long line of patent cases which had eventuated in the doctrine that a patentee who utilized tying arrangements would be denied all relief against infringements of his patent. Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502; Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Dev. Corp., 283 U. S. 27; Leitch Mfg. Co. v. Barber Co., 302 U. S. 458; Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U. S. 436; Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661. These cases reflect a hostility to use of the statutorily granted patent monopoly to extend the patentee’s economic control to unpatented products. The patentee is protected as to his invention, but may not use his patent rights to exact tribute for other' articles.
Since one of the objectives of the patent laws is to reward uniqueness, the principle of these cases was carried over into antitrust law on the theory that the existence of a valid patent on the tying product, without more, establishes a distinctiveness sufficient to conclude that any tying arrangement involving the patented product would have anticompetitive consequences. E. g., International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392. In United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 156-159, the principle of the patent cases was applied to copyrighted feature films which had been block booked into movie theaters. The Court reasoned that
“The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, ‘The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benéfits derived by the public from the labors of authors.’ It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius. But the reward does not serve its public purpose if it is not related to the quality of the copyright. Where a high quality film greatly desired is licensed only if an inferior one is taken, the latter borrows quality from the former and strengthens its monopoly by drawing on the other. The practice tends to equalize rather than differentiate the reward for the individual copyrights. Even where all the films included in the package are of equal quality, the requirement that all be taken if one is desired increases the market for some. Each stands not on its own footing but in whole or in part on the appeal which another film may have. As the District Court said, the result is to add to the monopoly of the copyright in violation of the principle of the patent cases involving tying clauses.” 334 U. S., at 158.
Appellants attempt to distinguish the Paramount decision in its relation to the present facts: the block booked sale of copyrighted feature films to exhibitors in a new medium — television. Not challenging the District Court’s finding that they did engage in block booking, they contend that the uniqueness attributable to a copyrighted feature film, though relevant in the movie-theater context, is lost when the film is being sold for television use. Feature films, they point out, constitute less than 8% of television programming, and they assert that films are “reasonably interchangeable” with other types of programming material and with other feature films as well. Thus they argue that their behavior is not to be judged by the principle of the patent cases, as applied to copyrighted materials in Paramount Pictures, but by the general principles which govern the validity of tying arrangements of nonpatented products, e. g., Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 6, 11. They say that the Government’s proof did not establish their “sufficient economic power” in the sense contemplated for nonpatented products.
Appellants cannot escape the applicability of Paramount Pictures. A copyrighted feature film does not lose its legal or economic uniqueness because it is shown on a television rather than a movie screen.
The district judge found that each copyrighted film block booked by appellants for television use “was in itself a unique product”; that feature films “varied in theme, in artistic performance, in stars, in audience appeal, etc.,” and were not fungible; and that since each defendant by reason of its copyright had a “monopolistic” position as to each tying product, “sufficient economic power” to impose an appreciable restraint on free competition in the tied product was present, as demanded by the Northern Pacific decision. 189 F. Supp., at 381. We agree. These findings of the district judge, supported by the record, confirm the presumption of uniqueness resulting from the existence of the copyright itself.
Moreover, there can be no question in this case of the adverse effects on free competition resulting from appel¡ants’ illegal block booking contracts. Television stations forced by appellants to take unwanted films were denied access to films marketed by other distributors who, in turn, were foreclosed from selling to the stations. Nor can there be any question as to the substantiality of the commerce involved. The 25 contracts found to have been illegally block booked involved payments to appellants ranging from $60,800 in the case of Screen Gems to over $2,500,000 in the case of Associated Artists. A substantial portion of the licensing fees represented the cost of the inferior films which the stations were required to accept. These anti-competitive consequences are an apt illustration of the reasons underlying our recognition that the mere presence of competing substitutes for the tying product, here taking the form of other programming material as well as other feature films, is insufficient to destroy the legal, and indeed the economic, distinctiveness of the copyrighted product. Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 337 U. S. 293, 307; Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 611 and n. 30. By the same token, the distinctiveness of the copyrighted tied product is not inconsistent with the fact of competition, in the form of other programming material and other films, which is suppressed by the tying arrangements.
It is therefore clear that the tying arrangements here both by their “inherent nature” and by their “effect” injuriously restrained trade. United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 179. Accommodation between the statutorily dispensed monopoly in the combination of contents in the patented or copyrighted product and the statutory principles of free competition demands that extension of the patent or copyright monopoly by the use of tying agreements be strictly confined. There may be rare circumstances in which the doctrine we have enunciated under § 1 of the Sherman Act prohibiting tying arrangements involving patented or copyrighted tying products is inapplicable. However, we find it difficult to conceive of such a case, and the present case is clearly not one.
The principles underlying our Paramount Pictures decision have general application to tying arrangements involving copyrighted products, and govern here. Applicability of Paramount Pictures brings with it a meeting of the test of Northern Pacific, since Paramount Pictures is but a particularized application of the general doctrine as reaffirmed in Northern Pacific. Enforced block booking of films is a vice in both the motion picture and television industries, and that the sin is more serious (in dollar amount) in one than the other does not expiate the guilt for either. Appellants’ block booked contracts are covered by the flat holding in Paramount Pictures, 334 U. S., at 159, that “a refusal to license one or more copyrights unless another copyright is accepted” is “illegal."
Appellants (other than C & C) make the additional argument that each of them was found to have entered into such a small number of illegal contracts as to make it improper to enter injunctive relief. Appellants urge that their over-all sales policies were to allow selective purchasing of films, and that in light of this, the fact that a few contracts were found to be illegal does not justify the entering of injunctive relief. We disagree. Illegality having been properly found, appellants cannot now complain that its incidence was too scattered to warrant injunctive relief. The trial judge, exercising sound judgment, has concluded that injunctive relief is necessary to prevent further violations. We think that finding wholly warranted. Moreover, the record shows that Loew’s only instituted its policy of 'making individual films available shortly after suit was brought, and there is evidence that United Artists was conscientious in publicizing its willingness to deal in individual films only after the commencement of suit was imminent. There is no reason to disturb the judge’s legal conclusions and decree merely because he did not find more illegal agreements when, as here, the illegal behavior of each defendant had substantial anticompetitive effects.
II.
Appellant C & C in its separate appeal raises certain arguments which amount to an attempted business justification for its admitted block booking policy. C & C purchased the telecasting rights in some 742 films known as the “RKO Library.” It did so with a bank loan for the total purchase price, and to get the bank loan it needed a guarantor, which it found in the International Latex Corporation. Latex, however, demanded and secured an agreement from C & C that films would not be sold without obtaining in return a commitment from television stations to show a minimum number of Latex spot advertisements in conjunction with the films. Thus, since stations could not feasibly telecast the minimum number of spots without buying a large number of films to spread them over, C & C by requiring the minimum number of advertisements effectively forced block booking on those stations which purchased its films. C & C contends the block booking was merely the by-product of two legitimate business motives — Latex’ desire for a saturation advertising campaign, and C & C’s wish to buy a large film library. However, the obvious answer to this contention is that the thrust of the antitrust laws cannot be avoided merely by claiming that the otherwise illegal conduct is compelled by contractual obligations. Were it otherwise, the antitrust laws could be nullified. Contractual obligations cannot thus supersede statutory imperatives. Hence, tying arrangements, once found to exist in a context of sufficient economic power, are illegal “without elaborate inquiry as to . . . the business excuse for their use,” Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1, 5.
In Nos. 43 and 44, therefore, we agree with the merits of the District Court’s decision. It correctly found that the conditioning of the sale of one or more copyrighted feature films to television stations upon the purchase of one or more other films is illegal. The antitrust laws do not permit a compounding of the statutorily conferred monopoly.
III.
The trial judge’s ability to formulate a decree tailored to deal with the violations existent in each case is normally superior to that of any reviewing court, due to his familiarity with testimony and exhibits. Notwithstanding our belief that primary responsibility for the decree must rest with the trial judge if workable results are to obtain, it is our duty to examine the decree in light of the record to see that the relief it affords is adequate to prevent the recurrence of the illegality which brought on the given litigation. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 89.
The United States contends that the relief afforded by the final judgments is inadequate and that to be adequate it must also: (1) require the defendants to price the films individually and offer them on a picture-by-picture basis; (2) prohibit noncost-justified differentials in price between a film when sold individually and when sold as part of a package; (3) proscribe “temporary” refusals by a distributor to deal on less than a block basis while he is negotiating with a competing television station for a package sale.
Some of the practices which the Government seeks to have enjoined with its requested modifications are acts which may be entirely proper when viewed alone. To ensure, however, that relief is effectual, otherwise permissible practices connected with the acts found to be illegal must sometimes be enjoined. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U. S. 436, 461; United States v. Bausch & Bomb Optical Co., 321 U. S. 707, 724; Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U. S. 386, 409; International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392, 401 ; United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 88-89. When the Government has won the lawsuit, it is entitled to win the cause as well, International Salt Co. v. United States, supra, 332 U. S., at 401.
A. Initial Offer of Individual Films, Individually Priced.
Under the final judgments entered by the court, a distributor would be free to offer films in a package initially, without stating individual prices. If, however, he delayed at all in producing individual prices upon request, he would subject himself to a possible contempt sanction. The Government’s first request would prevent this “first bite” possibility, forcing the offer of the films on an individual basis at the outset (but, as we view it, not precluding a simultaneous package offer, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., supra, 334 U. S., at 159).
This is a necessary addition to the decrees, in view of the evidence appearing in the record. Television stations which asked for the individual prices of some of the better pictures “couldn’t get any sort of a firm kind of an answer,” according to one station official. He stated that they received a “certain form of equivocation, like the price for the better pictures that we wanted was so high that it wouldn’t be worth our while to discuss the matter, . . . the implication being that it wouldn’t happen.” A Screen Gems intracompany memorandum about a Baton Rouge station’s price request stated that “I told him that I would be happy to talk to him about it, figuring we could start the old round robin that worked so well in Houston & San Antonio.” Without the proposed amendment to the decree, distributors might surreptitiously violate it by allowing or directing their salesmen to be reluctant to produce the individual price list on request. This subtler form of sales pressure, though not accompanied by any observable delay over time, might well result in some television stations buying the block rather than trying to talk the seller into negotiating on an individual basis. Requiring the production of the individual list on first approach will obviate this danger.
B. Prohibition of Noncost-justified Price Differentials.
The final judgments as entered only prohibit a price differential between a film offered individually and as part of a package which “has the effect of conditioning the sale or license of such film upon the sale or license of one or more other films.” The Government contends that this provision appearing by itself is too vague and will lead to unnecessary litigation. Differentials unjustified by cost savings may already be prohibited under the decree as it now appears. Nevertheless, the addition of a specific provision to prevent such differentials will prevent uncertainty in the operation of the decree. To ensure that litigation over the scope and application of the decrees is not left until a contempt proceeding is brought, the second requested modification should be added. The Government, however, seeks to make distribution costs the only saving which can legitimately be the basis of a discount. We would not so limit the relevant cost justifications. To prevent definitional arguments, and to ensure that all proper bases of quantity discount may be used, the modification should be worded in terms of allowing all legitimate cost justifications.
C. Prohibition of “Temporary” Refusals to Deal.
The Government’s third request is, like the first, designed to prevent distributors from subjecting prospective purchasers to a “run-around” on the purchase of individual films. No doubt temporary refusal to sell in broken lots to one customer while negotiating to sell the entire block to another is a proper business practice, viewed in vacuo, but we think that if permitted here it may tend to force some stations into buying pre-set packages to forestall a competitor’s getting the entire group. In recognition of this the Government seeks a blanket prohibition against all temporary refusals to deal. We agree in the main, except that the modification proposed by the Government fails to give full recognition to that part of this Court’s holding in Paramount Pictures which said,
“We do not suggest that films may not be sold in blocks or groups, when there is no requirement, express or implied, for the purchase of more than one film. All we hold to be illegal is a refusal to license one or more copyrights unless another copyright is accepted.” 334 U. S., at 159.
We therefore grant the Government’s request, but modify it only to the limited degree necessary to permit a seller briefly to defer licensing or selling to a customer pending the expeditious conclusion of bona fide negotiations already being conducted with a competing station on a proposal wherein the distributor has simultaneously offered to license or sell films either individually or in a package.
The modifications we have specified will bring about a greater precision in the operation of the decrees. We have concluded that they will properly protect the interest of the Government in guarding against violations and the interest of the defendants in seeking in good faith to comply.
The judgments are vacated and the causes are remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal . . . .” 26 Stat. 209 (1890), as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1.
National Telefilm has, however, filed a brief in opposition to the Government’s requests for modifications in the decree, discussed below.
See International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392; United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S, 131; Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U. S. 1.
Since the requisite economic power may be found on the basis of either uniqueness or consumer appeal, and since market dominance in the present context does not necessitate a demonstration of market power in the sense of § 2 of the Sherman Act, it should seldom be necessary in a tie-in sale case to embark upon a full-scale factual inquiry into the scope of the relevant market for the tying product and into the corollary problem of the seller’s percentage share in that market. This is even inore obviously true when the tying product is patented or copyrighted, in which ease, as appears in greater detail below, sufficiency of economic power is presumed. Appellants’ reliance on United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U. S. 377, is therefore misplaced.
Appellants’ framing of their argument in terms of each of them not having dominance in the market for television exhibition of feature films misconceives the applicable legal standard. As noted, supra, p. 45, “sufficient economic power” as contemplated by the Northern Pacific case is a term more inclusive in scope than “market dominance.”
To use the trial court’s apt example, forcing a television station which wants “Gone With The Wind” to take “Getting Gertie’s Garter” as well is taking undue advantage of the fact that to television as well as motion picture viewers there is but one “Gone With The Wind.”
The operative portion of the injunctions appears at p. 43, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice
Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.
On August 7, 1952, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered its decree enforcing in full an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued on June 30, 1950, against respondent herein directing it (1) to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with District Lodge No. 46, International Association of Machinists, a labor union, as the exclusive bargaining agent of all its tool and die makers, machinists, etc., and from discouraging membership in the union; (2) to take affirmative action upon request to bargain collectively with the union as the exclusive representative of respondent’s said employees and, if an understanding should be reached, to embody such understanding in a signed agreement; and (3) to post at its plant a notice to be furnished by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board and signed by the officers of respondent agreeing to desist from certain unfair labor practices, and to bargain collectively with the union upon request as required in the order. 197 F. 2d 814.
Respondent had posted the notice and restored certain employees to their jobs as required by the order, but declined to bargain collectively with the union, although requested by the latter to do so on numerous occasions over a period of seven months, basing its refusal to do so on the ground that the union had lost its alleged majority status by reason of a turnover in personnel. It demanded proof from the union that it represented a majority of the employees then employed in the bargaining unit. The union replied that its majority status had been determined by the Board and by the Court of Appeals in its decree of enforcement. Respondent never bargained collectively with the union, either before or after the decree, contending at all times that the latter did not have majority status, although in 1948 the employees had designated the union as their bargaining agent and the Board had found that respondent had avoided collective bargaining through its lack of good faith and because of its own unfair labor practices. This finding was not challenged by respondent and was adopted by the Court of Appeals in its enforcement decree of August 7, 1952. Respondent then filed a petition with the Board on January 27, 1953, requesting an election in the bargaining unit. Because of respondent’s failure to remedy its unfair labor practice by good-faith bargaining with the union for a reasonable period, the Board sustained its Regional Director’s dismissal of the petition.
On September 22, 1953, the Board filed its petition in the Court of Appeals, specifically setting forth the conduct of respondent showing its failure and refusal to comply with the court’s decree enforcing the Board’s order, and asking that respondent be required to show cause why it should not be adjudged in civil contempt. The Board also asked the court to institute a prosecution for criminal contempt against respondent. Respondent answered, claiming compliance with the decree except that since the decree of the court it had refused to bargain collectively with the union as the bargaining agent of its employees because for a long time the union had not represented its employees as such bargaining agent.
The Court of Appeals concluded that no case for a civil contempt order had been made out and dismissed the proceeding. The court held that, notwithstanding the prior entry of a decree directing respondent to bargain collectively with the union, respondent’s compliance with other provisions of the decree entitled it to refuse to bargain collectively since it had ascertained that even before the decree, because of a turnover in personnel, the union had lost majority status. The court stated that to hold respondent liable in contempt under these circumstances would do violence to its decree and to the Act rather than to vindicate them.
Because of the importance of the question in the administration of the National Labor Relations Act, we granted certiorari, 348 U. S. 958. Petitioner does not press here its prayer in the court below for an adjudication of criminal contempt.
In arriving at its decision purging respondent of contempt, the Court of Appeals stated that respondent had “complied fully with all the provisions” of its enforcement order; that it had “made an offer to bargain with the union;” that the union’s alleged loss of majority status was “without fault” on the respondent’s part; and that the Board took the position that respondent was required “to bargain indefinitely” notwithstanding the union’s loss of majority status.
If we had so understood the record, certiorari would not have been granted, but we do not so understand it. We believe the facts are to the contrary in each instance.
The original order of the Board found not only that respondent for a period of four years after notification by the union of its majority status had refused to bargain with it, but had also used deliberate and flagrant unfair labor practices to deprive the union of its majority status. In its opinion enforcing this cease and desist order, the Court of Appeals stated:
“With commendable candor respondent’s counsel has stated its position as follows:
“ ‘We have controverted the findings of fact of the Board in our Response, but in all fairness to this Court we are constrained to admit that there is sufficient evidence, even though disputed, upon which to base the Board’s order.’ ” 197 F. 2d 814.
The findings of both the Board and the Court of Appeals are, therefore, clear that there had been no willingness on respondent’s part up to that date, August 7, 1952, to bargain with the union.
In its “Answer of the Respondent to the petition of the Board for adjudication in Civil Contempt and other Civil Relief,” filed November 12, 1953, respondent alleged:
“As shown hereinbefore and hereinafter Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union because it did not represent a majority of the employees.”
There is nothing in the record to indicate that this situation has ever changed in the slightest respect, and this in face of the fact that the union has at all times been willing to bargain.
Neither does the record indicate that the Board insisted upon respondent’s bargaining with the union indefinitely; on the contrary, it demonstrates that the Board has urged here and in the court below that respondent should bargain in good faith only for a reasonable length of time after designation of the union as the bargaining agency.
It cannot be said that respondent is “without fault,” because the record is clear that at no time has respondent bargained in good faith with the union. It has met with the union but twice since 1948 and on neither of those occasions did it bargain. It has avoided other meetings by evasion and refusal or failure to respond to a request therefor.
The sole question necessary for determination here is whether an employer who has been found guilty by the Board of unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with a union designated as the exclusive representative of its employees and who has been directed to so bargain, is, after a decree enforcing the order and without remedying its unfair labor practices, legally justified in refusing to bargain with the union because it contends the union does not in fact have majority status in its plant, or must such employer bargain fairly for a reasonable length of time in accordance with the order to avoid an adjudication in civil contempt.
We believe that an employer in such circumstances cannot lawfully refuse to bargain; that he must do so for a reasonable time; and that for a failure to so bargain it is the statutory duty of the Court of Appeals on petition of the Board to adjudge him in contempt of its enforcement decree. To conclude otherwise would greatly weaken the administration of the National Labor Relations Act.
That Act contemplates cooperation between the Board and the Courts of Appeals both at the enforcement and the contempt stages in order to effectuate its purposes. It consigns certain statutory functions to each, and where the Board has acted properly within its designated sphere, the court is required to grant enforcement of the Board’s order. The decree, like the order it enforces, is aimed at the prevention of unfair labor practices, an objective of the Act, and so long as compliance is not forthcoming that objective is frustrated. It is for this reason that Congress gave the judicial remedy of contempt as the ultimate sanction to secure compliance with Board orders. The granting or withholding of such remedial action is not wholly discretionary with the court. This is true not only under the National Labor Relations Act but also under general principles of equity jurisprudence.
It seems clear to us that in the light of these principles and the facts of this case, the court below exceeded the allowable limits of its discretion in denying relief to the Board and that its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
There was only one meeting after entry of the enforcement decree. At this meeting, on January 19, 1953, respondent stated that it was in doubt as to the majority status of the union and for that reason "hesitated” to bargain with the union on the matter of a contract. This position was confirmed in a letter dated January 20, 1953, in which respondent advised the union of its intention to petition the Board for a decertification election.
United States v. Morgan, 307 U. S. 183.
Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U. S. 318.
Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills, 339 U. S. 563.
McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U. S. 187.
International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107; Penfield Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 330 U. S. 585.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents but a single question, upon which petitioner and the Government are substantially agreed that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. Does a United States citizen by birth who by foreign law derives from his parents citizenship of a foreign nation lose his United States citizenship by foreign residence long continued after attaining his majority?
Petitioner Mandoli was born in this country, of un-naturalized Italian parents. These circumstances made him a citizen of the United States by virtue of our Constitution and a national of Italy by virtue of Italian law. While he was a suckling, his parents returned to Italy taking him with them. At about the age of fifteen, he sought to come to the United States; but permission was refused by the American Consul at Palermo upon the ground that he was too young to take the journey unaccompanied.
In 1931, Mandoli saw brief service in the Italian army. In 1937, being 29 or 30 years of age, he attempted to come to the United States, but was rejected because of such army service. He renewed the effort in 1944, with the same result. In 1948, he was granted a certificate of identity which permitted him to enter the United States for prosecution of an action to establish his citizenship.
Judgment in the District Court went against him on the ground that expatriation had resulted from two causes: first, contrary to his contentions, it found that his service in the Italian army was voluntary and that he then took an oath of allegiance to the King of Italy; second, that he continued to reside in Italy after attaining his majority, thereby electing between his dual citizenships in favor of that of Italy.
The Government abandoned the first ground because the Attorney General ruled that such service in the Italian army by one similarly situated could “only be regarded as having been taken under legal compulsion amounting to duress.” He said, “The choice of taking the oath or violating the law was, for a soldier in the army of Fascist Italy, no choice at all.” The Court of Appeals, however, relying largely on Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325, affirmed upon the ground that failure to return to the United States upon the attainment of his majority operated to extinguish petitioner’s American citizenship. We conclude that Mandoli has not lost his citizenship.
It would be as easy as it would be unrewarding to point out conflict in precept and confusion in practice on this side of the Atlantic, where ideas of nationality and expatriation were in ferment during the whole Nineteenth Century. Reception of the common law confronted American courts with a doctrine that a national allegiance into which one was born could be renounced only with consent of his sovereign. European rulers, losing subjects (particularly seamen) to the New World, adhered fiercely to the old doctrine. On the other hand, the United States, prospering from the migrant’s freedom of choice, became champion of the individual’s right to expatriate himself, for which it contended in diplomacy and fought by land and by sea. However, this personal freedom of expatriation was not always recognized by our own courts, because of their deference to common-law precedent. Finally, Congress, by the Act of July 27, 1868, declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and that “any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.”
But this statute left unanswered many questions as to the overt acts that would effect a voluntary expatriation by our own citizens or would cause an involuntary forfeiture of citizenship. Prior to 1907, courts and administrators were left to devise their own answers.
Preparatory to legislative action on the subject, Congress sought and received a report of a special citizenship board. Reviewing judicial decisions, this report concluded that the courts recognized well-established doctrines of election in cases dealing with rights of persons with dual citizenship. This board recommended that Congress follow what it assumed to be established de-cisional law and enact, among other things, that expatriation be assumed as to any citizen who became domiciled in a foreign state, with a rebuttable presumption of foreign domicile from five years of residence in a foreign state. This was proposed as to all citizens and not merely those possessing dual citizenship. Congress, however, instead of accepting this broad doctrine of expatriation, by the Expatriation Act of 1907 limited the presumption of expatriation from foreign residence to the case of naturalized but not of native-born citizens.
If petitioner, when he became of full age in 1928, were under a statutory duty to make an election and to return to this country for permanent residence if he elected United States citizenship, that duty must result from the 1907 Act then applicable. In the light of the foregoing history, we can find no such obligation imposed by that Act; indeed, it would appear that the proposal to impose that duty was deliberately rejected.
The Nationality Act of 1940, though not controlling here, shows the consistency of congressional policy not to subject a citizen by birth to the burden and hazard of election at majority. This comprehensive revision and codification of the laws relating to citizenship and nationality was prepared at the request of Congress by the Departments of State, Justice and Labor. The State Department proposed a new provision requiring an American-born national taken during minority to the country of his other nationality to make an election and to return to the United States, if he elected American nationality, on reaching majority. The Departments of Justice and Labor were opposed and, as a consequence, it was omitted from the proposed bill. This disagreement between the Departments was called to the attention of the Congress. While in some other respects Congress enlarged the grounds for loss of nationality, it refused to require a citizen by nativity to elect between dual citizenships upon reaching a majority.
The Court of Appeals, however, applied such a rule because it understood that this Court, in Perkins v. Elg, supra, had declared it to be the law. Miss Elg was American-born, of naturalized parents Swedish in origin. They took her to Sweden when she was but four years old, where she remained during her nonage. By virtue of a Swedish-American Treaty of 1869, this resumption of residence in Sweden repatriated the parents, which carried with it Swedish citizenship for their minor child. Under the Act of 1907, any American citizen is deemed expatriated if naturalized in a foreign state in conformity with its laws. Undoubtedly, Miss Elg had become naturalized under the laws of Sweden. But it was not by any act of her own or within her control, and about eight months after she became twenty-one, she sought and obtained an American passport and returned to this country where she resided for something over five years. American immigration officials then decided that her derivative naturalization had deprived her of American citizenship and put their harsh and technical doctrine to test by instituting proceedings to deport her. That case did not present and the Court could not properly have decided any question as to consequences of a failure to elect American citizenship, for Miss Elg promptly did so elect and decisively evidenced it by resuming residence here. What it held was that citizenship conferred by our Constitution upon a child born under its protection cannot be forfeited because the citizen during nonage is a passive beneficiary of foreign naturalization proceedings. It held that Miss Elg had acquired a derivative dual-citizenship but had not suffered a derivative expatriation. In affirming her right to return to and remain in this country, it did not hold that it was mandatory for her to do so.
We find no warrant in the statutes for concluding that petitioner has suffered expatriation. And, since Congress has prescribed a law for this situation, we think the dignity of citizenship which the Constitution confers as a birthright upon every person born within its protection is not to be withdrawn or extinguished by the courts except pursuant to a clear statutory mandate. The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed, with directions to remand the case to the District Court for the entry of an order declaring that the petitioner is a citizen of the United States.
Reversed and so ordered.
Certiorari was granted without opposition, 343 U. S. 976.
D. C. opinion not reported.
41 Op. Atty. Gen., Op. No. 16.
90 U. S. App. D. C. 1121, 193 F. 2d 920.
15 Stat. 223, 8 U. S. C. § 800.
H. R. Doc. No. 326, 59th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 23; see also 74, 79, 160 et seq.
34 Stat. 1228.
Administrative practice, when involving protections abroad, involves very different policy considerations and is not controlling here. However, while not always consistent, it seems to have settled to the rule we apply in this case. 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, 371; see also Nielsen, Some Vexatious Questions Relating to Nationality, 20 Col. L. Rev. 840, 854.
8 U. S. C., c. 11.
See Hearings before House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization on H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 32.
See also § 350 of Pub. L. No. 414, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 66 Stat. 163, 269.
The question of whether the statutory grounds under the 1940 Act exclude other acts that will amount to voluntary expatriation was reserved in Kawakita v. United States, 343 U. S. 717, 730-732. It is not present in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.