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.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the Federal Communications Commission properly construed 47 U. S. C. § 312 (a) (7) and determined that petitioners failed to provide “reasonable access to... the use of a broadcasting station” ■ as required by the statute. 449 U. S. 950 (1980).
I
A
On October 11, 1979, Gerald M. Rafshoon, President of the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee, requested each of the three major television networks to provide time for a 30-minute program between 8 p. m. and 10:30 p. m. on either the 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th of December 1979. The Committee intended to present, in conjunction with President Carter’s formal announcement of his candidacy, a documentary outlining the record of his administration.
The networks declined to make the requested time available. Petitioner CBS emphasized the large number of candidates for the Republican and Democratic Presidential nominations and the potential disruption of regular programming to accommodate requests for equal treatment, but it offered to sell two 5-minute segments to the Committee, one at 10:55 p. m. on December 8 and one in the daytime. Petitioner American Broadcasting Cos. replied that it had not yet decided when it would begin selling political time for the 1980 Presidential campaign, but subsequently indicated that it would allow such sales in January 1980. App. 58. Petitioner National Broadcasting Co., noting the number of potential requests for time from Presidential candidates, stated that it was not prepared to sell time for political programs as early as December 1979.
On October 29, 1979, the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, charging that the networks had violated their obligation to provide “reasonable access” under § 312 (a)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Title 47 U. S. C. § 312 (a) (7), as added to the Act, 86 Stat. 4, states:
“The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit—
“(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.”
At an open meeting on November 20, 1979, the Commission, by a 4-to-3 vote, ruled that the networks had violated §312 (a)(7). In its memorandum opinion and order, the Commission concluded that the networks’ reasons for refusing to sell the time requested were “deficient” under its standards of reasonableness, and directed the networks to indicate by November 26, 1979, how they intended to fulfill their statutory obligations. 74 F. C. C. 2d 631.
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the FCC’s decision. The reconsideration petitions were denied by the same 4-to-3 vote, and, on November 28, 1979, the Commission issued a second memorandum opinion and order clarifying its previous decision. It rejected petitioners’ arguments that § 312 (a) (7) was not intended to create a new right of access to the broadcast media and that the Commission had improperly substituted its judgment for that of the networks in evaluating the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee’s request for time. November 29, 1979, was set as the date for the networks to file their plans for compliance with the statute. 74 F. C. C. 2d 657.
The networks, pursuant to 47 U. S. C. § 402, then petitioned for review of the Commission’s orders in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court allowed the Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters to intervene, and granted a stay of the Commission’s orders pending review.
Following the seizure of American Embassy personnel in Iran, the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee decided to postpone to early January 1980 the 30-minute program it had planned to broadcast during the period of December A-7, 1979. However, believing that some time was needed in conjunction with the President’s announcement of his candidacy, the Committee sought and subsequently obtained from CBS the purchase of five minutes of time on December 4. In addition, the Committee sought and obtained from ABC and NBC offers of time for a 30-minute program in January, and the ABC offer eventually was accepted. Throughout these negotiations, the Committee and the networks reserved all rights relating to the appeal.
B
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s orders, 202 U. S. App. D. C. 369, 629 F. 2d 1 (1980), holding that the statute created a new, affirmative right of access to the broadcast media for individual candidates for federal elective office. As to the implementation of §312 (a)(7), the court concluded that the Commission has the authority to independently evaluate whether a campaign has begun for purposes of the statute, and approved the Commission’s insistence that “broadcasters consider and address all non-frivolous matters in responding to a candidate’s request for time.” Id., at 386, 629 F. 2d, at 18. For example, a broadcaster must weigh such factors as: “(a) the individual needs of the candidate (as expressed by the candidate); (b) the amount of time previously provided to the candidate; (c) potential disruption of regular programming; (d) the number of other candidates likely to invoke equal opportunity rights if the broadcaster grants the request before him; and, (e) the timing of the request.” Id., at 387, 629 F. 2d, at 19. And in reviewing a broadcaster’s decision, the Commission will confine itself to two questions: “(1) has the broadcaster adverted to the proper standards in deciding whether to grant a request for access, and (2) is the broadcaster’s explanation for his decision reasonable in terms of those standards?” Id., at 386, 629 F. 2d, at 18.
Applying these principles, the Court of Appeals sustained the Commission’s determination that the Presidential campaign had begun by November 1979, and, accordingly, the obligations imposed by § 312 (a) (7) had attached. Further, the court decided that “the record... adequately supports the Commission’s conclusion that the networks failed to apply the proper standards.” Id., at 389, 629 F. 2d, at 21. In particular, the “across-the-board” policies of all three networks failed to address the specific needs asserted by the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee. Id., at 390, 629 F. 2d, at 22. From this the court concluded that the Commission was correct in holding that the networks had violated the statute’s “reasonable access” requirement.
Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ First Amendment challenge to § 312 (a) (7) as applied, reasoning that the statute as construed by the Commission “is a constitutionally acceptable accommodation between, on the one hand, the public’s right to be informed about elections and the right of candidates to speak and, on the other hand, the editorial rights of broadcasters.” Id., at 389, 629 F. 2d, at 25. In a concurring opinion adopted by the majority, id., at 389, n. 117, 629 F. 2d, at 25, n. 117, Judge Tamm expressed the view that § 312 (a) (7) is saved from constitutional infirmity “as long as the [Commission]... maintains a very limited ‘overseer’ role consistent with its obligation of careful neutrality....” Id., at 402, 629 F. 2d, at 34.
II
We consider first the scope of §312 (a)(7). Petitioners CBS and NBC contend that the statute did not impose any additional obligations on broadcasters, but merely codified prior policies developed by the Federal Communications Commission under the public interest standard. The Commission, however, argues that § 312 (a) (7) created an affirmative, promptly enforceable right of reasonable access to the use of broadcast stations for individual candidates seeking federal elective office.
A
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which Congress enacted in 1972, included as one of its four Titles the Campaign Communications Reform Act (Title I). Title I contained the provision that was codified as 47 U. S. C. §312 (a)(7).
We have often observed that the starting point in every case involving statutory construction is “the language employed by Congress.” Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 337 (1979). In unambiguous language, § 312 (a)(7) authorizes the Commission to revoke a broadcaster’s license
“for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by.a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.”
It is clear on the face of the statute that Congress did not prescribe merely a general duty to afford some measure of political programming, which the public interest obligation of broadcasters already provided for. Rather, § 312 (a) (7) focuses on the individual “legally qualified candidate” seeking air time to advocate “his candidacy,” and guarantees him “reasonable access” enforceable by specific governmental sanction. Further, the sanction may be imposed for “willful or repeated” failure to afford reasonable access. This suggests that, if a legally qualified candidate for federal office is denied a reasonable amount of broadcast time, license revocation may follow even a single instance of such denial so long as it is willful; where the denial is recurring, the penalty may be imposed in the absence of a showing of willfulness.
The command of § 312 (a) (7) differs from the limited duty of broadcasters under the public interest standard. The practice preceding the adoption of §312 (a)(7) has been described by the Commission as follows:
“Prior to the enactment of the [statute], we recognized political broadcasting as one of the fourteen basic elements necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires of the community. No legally qualified candidate had, at that time, a specific right of access to a broadcasting station. However, stations were required to make reasonable, good faith judgments about the importance and interest of particular races. Based upon those judgments, licensees were to 'determine how much time should be made available for candidates in each race on either a paid or unpaid basis.' There was no requirement that such time be made available for specific 'uses' of a broadcasting station to which Section 315 'equal opportunities’ would be applicable.” (Footnotes omitted.) Report and Order: Commission Policy in Enforcing Section 812 (a)(7) of the Communications Act, 68 F. C. C. 2d 1079, 1087-1088 (1978) (1978 Report and Order).
Under the pre-1971 public interest requirement, compliance with which was necessary to assure license renewal, some time had to be given to political issues, but an individual candidate could claim no personal right of access unless his opponent used the station and no distinction was drawn between federal, state, and local elections. See Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U. S. 525, 534 (1959). By its terms, however, §312 (a) (7) singles out legally qualified candidates for federal elective office and grants them a special right of access on an individual basis, violation of which carries the serious consequence of license revocation. The conclusion is inescapable that the statute did more than simply codify the pre-existing public interest standard.
B
The legislative history confirms that § 312 (a) (7) created a right of access that enlarged the political broadcasting responsibilities of licensees. When the subject' of campaign reform was taken up by Congress in 1971, three bills were introduced in the Senate — S. 1, S. 382, and S. 956. All three measures, while differing in approach, were “intended to increase a candidate’s accessibility to the media and to reduce the level of spending for its use.” Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971: Hearings on S. 1, S. 382, and S. 956 before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1971) (remarks of Sen. Pastore). The subsequent Report of the Senate Commerce Committee stated that one of the primary purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was to “give candidates for public office greater access to the media so that they may better explain their stand on the issues, and thereby more fully and completely inform the voters.” S. Rep. No. 92-96, p. 20 (1971) (emphasis added). The Report contained neither an explicit interpretation of the provision that became § 312 (a) (7) nor a discussion of its intended impact, but simply noted:
“[The amendment] provide[s] that willful or repeated failure by a broadcast licensee to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of his station’s facilities by a lagally [sic] qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy shall be grounds for adverse action by the FCC.
“The duty of broadcast licensees generally to permit the use of their facilities by legally qualified candidates for these public offices is inherent in the requirement that licensees serve the needs and interests of the [communities] of license. The Federal Communications Commission has recognized this obligation... Id., at 34.
While acknowledging the “general” public interest requirement, the Report treated it separately from the specific obligation prescribed by the proposed legislation. See also id., at 28.
As initially reported in the Senate, § 312 (a) (7) applied broadly, to “the use of a broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate on behalf of his candidacy.” Id., at 3. The Conference Committee confined the provision to candidates seeking federal elective office. S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-580, p. 22 (1971); H. Conf. Rep. No. 92-752, p. 22 (1971). During floor debate on the Conference Report in the House, attention was called to the substantial impact § 312 (a) (7) would have on the broadcasting industry:
“[B]roadcasters [are required] to permit any legally qualified candidate [for federal office] to purchase a ‘reasonable amount of time’ for his campaign advertising. Any broadcaster found in willful or repeated violation of this requirement could lose his license and be thrown out of business, his total record of public service notwithstanding.
“[Ujnder this provision, a broadcaster, whose license is obtained and retained on basis of performance in the public interest, may be charged with being unreasonable and, therefore, fall subject to revocation of his license.” 118 Cong. Nee. 326 (1972) (remarks of Rep. Keith).
Such emphasis on the thrust of the statute would seem unnecessary if it did nothing more than reiterate the public interest standard.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of congressional intent, however, is the contemporaneous amendment of § 315 (a) of the Communications Act. That amendment was described by the Conference Committee as a “conforming amendment” necessitated by the enactment of §312 (a)(7). S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-580, supra, at 22; H. Conf. Rep. No. 92-752, supra, at 22. Prior to the “conforming amendment,” the second sentence of 47 U. S. C. § 315 (a) (1970 ed.) read: “No obligation is imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.” This language made clear that broadcasters were not common carriers as to affirmative, rather than responsive, requests for access. As a result of the amendment, the second sentence now contains an important qualification: “No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.” 47 U. S. C. § 315 (a) (emphasis added). Congress retreated from its statement that “no obligation” exists to afford individual access presumably because § 312 (a) (7) compels such access in the context of federal elections. If § 312 (a) (7) simply reaffirmed the pre-existing public interest requirement with the added sanction of license revocation, no conforming amendment to § 315 (a) would have been needed.
Thus, the legislative history supports the plain meaning of the statute that individual candidates for federal elective office have a right of reasonable access to the use of stations for paid political broadcasts on behalf of their candidacies, without reference to whether an opponent has secured time.
C
We have held that “the construction of a statute by those charged with its execution should be followed unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong, especially when Congress has refused to alter the administrative construction.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 381 (1969) (footnotes omitted). Accord Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 121 (1973). Such deference “is particularly appropriate where, as here, an agency’s interpretation involves issues of considerable public controversy, and Congress has not acted to correct any misperception of its statutory objectives.” United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544, 554 (1979).
Since the enactment of §312 (a)(7), the Commission has consistently construed the statute as extending beyond the prior public interest policy. In 1972, the Commission made clear that § 312 (a) (7) “now imposes on the overall obligation to operate in the public interest the additional specific requirement that reasonable access and purchase of reasonable amounts of time be afforded candidates for Federal office.” Use of Broadcast and Cablecast Facilities by Candidates for Public Office, 34 F. C. C. 2d 510, 537-538 (1972) (1972 Policy Statement) (emphasis added). Accord, Public Notice Concerning Licensee Responsibility Under Amendments to the Communications Act Made by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 47 F. C. C. 2d 516 (1974). In its 1978 Report and Order, the Commission stated:
“When Congress enacted Section 312(a)(7), it imposed an additional obligation on the general mandate to operate in the public interest. Licensees were specifically required to afford reasonable access to or to permit the purchase of reasonable amounts of broadcast time for the ‘use’ of Federal candidates.
“We see no merit to the contention that Section 312 (a)(7) was meant merely as a codification of the Commission’s already existing policy concerning political broadcasts. There was no reason to commit that policy to statute since it was already being enforced by the Commission....” 68 F. C. C. 2d, at 1088.
See also 1978 Primer, 69 F. C. C. 2d, at 2286-2289. The Commission has adhered to this view of the statute in its rulings on individual inquiries and complaints. See, e. g., The Labor Party, 67 F. C. C. 2d 589, 590 (1978); Ken Bauder, 62 F. C. C. 2d 849 (Broadcast Bureau 1976); Don C. Smith, 49 F. C. C. 2d 678, 679 (Broadcast Bureau 1974); Summa Corp., 43 F. C. C. 2d 602, 603-605 (1973); Robert H. Hauslein, 39 F. C. C. 2d 1064, 1065 (Broadcast Bureau 1973).
Congress has been made aware of the Commission’s interpretation of § 312 (a)(7). In 1973, hearings were conducted to review the operation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1973: Hearings on S. 372 before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). Commission Chairman Dean Burch testified regarding the agency’s experience with § 312 (a)(7). Id., at 136-137. He noted that the Commission’s 1972 Policy Statement was “widely distributed and represented our best judgment as to the requirements of the law and the intent of Congress.” Id., at 135. Chairman Burch discussed some of the difficult questions implicit in determining whether a station has afforded “reasonable access” to a candidate for federal office, and in conclusion stated: “We have brought our approach to these problems in the form of the 1972 Public Notice to the attention of Congress. If we have erred in some important construction, we would, of course, welcome congressional guidance.” Id., at 137. Senator Pastore, Chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, replied:
“We didn’t draw the provision any differently than we did because when you begin to legislate on guidelines, and on standards, and on criteria, you know what you run up against. I think what we did was reasonable enough, and I think what you did was reasonable enough as well.
“I would suppose that in cases of that kind, you would get some complaints. But, frankly, I think it has worked out pretty well.” Id., at 137-138.
The issue was joined when CBS Vice Chairman Frank Stanton also testified at the hearings and objected to the fact that § 312 (a) (7) “grants rights to all legally qualified candidates for Federal office....” Id., at 190. He strongly urged “repeal” of the statute, but his plea was unsuccessful. Ibid
The Commission’s repeated construction of § 312 (a) (7) as affording an affirmative right of reasonable access to individual candidates for federal elective office comports with the statute’s language and legislative history and has received congressional review. Therefore, departure from that construction is unwarranted. “Congress’ failure to repeal or revise [the statute] in the face of such administrative interpretation [is] persuasive evidence that that interpretation is the one intended by Congress.” Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1, 11 (1965).
D
In support of their narrow reading of § 312 (a)(7) as simply a restatement of the public interest obligation, petitioners cite our decision in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94 (1973), which held that neither the First Amendment nor the Communications Act requires broadcasters to accept paid editorial advertisements from citizens at large. The Court in Democratic National Committee observed that “the Commission on several occasions has ruled that no private individual or group has a right to command the use of broadcast facilities,” and that Congress has not altered that policy even though it has amended the Communications Act several times. Id., at 113. In a footnote, on which petitioners here rely, we referred to the then recently enacted § 312 (a) (7) as one such amendment, stating that it had “essentially codified the Commission’s prior interpretation of § 315 (a) as requiring broadcasters to make time available to political candidates.” Id., at 113-114, n. 12.
However, “the language of an opinion is not always to be parsed as though we were dealing with language of a statute.” Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S., at 341. The qualified observation that § 312 (a) (7) “essentially codified” existing Commission practice was not a conclusion that the statute was in all respects coextensive with that practice and imposed no additional duties on broadcasters. In Democratic National Committee, we did not purport to rule on the precise contours of the responsibilities created by § 312 (a) (7) since that issue was not before us. Like the general public interest standard and the equal opportunities provision of § 315 (a), § 312 (a) (7) reflects the importance attached to the use of the public airwaves by political candidates. Yet we now hold that § 312 (a) (7) expanded on those predecessor requirements and granted a new right of access to persons seeking election to federal office.
Ill
A
Although Congress provided in § 312 (a) (7) for greater use of broadcasting stations by federal candidates, it did not give guidance on how the Commission should implement the statute’s access requirement. Essentially, Congress adopted a “rule of reason” and charged the Commission with its enforcement. Pursuant to 47 U. S. C. § 303 (r), which empowers the Commission to “ [m] ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of [the Communications Act],” the agency has developed standards to effectuate the guarantees of §312 (a)(7). See also 47 U. S. C. § 154 (i). The Commission has issued some general interpretative statements, but its standards implementing § 312 (a) (7) have evolved principally on a case-by-case basis and are not embodied in formalized rules. The relevant criteria broadcasters must employ in evaluating access requests under the statute can be summarized from the Commission’s 1978 Report and Order and the memorandum opinions and orders in these cases.
Broadcasters are free to deny the sale of air time prior to the commencement of a campaign, but once a campaign has begun, they must give reasonable and good-faith attention to access requests from “legally qualified” candidates for federal elective office. Such requests must be considered on an individualized basis, and broadcasters are required to tailor their responses to accommodate, as much as reasonably possible, a candidate’s stated purposes in seeking air time. In responding to access requests, however, broadcasters may also give weight to such factors as the amount of time previously sold to the candidate, the disruptive impact on regular programming, and the likelihood of requests for time by rival candidates under the equal opportunities provision of § 315 (a). These considerations may not be invoked as pretexts for denying access; to justify a negative response, broadcasters must cite a realistic danger of substantial program disruption — perhaps caused by insufficient notice to allow adjustments in the schedule — or of an excessive number of equal time requests. Further, in order to facilitate review by the Commission, broadcasters must explain their reasons for refusing time or making a more limited counteroffer. If broadcasters take the appropriate factors into account and act reasonably and in good faith, their decisions will be entitled to deference even if the Commission’s analysis would have differed in the first instance. But if broadcasters adopt “across-the-board policies” and do not attempt to respond to the individualized situation of a particular candidate, the Commission is not compelled to sustain their denial of access. See 74 F. C. C. 2d, at 665-674; 74 F. C. C. 2d, at 642-651; 1978 Report and Order, 68 F. C. C. 2d, at 1089-1092, 1094. Petitioners argue that certain of these standards are contrary to the statutory objectives of § 312 (a) (7).
(1)
The Commission has concluded that, as a threshold matter, it will independently determine whether a campaign has begun and the obligations imposed by § 312 (a) (7) have attached. 74 F. C. C. 2d, at 665-666. Petitioners assert that, in undertaking such a task, the Commission becomes improperly involved in the electoral process and seriously impairs broadcaster discretion.
However, petitioners fail to recognize that the Commission does not set the starting date for a campaign. Rather, on review of a complaint alleging denial of “reasonable access,” it examines objective evidence to find whether the campaign has already commenced, “taking into account the position of the candidate and the networks as well as other factors.” Id., at 665 (emphasis added). As the Court of Appeals noted, the “determination of when the statutory obligations attach does not control the electoral process,... the determination is controlled by the process.” 202 U. S. App. D. C., at 384, 629 F. 2d, at 16. Such a decision is not, and cannot be, purely one of editorial judgment.
Moreover, the Commission’s approach serves to narrow § 312 (a) (7), which might be read as vesting access rights in an individual candidate as soon as he becomes “legally qualified” without regard to the status of the campaign. See n. 11, supra. By confining the applicability of the statute to the period after a campaign commences, the Commission has limited its impact on broadcasters and given substance to its command of reasonable access.
(2)
Petitioners also challenge the Commission’s requirement that broadcasters evaluate and respond to access requests on an individualized basis. In petitioners’ view, the agency has attached inordinate significance to candidates’ needs, thereby precluding fair assessment of broadcasters’ concerns and prohibiting the adoption of uniform policies regarding requests for access.
While admonishing broadcasters not to “ ‘second guess’ the ‘political’ wisdom or... effectiveness” of the particular format sought by a candidate, the Commission has clearly acknowledged that “the candidate’s... request is by no means conclusive of the question of how much time, if any, is appropriate. Other... factors, such as the disruption or displacement of regular programming (particularly as affected by a reasonable probability of requests by other candidates), must be considered in the balance.” 74 F. C. C. 2d, at 667-668. Thus, the Commission mandates careful consideration of, not blind assent to, candidates’ desires for air time.
Petitioners are correct that the Commission’s standards proscribe blanket rules concerning access; each request must be examined on its own merits. While the adoption of uniform policies might well prove more convenient for broadcasters, such an approach would allow personal campaign strategies and the exigencies of the political process to be ignored. A broadcaster’s “evenhanded” response of granting only time spots of a fixed duration to candidates may be “unreasonable” where a particular candidate desires less time for an advertisement or a longer format to discuss substantive issues. In essence, petitioners seek the unilateral right to determine in advance how much time to afford all candidates. Yet § 312 (a) (7) assures a right of reasonable access to individual candidates for federal elective office, and the Commission’s requirement that their requests be considered on an individualized basis is consistent with that guarantee.
(3)
The Federal Communications Commission is the experienced administrative agency long entrusted by Congress with the regulation of broadcasting, and the Commission is responsible for implementing and enforcing § 312 (a) (7) of the Communications Act. Accordingly, its construction of the statute is entitled to judicial deference “unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S., at 381. As we held in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S., at 120, the Commission must be allowed to “remain in a posture of flexibility to chart a workable ‘middle course’ in its quest to preserve a balance between the essential public accountability and the desired private control of the media.” Like the Court of Appeals, we cannot say that the Commission’s standards are arbitrary and capricious or at odds with the language and purposes of §312 (a) (7). See 5 U. S. C. §706 (2)(A). Indeed, we are satisfied that the Commission’s action represents a reasoned attempt to effectuate the statute’s access requirement, giving broadcasters room to exercise their discretion but demanding that they act in good faith.
B
There can be no doubt that the Commission’s standards have achieved greater clarity as a result of the orders in these cases. However laudable that may be, it raises the question whether § 312 (a) (7) was properly applied to petitioners. Based upon the Commission’s prior decisions and 1978 Report and Order, however, we must conclude that petitioners ■ had adequate notice that their conduct in responding to the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee’s request for access would contravene the statute.
In the 1978 Report and Order, the Commission stated that it could not establish a precise point at which § 312 (a)(7) obligations would attach for all campaigns because each is unique:
“For instance, a presidential campaign may be in full swing almost a year before an election; other campaigns may be limited to a short concentrated period.... [W]e believe that, generally, a licensee would be unreasonable if it refused to afford access to Federal candidates at least during those time periods [when the ‘lowest unit charge’ provision of §315 applied]. Moreover, it may be required to afford reasonable access before these periods; however, the determination of whether ‘reasonable access’ must be afforded before these periods for particular races must be made in each case under all the facts and circumstances present.... [W]e expect licensees to afford access at a reasonable time prior to a convention or caucus. We will review a licensee’s decisions in this area on a case-by-case basis.” 68 F. C. C. 2d, at 1091-1092 (emphasis added).
In Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, 67 F. C. C. 2d 743 (1978), the Commission observed: “[T]he licensee, and ultimately the Commission, must look to the circumstances of each particular case to determine when it is reasonable for a candidate’s access to begin....” Id., at 746, n. 4 (emphasis added). Further, the 1978 Report and Order made clear that “Federal candidates are the intended beneficiary of Section 312 (a) (7) and therefore a candidate’s desires as to the method of conducting his or her media campaign should be considered by licensees in granting reasonable access.” 68 F. C. C. 2d, at 1089, n. 14. The agency also stated:
“[A]n arbitrary ‘blanket’ ban on the use by a candidate of a particular class or length of time in a particular period cannot be considered reasonable. A Federal candidate’s decisions as to the best method of pursuing his or her media campaign should be honored as much as possible under the ‘reasonable’ limits imposed by the licensee.” Id., at 1090.
Here, the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee sought broadcast time approximately 11 months before the 1980 Presidential election and 8 months before the Democratic National Convention. In determining that a national campaign was underway at that point, the Commission stressed: (a) that 10 candidates formally had announced their intention to seek the Republican nomination, and 2 candidates had done so for the Democratic nomination; (b) that various states had started the delegate selection process; (c) that candidates were traveling across the country making speeches and attempting to raise funds; (d) that national campaign organizations were established and operating; (e) that the Iowa caucus would be held the following month; (f) that public officials and private groups were making endorsements; and (g) that the national print media had given campaign activities prominent coverage for almost two months. 74 F. C. C. 2d, at 645-647. The Commission's conclusion about the status of the campaign accorded with its announced position on the vesting of § 312 (a) (7) rights and was adequately supported by the objective factors on which it relied.
Nevertheless, petition
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case a health care provider challenges a Medicare reimbursement determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. What begins as a rather conventional accounting problem raises significant questions respecting the interpretation of the Secretary’s regulations and her authority to resolve certain reimbursement issues by adjudication and interpretive rules, rather than by regulations that address all accounting questions in precise detail.
The particular dispute concerns whether the Medicare regulations require reimbursement according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and whether the reimbursement guideline the Secretary relied upon is invalid because she did not follow the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in issuing it. We hold that the Secretary’s regulations do not require reimbursement according to GAAP and that her guideline is a valid interpretive rule.
I
Respondent Guernsey Memorial Hospital (hereinafter Hospital) issued bonds in 1972 and 1982 to fund capital improvements. In 1985, the Hospital refinanced its bonded debt by issuing new bonds. Although the refinancing will result in an estimated $12 million saving in debt service costs, the transaction did result in an accounting loss, sometimes referred to as an advance refunding or defeasance loss, of $672,581. The-Hospital determined that it was entitled to Medicare reimbursement for about $314,000 of the loss. The total allowable amount of the loss is not in issue, but its timing is. The Hospital contends it is entitled to full reimbursement in one year, the year of the refinancing; the Secretary contends the loss must be amortized over the life of the old bonds.
The Secretary’s position is in accord with an informal Medicare reimbursement guideline. See U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual §233 (Mar. 1993) (PRM). PRM §233 does not purport to be a regulation and has not been adopted pursuant to the notice-and-comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. The fiscal intermediary relied on § 233 and determined that the loss had to be amortized. The Provider Reimbursement Review Board disagreed, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a, but the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration reversed the Board’s decision, see id., at 40a. In the District Court the Secretary’s position was sustained, see Guernsey Memorial Hospital v. Sullivan, 796 F. Supp. 283 (SD Ohio 1992), but the Court of Appeals reversed, see Guernsey Memorial Hospital v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 996 F. 2d 830 (CA6 1993). In agreement with the Hospital, the court interpreted the Secretary’s own regulations to contain a “flat statement that generally accepted accounting principles ‘are followed’ ” in determining Medicare reimbursements. Id., at 833 (quoting 42 CFR § 413.20(a)). Although it was willing to accept the argument that PRM § 233’s treatment of advance refunding losses “squares with economic reality,” 996 F. 2d, at 834, the Court of Appeals concluded that, because PRM §233 departed from GAAP, it “effects a substantive change in the regulations [and is] void by reason of the agency’s failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting it.” Id., at 832. Once the court ruled that GAAP controlled the timing of the accrual, it followed that the Hospital, not the Secretary, was correct and that the entire loss should be recognized in the year of refinancing.
We granted certiorari, 511 U. S. 1016 (1994), and now reverse.
II
Under the Medicare reimbursement scheme at issue here, participating hospitals furnish services to program beneficiaries and are reimbursed by the Secretary through fiscal intermediaries. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1395g and 1395h (1988 and Supp. V). Hospitals are reimbursed for “reasonable costs,” defined by the statute as “the cost actually incurred, excluding therefrom any part of incurred cost found to be unnecessary in the efficient delivery of needed health services.” § 1395x(v)(1)(A). The Medicare Act, 79 Stat. 290, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq., authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations “establishing the method or methods to be used” for determining reasonable costs, directing her in the process to “consider, among other things, the principles generally applied by national organizations or established prepayment organizations (which have developed such principles) in computing” reimbursement amounts. § 1395x(v)(l)(A).
The Secretary has promulgated, and updated on an annual basis, regulations establishing the methods for determining reasonable cost reimbursement. See Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402,404-407 (1993). The relevant provisions can be found within 42 CFR pt. 413 (1994). Respondent contends that two of these regulations, §§ 413.20(a) and 413.24, mandate reimbursement according to GAAP, and the Secretary counters that neither does.
A
Section 413.20(a) provides as follows:
“The principles of cost reimbursement require that providers maintain sufficient financial records and statistical data for proper determination of costs payable under the program. Standardized definitions, accounting, statistics, and reporting practices that are widely accepted in the hospital and related fields are followed. Changes in these practices and systems will not be required in order to determine costs payable under the principles of reimbursement. Essentially the methods of determining costs payable under Medicare involve making use of data available from the institution’s basis accounts, as usually maintained, to arrive at equitable and proper payment for services to beneficiaries.”
Assuming, arguendo, that the “[standardized definitions, accounting, statistics, and reporting practices” referred to by the regulation refer to GAAP, that nevertheless is just the beginning, not the end, of the inquiry. The decisive question still remains: Who is it that “foliow[s]” GAAP, and for what purposes? The Secretary’s view is that § 413.20(a) ensures the existence of adequate provider records but does not dictate her own reimbursement determinations. We are persuaded that the Secretary’s reading is correct.
Section 413.20(a) sets forth its directives in an ordered progression. The first sentence directs that providers must maintain records that are sufficient for proper determination of costs. It does not say the records are conclusive of the entire reimbursement process. The second sentence makes it clear to providers that standardized accounting practices are followed. The third sentence reassures providers that changes in their recordkeeping practices and systems are not required in order to determine what costs the provider can recover when principles of reimbursement are applied to the provider’s raw cost data. That sentence makes a distinction between recordkeeping practices and systems on one hand and principles of reimbursement on the other. The last sentence confirms the distinction, for it contemplates that a provider’s basic financial information is organized according to GAAP as a beginning point from which the Secretary “arrive [s] at equitable and proper payment for services.” This is far different from saying that GAAP is by definition an equitable and proper measure of reimbursement.
The essential distinction between recordkeeping requirements and reimbursement principles is confirmed by the organization of the regulations in 42 CFR pt. 413 (1994). Sub-part A sets forth introductory principles. Subpart B, containing the regulation here in question, is entitled “Accounting Records and Reports.” The logical conclusion is that the provisions in subpart B concern recordkeeping requirements rather than reimbursement, and closer inspection reveals this to be the case. Section 413.20 is the first section in subpart B, and is entitled “Financial data and reports.” In addition to § 413.20(a), the other paragraphs in §413.20 govern the “[f]requency of cost reports,” “[r]ecordkeeping requirements for new providers,” “ [continuing provider recordkeeping requirements,” and “[sjuspension of program payments to a provider . . . [who] does not maintain . . . adequate records.” Not until the following subparts are cost reimbursement matters considered. Subpart C is entitled “Limits on Cost Reimbursement,” subpart D “Apportionment [of Allowable Costs],” subpart E “Payments to Providers,” and subparts F through H address reimbursement of particular cost categories. The logical sequence of a regulation or a part of it can be significant in interpreting its meaning.
It is true, as the Court of Appeals said, that § 413.20(a) “does not exist in a vacuum” but rather is a part of the overall Medicare reimbursement scheme. 996 F. 2d, at 835. But it does not follow from the fact that a provider’s cost accounting is the first step toward reimbursement that it is the only step. It is hardly surprising that the reimbursement process begins with certain recordkeeping requirements.
The regulations’ description of the fiscal intermediary’s role underscores this interpretation. The regulations direct the intermediary to consult and assist providers in interpreting and applying the principles of Medicare reimbursement to generate claims for reimbursable costs, § 413.20(b), suggesting that a provider’s own determination of its claims involves more than handing over its existing cost reports. The regulations permit initial acceptance of reimbursable cost claims, unless there are obvious errors or inconsistencies, in order to expedite payment. § 413.64(f)(2). When a subsequent, more thorough audit follows, it may establish that adjustments are necessary. Ibid.; see also §§ 421.100(a), (c). This sequence as well is consistent with the Secretary’s view that a provider’s cost accounting systems are only the first step in the ultimate determination of reimbursable costs.
The Secretary’s position that § 413.20(a) does not bind her to reimburse according to GAAP is supported by the regulation’s text and the overall structure of the regulations. It is a reasonable regulatory interpretation, and we must defer to it. Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U. S. 504, 512 (1994); see also Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 499 U. S. 144, 151 (1991) (“Because applying an agency’s regulation to complex or changing circumstances calls upon the agency’s unique expertise and policymaking prerogatives, we presume that the power authoritatively to interpret its own regulations is a component of the agency’s delegated lawmaking powers”); Lyng v. Payne, 476 U. S. 926, 939 (1986) (“agency’s construction of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference”).
Respondent argues that, even if § 413.20(a) does not mandate reimbursement according to GAAP, §413.24 does. This contention need not detain us long. Section 413.24 requires that a provider’s cost data be based on the accrual basis of accounting, under which “revenue is reported in the period when it is earned, regardless of when it is collected, and expenses are reported in the period in which they are incurred, regardless of when they are paid.” §413.24(b)(2). But GAAP is not the only form of accrual accounting; in fact, both the GAAP approach and PRM §233 reflect different methods of accrual accounting. See Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 26, ¶ ¶ 5-8, reprinted at App. 64-66 (describing alternative accrual methods of recognizing advance refunding losses, including the one adopted in PRM §233). Section 413.24 does not, simply by its accrual accounting requirement, bind the Secretary to make reimbursements according to GAAP.
B
The Secretary’s reading of her regulations is consistent with the Medicare statute. Rather than requiring adherence to GAAP, the statute merely instructs the Secretary, in establishing the methods for determining reimbursable costs, to “consider, among other things, the principles generally applied by national organizations or established prepayment organizations (which have developed such principles) in computing the amount of payment... to providers of services.” 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A).
Nor is there any basis for suggesting that the Secretary has a statutory duty to promulgate regulations that, either by default rule or by specification, address every conceivable question in the process of determining equitable reimbursement. To the extent the Medicare statute’s broad delegation of authority imposes a rulemaking obligation, see ibid., it is one the Secretary has without doubt discharged. See Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S., at 418, and n. 13, 419, n. 15. The Secretary has issued regulations to address a wide range of reimbursement questions. The regulations are comprehensive and intricate in detail, addressing matters such as limits on cost reimbursement, apportioning costs to Medicare services, and the specific treatment of numerous particular costs. As of 1994, these regulations consumed some 640 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations.
As to particular reimbursement details not addressed by her regulations, the Secretary relies upon an elaborate adjudicative structure which includes the right to review by the Provider Reimbursement Review Board, and, in some instances, the Secretary, as well as judicial review in federal district court of final agency action. 42 U. S. C. § 1395oo(f)(1); see Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen, 485 U. S. 399, 400-401 (1988). That her regulations do not resolve the specific timing question before us in a conclusive way, or “could use a more exact mode of calculating,” does not, of course, render them invalid, for the “methods for the estimation of reasonable costs” required by the statute only need be “generalizations [that] necessarily will fail to yield exact numbers.” Good Samaritan, supra, at 418. The APA does not require that all the specific applications of a rule evolve by further, more precise rules rather than by adjudication. See NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267 (1974); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194 (1947). The Secretary’s mode of determining benefits by both rulemaking and adjudication is, in our view, a proper exercise of her statutory mandate.
Ill
We also believe it was proper for the Secretary to issue a guideline or interpretive rule in determining that defeasance losses should be amortized. PRM § 233 is the means to ensure that capital-related costs allowable under the regulations are reimbursed in a manner consistent with the statute’s mandate that the program bear neither more nor less than its fair share of costs. 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(i) (“[T]he necessary costs of efficiently delivering covered services to individuals covered by [Medicare] will not be borne by individuals not so covered, and the costs with respect to individuals not so covered will not be borne by [Medicare]”). The Secretary has promulgated regulations authorizing reimbursement of capital-related costs such as respondent’s that are “appropriate and helpful in . . . maintaining the operation of patient care facilities,” 42 CFR § 413.9(b)(2) (1994); see generally §§413.130-413.157, including “[Necessary and proper interest” and other costs associated with capital indebtedness, § 413.153(a)(1); see also §§ 413.130(a)(7) and (g). The only question unaddressed by the otherwise comprehensive regulations on this particular subject is whether the loss should be recognized at once or spread over a period of years. It is at this step that PRM § 233 directs amortization.
Although one-time recognition in the initial year might be the better approach where the question is how best to portray a loss so that investors can appreciate in full a company’s financial position, see APB Opinion 26, ¶¶4-5, reprinted at App. 64, the Secretary has determined in PRM §233 that amortization is appropriate to ensure that Medicare only reimburse its fair share. The Secretary must calculate how much of a provider’s total allowable costs are attributable to Medicare services, see 42 CFR §§ 413.5(a), 413.9(a), and (c)(3) (1994), which entails calculating what proportion of the provider’s services were delivered to Medicare patients, §§413.50 and 413.53. This ratio is referred to as the provider’s “Medicare utilization.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a. In allocating a provider’s total allowable costs to Medicare, the Secretary must guard against various contingencies. The percentage of a hospital’s patients covered by Medicare may change from year to year; or the provider may drop from the Medicare program altogether. Either will cause the hospital’s Medicare utilization to fluctuate. Given the undoubted fact that Medicare utilization will not be an annual constant, the Secretary must strive to assure that costs associated with patient services provided over time be spread, to avoid distortions in reimbursement. As the provider’s yearly Medicare utilization becomes ascertainable, the Secretary is able to allocate costs with accuracy and the program can bear its proportionate share. Proper reimbursement requires proper timing. Should the Secretary reimburse in one year costs in fact attributable to a span of years, the reimbursement will be determined by the provider’s Medicare utilization for that one year, not for later years. This leads to distortion. If the provider’s utilization rate changes or if the provider drops from the program altogether the Secretary will have reimbursed up front an amount other than that attributable to Medicare services. The result would be cross-subsidization, id., at 50a, which the Act forbids. 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(i).
That PRM §233 implements the statutory ban on cross-subsidization in a reasonable way is illustrated by the Administrator’s application of §233 to the facts of this case. The Administrator found that respondent’s loss “did not relate exclusively to patient care services rendered in the year of the loss .... [but were] more closely related to [patient care services in] the years over which the original bond term extended.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a. Because the loss was associated with patient services over a period of time, the Administrator concluded that amortization was required to avoid the statutory ban on cross-subsidization:
“The statutory prohibition against cross-subsidization [citing the provision codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1395x (v)(1)(A)], requires that costs recognized in one year, but attributable to health services rendered over a number of years, be amortized and reimbursed during those years when Medicare beneficiaries use those services.” Id., at 50a (footnote omitted).
“By amortizing the loss to match it to Medicare utilization over the years to which it relates, the program is protected from any drop in Medicare utilization, and the provider is likewise assured that it will be adequately reimbursed if Medicare utilization increases. Further, the program is protected from making a payment attributable to future years and then having the provider drop out of the Program before services are rendered to Medicare beneficiaries in those future years.” Id., at 49a (footnote omitted).
As an application of the statutory ban on cross-subsidization and the regulatory requirement that only the actual cost of services rendered to beneficiaries during a given year be reimbursed, 42 U. S. C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(i); 42 CFR §413.9 (1994), PRM §233 is a prototypical example of an interpretive rule “ ‘issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.’ ” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302, n. 31 (1979) (quoting Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 30, n. 3 (1947)). Interpretive rules do not require notice and comment, although, as the Secretary recognizes, see Foreword to PRM, they also do not have the force and effect of law and are not accorded that weight in the adjudicatory process, ibid.
We can agree that APA rulemaking would still be required if PRM §233 adopted a new position inconsistent with any of the Secretary’s existing regulations. As set forth in Part II, however, her regulations do not require reimbursement according to GAAP. PRM §233 does not, as the Court of Appeals concluded it does, “effec[t] a substantive change in the regulations.” 996 F. 2d, at 832.
IV
There is much irony in the suggestion, made in support of the Hospital’s interpretation of the statute and regulations, that the Secretary has bound herself to delegate the determination of any matter not specifically addressed by the regulations to the conventions of financial accounting that comprise GAAP. The Secretary in effect would be imposing upon herself a duty to go through the time-consuming rulemaking process whenever she disagrees with any announcements or changes in GAAP and wishes to depart from them. Examining the nature and objectives of GAAP illustrates the unlikelihood that the Secretary would choose that course.
Contrary to the Secretary’s mandate to match reimbursement with Medicare services, which requires her to determine with some certainty just when and on whose account costs are incurred, GAAP “do[es] not necessarily parallel economic reality.” R. Kay & D. Searfoss, Handbook of Accounting and Auditing, ch. 5, p. 7 (2d ed. 1989). Financial accounting is not a science. It addresses many questions as to which the answers are uncertain and is a “process [that] involves continuous judgments and estimates.” Id., ch. 5, at 7-8. In guiding these judgments and estimates, “financial accounting has as its foundation the principle of conservatism, with its corollary that ‘possible errors in measurement [should] be in the direction of understatement rather than overstatement of net income and net assets.’ ” Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 522, 542 (1979) (citation omitted). This orientation may be consistent with the objective of informing investors, but it ill serves the needs of Medicare reimbursement and its mandate to avoid cross-subsidization. Cf. id., at 543 (“[T]he accountant’s conservatism cannot bind the Commissioner [of the IRS] in his efforts to collect taxes”).
GAAP is not the lucid or encyclopedic set of pre-existing rules that the dissent might perceive it to be. Far from a single-source accounting rulebook, GAAP “encompasses the conventions, rules, and procedures that define accepted accounting practice at a particular point in time.” Kay & Searfoss, ch. 5, at 7 (1994 Update). GAAP changes and, even at any one point, is often indeterminate. “[T]he determination that a particular accounting principle is generally accepted may be difficult because no single source exists for all principles.” Ibid. There are 19 different GAAP sources, any number of which might present conflicting treatments of a particular accounting question. Id., ch. 5, at 6-7. When such conflicts arise, the accountant is directed to consult an elaborate hierarchy of GAAP sources to determine which treatment to follow. Ibid. We think it is a rather extraordinary proposition that the Secretary has consigned herself to this process in addressing the timing of Medicare reimbursement.
The framework followed in this case is a sensible structure for the complex Medicare reimbursement process. The Secretary has promulgated regulations setting forth the basic principles and methods of reimbursement, and has issued interpretive rules such as PRM §233 that advise providers how she will apply the Medicare statute and regulations in adjudicating particular reimbursement claims. Because the Secretary’s regulations do not bind her to make Medicare reimbursements in accordance with GAAP, her determination in PRM § 233 to depart from GAAP by requiring bond defeasance losses to be amortized does not amount to a substantive change to the regulations. It is a valid interpretive rule, and it was reasonable for the Secretary to follow that policy here to deny respondent’s claim for full reimbursement of its defeasance loss in 1985.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Schneble and his codefendant Snell were tried jointly in a Florida state court for murder. At the trial neither defendant took the stand, but police witnesses testified to certain admissions made by each defendant implicating both of them in the murder. Both defendants were convicted, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. This Court vacated and remanded the case for further consideration in the light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). Schneble v. Florida, 392 U. S. 298 (1968). Upon remand, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed Snell's conviction, finding that it had been obtained in violation of Bruton, but affirmed petitioner's conviction. We again granted certiorari, limited to the question of whether petitioner’s conviction had been obtained in violation of the Bruton rule. In the circumstances of this case, we find that any violation of Bruton that may have occurred at petitioner’s trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore affirm.
The State’s case showed that a threesome consisting of petitioner, Snell, and the victim, Mrs. Maxine Collier, left New Orleans in a borrowed automobile en route to Florida. While they were traveling across the Florida Panhandle, Mrs. Collier was murdered, and her body placed in the trunk of the automobile. The body was then transported in the car to the environs of Tampa, where it was left behind some bushes in a trash dump. Petitioner and Snell then continued their odyssey southward to the Florida Keys, and thence north along the east coast of Florida. They were apprehended for unrelated offenses in West Palm Beach, but upon discovering blood in the trunk of the car police officers there commenced the investigation that ultimately led to the charging of petitioner and Snell with the murder of Mrs. Collier.
The investigating officers testified at the trial that petitioner initially, while admitting knowledge of the murder, claimed that Snell had shot Mrs. Collier while petitioner was away from the car taking a walk. Petitioner later conceded, however, that his earlier story was false. He admitted to the police that it was he who had strangled Mrs. Collier, and that Snell had finally shot her in the head as she lay dying. The state court held these admissions of petitioner to be voluntary and admissible. Since our grant of certiorari here was limited to the Bruton issue, our treatment of that question assumes that these admissions were properly before the trial court.
One of the investigating officers also related at trial a statement made to him by Snell. Petitioner challenges this testimony as violative of Bruton, since Snell did not take the stand and thus was not available for cross-examination. According to the testimony of this officer, Snell said petitioner had occupied the rear seat of the car and had never left Snell alone in the car with Mrs. Collier during the trip. While Snell’s statement fell far short of the type of comprehensive and detailed confession made by petitioner, it did tend to undermine petitioner’s initial (but later abandoned) claim that he had left Snell alone during the time at which the murder occurred. Snell’s statement also placed petitioner in the position in the car from which the victim could more easily have been strangled. Thus, petitioner claims, the introduction of Snell’s out-of-court statement, not subject to effective cross-examination, deprived petitioner of his right of confrontation in violation of Bruton.
The Court held in Bruton that the admission of a confession of a codefendant who did not take the stand deprived the defendant of his rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, when that confession implicated the defendant. Even when the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the declarant, the Court in Bruton determined that the danger of misuse of the confession by the jury was too great to be constitutionally permissible. Bruton was held to be retroactive in Roberts v. Russell, 392 U. S. 293 (1968), and thus applies to the instant case even though it was tried more than two years prior to Bruton.
The mere finding of a violation of the Bruton rule in the course of the trial, however, does not automatically require reversal of the ensuing criminal conviction. In some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the code-fendant’s admission is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the admission was harmless error.
In Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969), the defendant was tried for murder jointly with three others. As in the instant case, he admitted being at the scene of the crime, but denied complicity. One of his code-fendants, who confessed and implicated him, took the stand and was subject to cross-examination. The other two codefendants, whose statements corroborated defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, did not take the stand. Noting the overwhelming evidence of Harrington’s guilt, and the relatively insignificant prejudicial impact of these codefendants’ statements, the Court held that any violation of Bruton that had occurred was harmless error.
In the instant case, petitioner’s confession was minutely detailed and completely consistent with the objective evidence. He informed police of the precise location at which they ultimately located the body, and guided them to this out-of-the-way spot. Although petitioner initially tried to put the sole blame on Snell, this version of the facts did not satisfactorily explain certain deep rope burns on petitioner’s hands. When confronted with the fact of the rope burns, petitioner admitted that he and Snell had plotted to kill Mrs. Collier in order to steal her money and the automobile.
Petitioner confessed that he had strangled Mrs. Collier with a plastic cord, and recounted the commission of the crime in minute and grisly detail culminating in Snell’s shooting the victim in the head because she still showed signs of life after the strangulation. These details of petitioner’s later account of the offense were internally consistent, were corroborated by other objective evidence, and were not contradicted by any other evidence in the case. They were consistently reiterated by petitioner on several occasions after his first exposition of them.
Not only is the independent evidence of guilt here overwhelming, as in Harrington, but the allegedly inadmissible statements of Snell at most tended to corroborate certain details of petitioner’s comprehensive confession. True, under the judge’s charge, the jury might have found the confession involuntary and therefore inadmissible. But this argument proves too much; without Schneble’s confession and the resulting discovery of the body, the State’s case against Schneble was virtually nonexistent. The remaining evidence in the case — the disappearance of Mrs. Collier sometime during the trip, and Snell’s statement that Schneble sat in the back seat of the car during the trip and never left Snell alone with Mrs. Collier — could not by itself convict Schneble of this or any other crime. Charged as they were by the judge that they must be “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt” and “to a moral certainty” of Schneble’s guilt before they could convict him, the jurors could on no rational hypothesis have found Schneble guilty without reliance on his confession. Judicious application of the harmless-error rule does not require that we indulge assumptions of irrational jury behavior when a perfectly rational explanation for the jury’s verdict, completely consistent with the judge’s instructions, stares us in the face. See Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 504-505 (1957).
Having concluded that petitioner’s confession was considered by the jury, we must determine on the basis of “our own reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact ... on the minds of an average jury,” Harrington v. California, supra, at 254, whether Snell’s admissions were sufficiently prejudicial to petitioner as to require reversal. In Bruton, the Court pointed out that “[a] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.” 391 U. S., at 135, quoting Lutwak v. United States, 344 U. S. 604, 619 (1953). Thus, unless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required. See Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967). In this case, we conclude that the “minds of an average jury” would not have found the State’s case significantly less persuasive had the testimony as to Snell’s admissions been excluded. The admission into evidence of these statements, therefore, was at most harmless error.
Affirmed.
The question of whether Schneble’s sentence of death in this case violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment proscription of “cruel and unusual punishment” is therefore not at issue here. That question is currently under consideration in Aikens v. California, No. 68-5027, and companion cases. All executions in Florida have been stayed by the Governor’s executive order until July 1, 1973. See Fla. Exec. Order No. 72-8 (Feb. 21, 1972).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
- Having “some information that [the petitioner here] was selling narcotics,” three deputy sheriffs of the County of Los Angeles, on the morning of July 1, 1949, made for the two-story dwelling house in which Rochin lived with his mother, commonrlaw wife, brothers and sisters. Finding,the outside door open, they entered and then forced open the door to Rochin’s room, on the second floor. Inside they found petitioner sitting partly dressed on the side of the bed, upon which his wife was lying. On a “night stand” beside the bed the deputies spied two capsules. When asked “Whose stuff is this?” Rochin seized the capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued, in the course of which the three officers “jumped upon him” and attempted to extract, the capsules. The force they applied proved unavailing against Rochin’s resistance. He was handcuffed and taken to a hospital.' At the direction of one of the officers a doctor forced an emetic solution through a tube into Rochin’s stomach against his will. This “stomach pumping” produced vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to contain morphine.
Rochin was brought to trial before a California Superior Court, sitting without a jury, on the charge of possessing “a preparation of morphine” in violation of the California Health and Safety Code, 1947, § 11,500. Rochin was convicted and sentenced to sixty days’ imprisonment. The chief evidence against him was the two capsules. They were admitted over petitioner’s objection, although the means of obtaining them was frankly set forth in the testimony by one of,the deputies, substantially as here narrated.
On appeal, the District Court of Appeal affirmed the Conviction, despite the finding that the officers “were guilty of unlawfully breaking into and entering defendant’s room and were guilty of unlawfully assaulting and battering defendant while in the room,” and “were guilty of unlawfully assaulting, battering, torturing and falsely imprisoning the defendant at the alleged hospital.” 101 Cal. App. 2d 140, 143, 225 P. 2d 1, 3. One of the three judges, while finding that “the record in this case reveals a shocking series of violations of constitutional rights,” concurred only because he felt bound by decisions of his Supreme Court. These, he asserted, “have been looked upon by law enforcement officers as an encouragement, if not an invitation, to the commission of such lawless acts.” Ibid. The Supreme Court of California denied without opinion Rochin’s petition for a hearing. Two justices dissented from this denial, and in doing so expressed themselves thus: “. . . a conviction which rests upon evidence of incriminating objects obtained from the body of the accused by physical abuse is as invalid as a conviction which rests upon a verbal confession extracted from him by such abuse. . . . Had the- evidence forced from the defendant’s lips consisted of an oral confession that he illegally possessed a drug ... he would have the protection of the rule of law which excludes coerced confessions from evidence. But because the evidence forced from his lips consisted of real objects the People of this state are permitted to base a conviction upon it. [We] find no valid ground of distinction between a verbal confession extracted by physical abuse and a confession wrested from defendant’s body by physical abuse.” 101 Cal. App. 2d 143, 149-150, 225 P. 2d 913, 917-918.
This Court granted certiorari, 341 U. S. 939, because a serious question is raised as to the limitations which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the conduct of criminal proceedings by the States.
In our federal system the administration of criminal justice is predominantly committed to the care of the States. The power to define crimes belongs to Congress only as an appropriate means of carrying into execution its limited grant of legislative powers. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. Broadly speaking, crimes in the United States are what the laws of the individual States, make them, subject to the limitations of Art. I, § 10, cl. 1, in the original Constitution, prohibiting bills of attainder and ex post jacto laws, and of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
These limitations, in the main, concern not restrictions upon the powers of the States to define crime, except in the restricted area where federal authority has pre-empted the field, but restrictions upon the manner in which the States may enforce their penal codes. Accordingly, in reviewing a State criminal conviction under a claim of right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, from which is derived the most far-reaching and most frequent federal basis of challenging State criminal justice, “we must be deeply mindful of the responsibilities of the States for the enforcement of criminal laws, and exercise with due humility our merely negative function in subjecting convictions from state courts to the very narrow scrutiny which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes.” Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 412, 418. Due process of law, “itself a historical product,” Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U. S. 22, 31, is not to be turned into a destructive dogma against the States in the .administration of their systems of criminal justice.
However, this Court too has its responsibility. Regard for the requirements of the Due Process Clause “inescapably imposes upon this Court an exercise of judgment upon the whole course of the proceedings [resulting in a conviction] in order to ascertain whether they offend those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples even toward those charged with the most heinous offenses.” Malinski v. New York, supra, at 416-417. These standards of justice are not authoritatively formulated anywhere as though they were specifics. Due process of law is a summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which, as Mr. Justice Cardozo twice wrote for the Court, are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105, or are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325.
The Court’s function in the observance of this settled conception of the Due Process Clause does, not leave us without adequate guides in subjecting State criminal procedures to constitutional judgment. In dealing not with the machinery of government but with human rights, the absence of formal exactitude, or want of fixity of meaning, is not an unusual or even regrettable attribute of constitutional provisions. Words being symbols do not speak without a gloss. On the one hand the gloss may be the deposit of history, whereby a term gains technical content. Thus the requirements of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments for trial by jury in the federal courts have a rigid meaning. No changes or chances can alter the content of the verbal symbol of “jury” — a body of twelve men who must reach a unanimous conclusion if the verdict is to go against the defendant. On the other hand, the gloss of some of the verbal symbols of the Constitution does not give them a fixed technical content. It exacts a continuing process of application.
When the gloss has thus not been fixed but is a function of the process of judgment, the judgment is bound to fall differently at different times and differently at the same time through different judges. Even more specific provisions, such as the guaranty of freedom of speech and the detailed protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, have inevitably evoked as sharp divisions in this Court as the least specific and most comprehensive protection of liberties, the Due Process Clause.
The vague contours of the Due Process Clause do not leave judges at large. We may not draw on our merely personal and private notions and disregard the limits that bind judges in their judicial function. Even though the concept of due process of law is not final and fixed, these limits are derived from considerations that are fused in' the whole nature of our judicial process. See Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process; The Growth of the Law; The Paradoxes of Legal Science. These are considerations deeply rooted in reason and in the compelling traditions of .the legal profession. The Due Process Clause places upon this Court the duty of exercising a judgment, within the narrow confines of judicial power in reviewing State convictions, upon interests of society pushing in opposite directions.
Due process of law thus conceived is not to be derided as resort to a revival of “natural law.” To believe that this judicial exercise of judgment could be avoided by freezing “due process of law” at some fixed stage of time or thought is to suggest that the most important aspect of constitutional adjudication is a function for inanimate machines and not for judges, for whom the independence safeguarded by Article III of the Constitution was designed and who are presumably guided by established standards of judicial behavior. Even cybernetics has not yet made that haughty claim. To practice the requisite detachment and to achieve sufficient objectivity no doubt demands of judges the habit of self-discipline and self-criticism, incertitude that one’s own views are incontestable and alert tolerance toward views-not shared. But these are precisely the presuppositions of our judicial process.. They are precisely the qualities society has a right to expect from those entrusted with ultimate judicial power.
Restraints on our jurisdiction are self-imposed only in the sense that there is from our decisions no immediate appeal short of impeachment or constitutional amendment. But that does not make due process of law a matter of judicial caprice. The faculties of the Due Process Clause may be indefinite and vague, but the mode of their ascertainment is not self-willed. In each case “due process of law” requires an evaluation based on a. disinterested inquiry pursued in the spirit of science, on a balanced order of facts exactly and fairly stated, on the detached consideration of conflicting claims, see Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 355, on a judgment not ad hoc and episodic but duly mindful of reconciling the needs both of continuity and of change in a progressive society.
Applying these general considerations to the circumstances of the present case, we are compelled to conclude that the proceedings by which this conviction was obtained do more than offend some fastidious squeamishness or private sentimentalism about combatting crime too energetically. This is conduct that shocks the conscience. Illegally breaking into the privacy of the petitioner, the struggle to open his mouth and remove what was there, the forcible extraction of his stomach’s contents — this course of proceeding by agents of government to obtain evidence is bound to offend even hardened sensibilities. They are methods too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation.
It has long since ceased to be true that due process of law is heedless of the means by which otherwise'relevant and credible evidence is obtained. This was not true even before the series of recent cases enforced the constitutional principle that the States may not base convictions upon confessions, however much verified, obtained by ®0®r« cion. These decisions are not arbitrary exceptions to the comprehensive right of States to fashion their own rules of evidence for criminal trials. They are not sports in our constitutional law but applications of a general principle. They are only instances of the general requirement that States in their prosecutions respect certain decencies of civilized conduct. Due process of law, as a historic and generative principle, precludes defining, and thereby confining, these standards of conduct more precisély than to say that convictions cannot be brought about by methods that offend “a sense of justice.” See Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, speaking for a unanimous Court in Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 285-286. It would be a stultification of the responsibility which the course of constitutional history has cast upon this Court to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind but can extract what is in his stomach.
To attempt in this case to distinguish what lawyers call “real evidence” from verbal evidence is to ignore the reasons for excluding coerced confessions. Use of involuntary verbal confessions in State criminal trials is constitutionally obnoxious not only because of their unreliability. They are inadmissible under the Due Process Clause even though statements contained in them may be independently established as true. Coerced confessions offend the community’s sense of fair play and decency. So here, to sanction the brutal conduct which naturally enough was condemned by the court whose judgment is before us, would be to afford brutality the cloak of law. Nothing would be more calculated to discredit law and thereby to brutalize the temper of a society.
In deciding this case we do not heedlessly bring into question decisions in many States dealing with essentially different, even if related, problems. We therefore put to one side cases which have arisen in the State courts through use of modern methods and devices for discovering wrongdoers and bringing them to book. It does not fairly represent these decisions to suggest that they legalize force so brutal and so offensive to human dignity in securing evidence from a suspect as is revealed by this record. Indeed the California Supreme Court has not sanctioned this mode of securing a conviction. It merely exercised its discretion to decline a review of the conviction. All the California judges who have expressed themselves in this case have condemned the conduct in the strongest language.
We are not unmindful that hypothetical situations can be conjured up, shading imperceptibly from the circumstances of this case and by gradations producing practical differences despite seemingly logical extensions. But the Constitution is “intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories.” Davis v. Mills, 194 U. S. 451, 457.
On the facts of this case the’ conviction of the petitioner has been obtained by methods that offend the Due Process Clause. The judgment below must be
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The petition for a hearing is addressed to the discretion of the California Supreme Court and a denial has apparently the same significance as the denial of certiorari in this Court. Cal. Const., Art. VI, §§ 4, 4c; “Rules on Appeal,” Rules 28, 29, 36 Cal. 2d 24-25 (1951). See 3 Stan. L. Rev. 243-269 (1951).
What is here summarized was deemed by a majority of the Court, in Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 412 and 438, to be “the controlling principles upon which' this Court reviews on constitutional grounds a.state court conviction for crime.” They have been applied by this Court many times, long before and since the Malinski case.
This is the federal jury required constitutionally although England and at least half of the States have in some civil cases juries which are composed of less than 12 or whose verdict may be less than unanimous. See County Courts Act, 1934, 24 & 25 Geo. V, c. 53, § 93; Arizona State Legislative Bureau, Legislative Briefs No. 4, Grand and Petit Juries in the United States, v-vi (Feb. 15, 1940); The Council of State Governments, The Book of the States, 1950-1951, 515.
Burke’s observations' on the method of ascertaining law by judges are pertinent:
“Your committee do not find any positive law which binds the judges of the courts in Westminster-hall publicly to give a reasoned opinion from the bench, in support of their judgment upon matters that are stated before them. But the course- hath prevailed from the oldest times. It hath been so general and so uniform, that it must be considered as the law of the land.” Report of the Committee of Managers on the Causes of the Duration of Mr. Hastings’s Trial, 4 Speeches of Edmund Burke (1816) 200-201.
And Burke had an answer for those who argue that the liberty of the citizen cannot be- adequately protected by the flexible conception of due process of law:
"... the English jurisprudence has not any other sure foundation, nor consequently the lives and properties of the subject any sure hold, but in the maxims, rules, and principles, and juridical traditionary line of decisions . . . .” Id., at 201.
Morris R. Cohen, “Jus Naturale Redivivum,” 25 Philosophical Review 761 (1916), and “Natural Rights and Positive Law,” Reason and Nature (1931), 401-426; F. Pollock, “The History of the Law of Nature,” Essays in the Law (1922), 31-79.
As to the difference between the privilege against self-crimination protected, in federal prosecutions, under the. Fifth Amendment, and the limitations which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes upon the States against the use of coerced confessions, see Brown v. Mississippi, supra, at 285.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Since enactment of the Bonneville Project Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 781, 16 U. S. C. §832 et seq. (Project Act), the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has marketed low-cost hydroelectric power generated by a series of dams along the Columbia River. Although § 4(a) of the Project Act, 16 U. S. C. §832c(a), directs the BPA Administrator to “give preference and priority to public bodies and cooperatives” when selling its power, BPA for many years enjoyed a surplus of power that allowed it to satisfy the needs of all customers in the region. As demand for power increased to exceed BPA’s generating capability, however, the allocation of low-cost federal power became an issue of significant area concern. In 1980, Congress moved to avert what appeared to be an emerging customer struggle for BPA power by enacting the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 94 Stat. 2697, 16 U. S. C. §839 et seq. (Regional Act). That Act required BPA to offer new contracts to its several customers. Some of the respondents brought this suit to challenge the new contracts that BPA signed with certain customers. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the contracts violated the statute. We now reverse that judgment, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
I
Before discussing the Regional Act’s provisions that give rise to the dispute, certain aspects of hydroelectric power generation and the Project Act’s allocation scheme must be explained.
Because the amount of power generated by BPA depends on streamflow in the Columbia River system, BPA cannot predict with accuracy the amount of power that it can generate. Accordingly, BPA historically has sold two types of power. “Firm power” is energy that BPA expects to produce under predictable streamflow conditions. “Nonfirm” power is energy in excess of firm power, and is provided only when such excess exists.
BPA’s customers include three groups that are relevant to this case. The primary group is what the Project Act refers to as “public bodies and cooperatives,” which includes public utilities and other public entities. These entities are “preference” customers, and BPA is required to give priority to their applications for power when competing applications from nonpreference customers are received. See §4(b) of the Project Act, 16 U. S. C. §832c(b). BPA’s other two groups of customers are private, investor-owned utilities (IOUs), and direct-service industrial customers (DSIs). The latter are large industrial end-users that purchase power directly from BPA instead of through a utility. IOUs and DSIs are “nonpreference” customers, and BPA is allowed to contract to sell to them only power for which preference customers do not apply. Once a contract between BPA and a customer is signed, however, the Project Act makes clear that the contract is “binding in accordance with the terms thereof.” §5(a), 16 U. S. C. §832d(a).
In the early years of the Project Act, BPA’s contract with each of its customers obligated BPA to supply the customer’s full contractual requirements on a “firm,” noninterruptible basis. In 1948, the increasing demand for power in the Northwest caused BPA to modify its industrial sales policy so as to require that, where feasible, a new contract signed with a DSI provide that some power be supplied on a nonfirm basis. This condition meant that a portion of DSI power could be interrupted when necessary to supply BPA’s preference customers. DSIs are unique among BPA’s customers in their ability to tolerate such interruptions in service; they are able to do so because some of their industrial processes can withstand periodic power interruptions without damage. Utilities, on the other hand, require power on a nonin-terruptible basis because their residential consumers cannot withstand periodic interruptions in service.
The increased demand for power in the 1970’s required that BPA alter its sales policies even more drastically. Projections at that time showed that because of increased power demand, preference customers soon would require all of BPA’s power. See H. R. Rep. No. 96-976, pt. 1, pp. 23-27 (1980). Accordingly, BPA announced in 1973 that new contracts for firm power sales to IOUs would not be offered. In addition, when BPA signed contracts with DSIs in 1975, it specified that 25% of their power would be subject to interruption “at any time,” and it advised the DSIs that as their new contracts expired during the 1981-1991 period, they were not likely to be renewed.
The increase in demand soon threatened even the ability of BPA’s preference customers to obtain federal power to meet their full power needs. In 1976, BPA informed its preference customers that BPA would not be able to satisfy preference customer load growth after July 1,1983, and BPA began to consider how to divide the available federal power among its preference customers.
The high cost of alternative sources of power caused BPA’s nonpreference customers vigorously to pursue ways to regain access to cheap federal power. Most important, many areas that were served by IOUs moved to establish public entities designed to qualify as preference customers and be eligible for administrative allocations of power. Because the Project Act provided no clear way of allocating among preference customers, and because the stakes involved in buying cheap federal power had become very high, this competition for administrative allocations threatened to produce contentious litigation. The uncertainty inherent in the situation greatly complicated the efforts by all BPA customers to plan for their future power needs.
To avoid the prospect of unproductive and endless litigation, Congress enacted the Regional Act. The Act provided for future cooperation in the region by establishing a mechanism for comprehensive federal/state power planning. §§4 and 6, 16 U. S. C. §§839b and 839d. For the first time, moreover, BPA was authorized to acquire resources to increase the supply of federal power. In addition, §5 of the Act, 16 U. S. C. §839c, sought to avert disputes over the allocation of power by requiring BPA to enter into an initial set of contracts with its various types of customers.
Section 5(d)(1)(B) of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 839c(d)(l)(B), required that “[a]fter the effective date of this Act [Dec. 5, 1980], the Administrator shall offer... to each existing direct service industrial customer an initial long term contract that provides such customer an amount of power equivalent to that to which such customer is entitled under its contract dated January or April 1975....” These contracts were to replace the existing DSI contracts that were scheduled to expire at various times during the period 1981-1991. Section 5(d)(1)(A) indicated that the sales to the DSIs under the new contracts were to “provide a portion of the Administrator’s reserves for firm power loads within the region.”
Pursuant to this statutory directive, the Administrator offered new, 20-year contracts to its DSI customers. The contracts were for the same amount of power specified by the existing 1975 contracts. Based upon his interpretation of the statute and the legislative history of the Act, however, the Administrator concluded that the terms of the power sales were not to be the same as they had been under the 1975 contracts. The 1975 contracts provided that a portion (the “top quartile”) of the power supplied to DSIs could be interrupted “at any time.” This provision made the top quartile of DSI power subject to the preference provisions of the Project Act, and enabled preference utilities to interrupt it whenever they wanted nonfirm power. The Administrator concluded that such a provision in the new contracts would conflict with § 5(d)(l)(A)’s directive that sales to DSIs should “provide a portion of the Administrator’s reserves tor firm power loads” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Administrator offered DSI customers contracts that allowed interruption only to protect BPA’s firm loads, and not to make sales of nonfirm energy. 46 Fed. Reg. 44340 (1981).
This aspect of the new DSI contracts is at the center of the present dispute. Under the Project Act, nonfirm power was allocated hourly on an “if available basis,” and was subject to the preference provisions of that Act. Although nonfirm power is too unreliable for preference utilities to use to satisfy the demands of their consumers on a general basis, it nevertheless is attractive to many preference utilities because it could be used as a substitute for power they generated themselves. In this manner, nonfirm power purchases enabled preference utilities to shut down their own facilities when they required maintenance, or if they could not generate power as cheaply as BPA. Alternatively, preference utilities appear to have been able to “arbitrage” BPA’s nonfirm power by using it to displace their own power, which they then sold to users that could not purchase power directly from BPA. By making DSI power interruptible under the new contracts only to protect BPA’s firm power obligations, the new contracts reduced the amount of nonfirm power available to preference utilities.
Shortly after the Administrator’s decision and the execution of new DSI agreements, respondents challenged the contracts by petition for review in the Court of Appeals. The core of their challenge was that the proposed contracts violated the preference to nonfirm power accorded under the 1975 contracts. That preference, it was said, was reserved by §5(a) of the Regional Act, 16 U. S. C. §839c, which states: “All power sales under this Act shall be subject at all times to the preference and priority provisions of the Bonneville Project Act of 1937....” Respondents also relied on § 10(c) of the Regional Act, 16 U. S. C. § 839g(c), which provides that the Act does not “alter, diminish, abridge, or otherwise affect the provisions of other Federal laws by which public bodies and cooperatives are entitled to preference and priority in the sale of federally generated electric power.” Respondents argue that these provisions require that DSI power be interruptible under the new contracts on the same terms as it was under the 1975 contracts. In addition, respondents assert that the conditions in the new contracts effectively provide the DSIs with a greater “amount of power” than their 1975 contracts, in violation of § 5(d)(1)(B) of the Regional Act, 16 U. S. C. §839c(d)(l)(B).
The Court of Appeals agreed with respondents and found the Administrator’s interpretation of the Act to be unreasonable. Central Lincoln Peoples’ Utility District v. Johnson, 686 F. 2d 708 (CA9 1982). The court relied heavily on §§ 5(a) and 10(c) of the Regional Act to conclude that the Act preserved the longstanding practice of allocating nonfirm power under the 1975 contracts. Because of the importance of the issue, we granted certiorari. 460 U. S. 1050 (1983).
H
¡>
Under established administrative law principles, it is clear that the Administrator’s interpretation of the Regional Act is to be given great weight. “We have often noted that the interpretation of an agency charged with the administration of a statute is entitled to substantial deference.” Blum v. Bacon, 457 U. S. 132, 141 (1982). “To uphold [the agency’s interpretation] ‘we need not find that [its] construction is the only reasonable one, or even that it is the result we would have reached had the question arisen in the first instance in judicial proceedings.’... We need only conclude that it is a reasonable interpretation of the relevant provisions.” American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Electric Power Service Corp., 461 U. S. 402, 422-423 (1983), quoting Unemployment Compensation Comm’n v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 153 (1946).
These principles of deference have particular force in the context of this case. The subject under regulation is technical and complex. BPA has longstanding expertise in the area, and was intimately involved in the drafting and consideration of the statute by Congress. Following enactment of the statute, the agency immediately interpreted the statute in the manner now under challenge. Thus, BPA’s interpretation represents “ ‘a contemporaneous construction of a statute by the men charged with the responsibility of setting its machinery in motion, of making the parts work efficiently and smoothly while they are yet untried and new.”’ Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965), quoting Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396, 408 (1961).
Giving the Administrator’s interpretation the deference that it is due, we are convinced that his interpretation is a fully reasonable one. Section 5(d)(1)(B) of the Regional Act, 16 U. S. C. § 839c(d)(l)(B), expressly directs the Administrator to offer each existing DSI an initial long-term contract for the same amount of power as provided in its existing contract. It is therefore beyond dispute that the plain language of the statute mandates that contracts be offered. Respondents challenge the contracts, however, because they contain interruptibility provisions different from those in the 1975 contracts. Respondents offer essentially two arguments in support of their position. Neither is persuasive.
First, respondents claim that the new contracts violate the statutory directive that the contracts be for the same “amount of power” as the 1975 contracts. Because the proposed contracts curtail the situations in which power can be interrupted, respondents argue that they effectively provide DSIs with a greater amount of power than they would have received under the 1975 contracts. Petitioners and the Administrator contend, on the other hand, that the term “amount of power” refers only to the quantity of power to be sold to the DSIs as measured in kilowatts. They claim that the phrase does not determine the interruptibility or “quality” of the power that is sold under the required contracts.
The distinction between power amount and power “quality” is a valid one that can be seen by reference to the 1975 contracts. Under those contracts, the “amount” of power referred simply to the number of kilowatts sold. The contractual terms governing the interruptibility of the power were included in other provisions in the contracts. See contract between BP A and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1975), App. to Pet. for Cert. N-2, N-5. It is reasonable to conclude that the statutory directive that the new contracts be for the same “amount of power” as the 1975 contracts requires simply that the new contracts involve the same number of kilowatts. Respondents do not contend that the new contracts fail to meet this requirement.
Sections 5(d)(1)(A) and 3(17) of the Regional Act lend support to this interpretation. The former expressly requires that power sales to the DSIs “shall provide a portion of the Administrator’s reserves for firm power loads.” The latter defines reserves as the power needed to protect BPA’s “firm power customers” from shortages. It is clear from these provisions that at least some portion of DSI power is inter-ruptible to protect the firm needs of other customers. In addition, however, these provisions support the Administrator’s inference that the Regional Act does not require DSI power to be interruptible to meet the nonfirm power desires of preference customers, and the legislative history confirms this view. The Report of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources clearly explains: “[T]he term ‘firm power customers of the Administrator’ is intended to mean the firm power loads of such customers. It is not intended that the Administrator’s reserves will be used to protect other than firm loads” (emphasis supplied). S. Rep. No. 96-272, p. 23 (1979). Because it is clear that the top quartile of DSI power is a part of BPA’s reserves, that power is not to be used to serve nonfirm power loads.
Respondents’ claim that the top quartile of power must be interruptible “at any time” in order to provide the DSIs with the same “amount of power” is incorrect even under respondents’ own interpretation of the phrase. The parties agree that the DSIs’ second quartile of power can be interrupted in more situations under the new contracts than under the 1975 contracts, and that the power quality of the second quartile is therefore lower than before. See Respondents’ Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Temporary Injunction or Stay Pending Review, filed Sept. 8, 1981, App. 21 (table comparing interruptibility of second quartile of DSI power in 1975 and new contracts). The legislative history of the Regional Act makes clear that Congress expressly endorsed, perhaps even required, that the new contracts contain the conditions making the second quartile power more interruptible than before. If, as respondents would have it, the top quartile of power remained interruptible in the same situations as under the 1975 contracts, but the second quartile became more interruptible than before, it is apparent that the new contracts would provide the DSIs with a smaller total “amount of power,” as respondents seek to define that phrase. In short, Congress could not have contemplated interruptibility terms for the second quartile different from those in the 1975 contracts, and at the same time have insisted that DSIs get the “same amount of power” under respondents’ definition of the phrase; it is clear therefore, that that definition is not what Congress intended.
Respondents’ second argument is that the terms of the new contracts conflict with § 5(a) of the Regional Act. It is true, as respondents assert, that that section preserves the priority and preference provisions that existed under the Project Act. But the preference system merely determines the priority of different customers when the Administrator receives “conflicting or competing” applications for power that the Administrator is authorized to allocate administratively. § 4(b) of the Project Act, 16 U. S. C. §832c(b). In the instant case, the initial contracts offered by the Administrator to the DSIs are not part of an administrative allocation of power. The power sold pursuant to those contracts is allocated directly by the statute. Because there is no administrative allocation of power, there can be no competing applications. The preference provisions of the Project Act as incorporated into the Regional Act therefore simply do not apply to the initial contracts that the statute requires the BPA to offer.
Respondents’ argument that power sold to DSIs under the new contracts is subject to preference implicitly proves too much. There is nothing in either the rules governing preference or the Project Act that distinguishes the top quartile of DSI power from the other three quartiles. Under the 1975 contracts, the difference between the top quartile and the other quartiles was the provision in those contracts that made the top quartile subject to interruption “at any time.” That contract term allowed the Administrator to treat the top quartile of power as if it were uncommitted, and subjected it to preference. The other three quartiles were not subject to preference simply because the terms of the contracts did not so provide. Thus, the distinction among the different quartiles under the 1975 contracts was a product of the terms of the contracts, not a requirement of the Project Act’s preference provisions. There is likewise nothing in the Regional Act that distinguishes between the top quartile and the other quartiles for purposes of applying preference when offering the new DSI contracts. If respondents are correct that the power sold to the DSIs under the new contracts is subject to preference, then respondents have preference not only for power in the top quartile, but for the other three quartiles as well. For as long as that power is uncommitted, the preference provisions apply. Once committed by contract, the interruptibility of the power is determined by the terms of the contract. § 5a, 16 U. S. C. §832d(a).
It appears, therefore, that respondents’ view of the Regional Act would render meaningless the initial contracts contemplated by § 5(d)(1)(B). Respondents’ argument is essentially that the allocation of power under the mandated contracts should be the same as it would be if the preference rules applied. But Congress presumably included § 5(d)(1)(B) precisely because it wanted to achieve an allocation of power that differs from what allocation by preference would produce; preference was the perceived problem, not the chosen solution.
The Administrator’s interpretation of the Regional Act also is supported by § 5(g)(7) of that Act, 16 U. S. C. §839c(g)(7). That section “deem[s]” the Administrator “to have sufficient resources for the purpose of entering into the initial contracts” mandated by the statute. Through this express legal fiction, Congress ensured that the initial contracts could not be challenged by a claim that BPA lacked the power to enter into contracts with nonpreference customers. Congress clearly intended BPA to offer the DSI contracts even if that necessitated the acquisition by BPA of additional power through outside purchases and construction of new generating facilities. If preference were to apply to the initial contracts, however, they could be executed only after preference customers have purchased all the power they desire. Such a condition would be truly incongruous, for it could require BPA to obtain an almost unlimited amount of power. When Congress “deemed” the Administrator “to have sufficient resources for the purpose of entering into the initial contracts specified” by the Act, it is only sensible to assume that Congress intended such contracts to be made without regard to the preference rules that govern sales that are not statutorily mandated.
B
The legislative history of the Regional Act confirms the interpretation put forward by BPA and petitioners. That history shows that Congress paid specific attention to power sales to DSIs, and consulted BPA on the relationship between those sales and the broader purposes of the Act. The record gives no indication that Congress intended the new DSI contracts to have provisions governing interruptibility that were the same as in the 1975 contracts.
The Committee Reports of both Houses made particular reference to the DSI contracts and the manner in which those sales would provide the reserves for the Administrator’s other obligations. The Senate Report contains the following explanation of the section dealing with DSI sales.
“The power quality provided the direct-service industries is determined by the reserve obligations set forth in their contracts in order to protect service to firm loads of the Administrator. It is intended that these contracts at least provide peaking power reserves similar to those provided in the present contracts, and that the energy reserves shall include a reserve approximately equal to 25 percent of the direct service industrial load to protect firm loads for any reason, including low or critical streamflow conditions...” (emphasis supplied). S. Rep. No. 96-272, p. 28 (1979).
This passage flatly contradicts respondents’ argument. The first sentence makes clear that the “quality” of the power provided to the DSIs is determined by the need to provide reserves to protect “the firm loads of the Administrator.” The sentence is noticeably devoid of any suggestion that the quality of power is to be the same as it was under the 1975 contracts. The rest of the passage reinforces the view that the purpose of the interruptibility provisions is “to protect firm loads.”
The House Report indicates a similar understanding:
“Approximately 25 percent of the DSI load is to be treated as a firm load for purposes of resource operation and will provide an operating reserve that may be restricted by the BPA at any time in order to protect the Administrator’s firm loads within the region and for any reason, including low or critical streamflow conditions and unanticipated growth of regional firm loads.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-976, pt. 2, p. 48 (1980).
This passage confirms that DSI sales were to be interruptible “to protect the Administrator’s firm loads.” Such a requirement would have little meaning if, as respondents would have it, the statute also requires DSI power to be interruptible at any time for any reason.
The source of this language in the House Report is significant. While the bill was still under consideration, BPA conferred with the Committee’s staff and furnished the Committee with its understanding of how sales to DSIs would operate. The passage from the Report quoted above is an almost verbatim incorporation of BPA’s understanding of the provision. See Appendix III to Letter dated Aug. 19, 1980, from BPA Administrator to Rep. Kazen, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-23 (discussing the DSI service under the Regional Act). The legislative history therefore indicates that BPA consulted with Congress during the consideration of the Regional Act, and that BPA and Congress shared an understanding of the terms on which the Administrator would sell power to DSIs under the Act.
Respondents rely on the legislative history to establish two points, neither of which is controverted. First, respondents use the legislative history to demonstrate what § 5(a) already makes clear — that the Regional Act does not alter the priority provisions of the Project Act. See Brief for Respondents Central Lincoln Peoples’ Utility District et al. 23-30. Petitioners and the Administrator do not contest this point. But the issue in this case is not whether the preference rules have been changed; the issue is whether the preference rules apply to power that the statute requires BPA to sell to DSIs. Because it is clear that the power sold under the initial contracts is committed to DSIs by statute, it is equally clear that it is not uncommitted power to which preference applies.
Respondents’ second use of the legislative history is to show that, under the 1975 contracts, the top quartile of DSI was subject to preference because it was interruptible “at any time.” Id., at 21-23. This point also is uncontroverted. The issue in this case, however, is whether the new contracts mandated by the Regional Act must provide that a portion of DSI power be subject to interruption “at any time.” If so, there is no dispute over whether preference would apply to that power. But respondents have not pointed to anything in the Regional Act that requires that the interruptibility terms of the 1975 contracts be incorporated into the new contracts.
C
Because the Regional Act does not comprehensively establish the terms on which power is to be supplied to DSIs under the new contracts, it is our view that the Administrator has broad discretion to negotiate them. Such discretion is especially appropriate in this situation, because DSI sales are merely one part of a complicated statutory allocation plan designed to achieve several goals. Most important, sales to DSIs under the Regional Act are intricately related to the “exchange” program established by the Regional Act on behalf of nonpreference utilities. § 5(c), 16 U. S. C. §839c(c).
The exchange program is designed to provide rate relief for consumers served by IOUs. As noted supra, the operation of preference under the Project Act produced an allocation of cheap federal power that heavily favored public utilities (preference customers) over private utilities (non-preference customers). As a consequence, consumers that lived in areas served by public utilities enjoyed much cheaper power than consumers served by IOUs. The exchange program operates to reduce this disparity. Very briefly, the program consists of an “exchange” arrangement under which IOUs are allowed to sell power to BPA at their average system cost, and then purchase from BPA an equal quantity of cheaper federal power. The benefits to the IOUs under this program are to be passed on directly to residential consumers.
Because this exchange program essentially requires BPA to trade its cheap power for more expensive power, it is obviously a money-losing program for BPA. The Act expressly contemplates that much of the cost of this program is to be covered by power sales to DSIs, which pay a considerably higher price for power than other users. Section 7(c)(1), 16 U. S. C. §839e(c)(l), expressly directs the Administrator initially to charge the DSIs a rate “sufficient to [cover] the net costs incurred by the Administrator” under the exchange program. The House Report explained the interrelationship between sales to DSIs and the exchange program in some detail:
“[The DSIs] will also pay significantly higher rates under the new contracts. These higher rates permit the Administrator to enter into contracts with the region’s investor-owned utilities for an exchange of power equal to the utilities’ residential load. This exchange will permit residential customers of investor-owned utilities to share in the benefits of the lower-cost Federal resources. The power sold to BPA will be sold at the utilities’ average system cost and purchased back at the rate paid by the preference customers’ utilization [sic] their general requirements. The loss in revenue to the Administrator is in effect returned by the higher direct service industry rates. By providing these residential customers wholesale rate parity with residential customers of preference utilities, the amendment serves in a substantial way to cure a major part of the allocation problem.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-976, pt. 1, p. 29 (1980).
This passage makes clear that the DSI sales and the power exchange program are integrally related. BPA’s ability to finance the exchange program is related to the amount of power that BPAs sell to DSIs, which in turn is determined by the interruptibility terms of the new DSI contracts. It is the responsibility of the Administrator to manage the complex relationship among these various aspects of the statute, and, absent an express statutory statement requiring particular terms in the contracts, it is appropriate that we give him broad discretion to determine them.
HH ► — I h — I
For the foregoing reasons, 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.
Throughout this opinion, the term “respondents” is used to refer only to those parties who support the Court of Appeals’ judgment. The term does not include the Administrator of BPA and the Secretary of the Department of Energy, who nominally are respondents in this case even though they urge reversal of the judgment below.
In addition to the three relevant customer categories, BPA is also authorized to sell power to federal agencies in the region. See § 5(b)(3) of the Regional Act, 16 U. S. C. § 839c(b)(3). Sales to such agencies have no pertinency for this litigation.
Section 3 of the Project Act, 16 U. S. C. § 832b, defines “public bodies” as “States, public power districts, counties, and municipalities, including agencies or subdivisions of any thereof.” It defines “cooperatives” as “nonprofit-making... organizations of citizens supplying... members with any kind of goods, commodities, or services, as nearly as possible at cost.”
Because of the preference accorded public utilities over private ones, those States that had a relatively large proportion of public utilities benefited from the federal power more than the States in which most consumers were served by IOUs. Although 80% of the consumers in the State of Washington had access to BPA power because they were served by preference customers, only 20% of the consumers in Oregon had access to such power. See Pacific Northwest Electric Power Supply and Conservation: Hearings on H. R. 9020, H. R. 9664, and H. R. 5862 before the Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, p. 9 (1977).
Under the Project Act, BPA did not have authority to own, construct, or purchase the output or capability of electricity generating plants except to meet short-term deficiencies; BPA was entirely a marketing agency that disposed of power generated at dams constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers and what was then called the Bureau of Reclamation (now the Water and Power Resources Service). See H. R. Rep. No. 96-976, pt. 2, pp. 26-27 (1980).
The statute defines “reserves” as “the electric power needed to avert particular planning or operating shortages for the benefit of firm power customers....” § 3(17), 16 U. S. C. § 839a(17) (emphasis added).
Respondents’ discussion of this use of nonfirm power seems to us to be somewhat less than persuasive. The parties agree that the direct resale of BPA power by preference customers is prohibited. Petitioners contend, however, that respondents can and do use nonfirm federal power to displace their own power, which they can resell to other users. See Brief for Petitioners 47; Reply Brief for Petitioners 18, n. 58. Respondents do not specifically deny this, and simply emphasize their “other uses” for nonfirm power and the fact that they use the BPA power to serve their customers. See Brief for Respondent Public Power Council 20-21; Brief for Respondents Central Lincoln Peoples’ Utility District et al. 9, n. 25. We therefore take respondents to have conceded that they do arbitrage the nonfirm BPA power.
The House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Report, for example, expressly stated that the second quartile under the new contracts, “will provide a planning reserve to protect the Administrator’s firm loads against the delayed completion or unexpectedly poor performance of regional generating resources or conservation measures implemented or acquired by BPA.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-976, pt. 2, p. 48 (1980). The language in this Report is copied verbatim from a letter written by the BPA Administrator to the House Subcommittee explaining how BPA would serve the DSI load under the Regional Act. See Appendix III to Letter dated Aug. 19, 1980, from BPA Administrator to Rep. Kazen, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-23. A similar statement is in the Senate Report. S. Rep. No. 96-272, p. 28 (1979). The second quartile interruptibility provisions described similarly in all of these passages differ from those in the 1975 contracts.
The dissent apparently concedes that the second quartile interruptibility provisions of the new contracts differ from those in the 1975 contracts, post, at 403-405, and the dissent is presumably aware of the legislative history specifically endorsing the new provisions. Thus, the dissent acknowledges that its interpretation of the phrase “same amount of power” leads to an inconsistency, but claims that Congress was not “aware that it was altering the interruptibility provisions” (emphasis supplied), apparently assuming that Congress simply forgot what was in the 1975 contracts. It seems improvident to assume such ignorance on the part of Congress, not to mention the Administrator of BPA, when Congress clearly had to focus on the terms of the 1975 contracts in drafting several aspects of the statute.
The reliance by respondents and the Court of Appeals on § 10(c) of the Regional Act, 16 U. S. C. § 839g(c), is similarly misplaced. Section 10 is entitled “Savings Provisions.” The purpose of § 10(c) was to reassure preference customers in other regions of the country who feared that the Regional Act — by statutorily allocating power directly to nonpreference customers — would set a precedent that would weaken the commitment to preference that exists in other statutes governing the sale of federal power generated in other regions. See H. R. Rep. No. 96-976, pt. 1, pp. 34-35 (1980); cf. 126 Cong. Rec. 29803 (1980) (remarks of Rep. Udall). That section thus is irrelevant to the issue in this case.
To say that the preference provisions do not apply to 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:
|
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.
Respondent Scott Ewing was dismissed from the University of Michigan after failing an important written examination. The question presented is whether the University’s action deprived Ewing of property without due process of law because its refusal to allow him to retake the examination was an arbitrary departure from the University’s past practice. The Court of Appeals held that his constitutional rights were violated. We disagree.
I — I
In the fall of 1975 Ewing enrolled m a special 6-year program of study, known as “Inteflex,” offered jointly by the undergraduate college and the Medical School. An undergraduate degree and a medical degree are awarded upon successful completion of the program. In order to qualify for the final two years of the Inteflex program, which consist of clinical training at hospitals affiliated with the University, the student must successfully complete four years of study including both premedical courses and courses in the basic medical sciences. The student must also pass the “NBME Part I” — a 2-day written test administered by the National Board of Medical Examiners.
In the spring of 1981, after overcoming certain academic and personal difficulties, Ewing successfully completed the courses prescribed for the first four years of the Inteflex program and thereby qualified to take the NBME Part I. Ewing failed five of the seven subjects on that examination, receiving a total score of 235 when the passing score was 345. (A score of 380 is required for state licensure and the national mean is 500.) Ewing received the lowest score recorded by an Inteflex student in the brief history of that program.
On July 24,1981, the Promotion and Review Board individually reviewed the status of several students in the Inteflex program. After considering Ewing’s record in some detail, the nine members of the Board in attendance voted unanimously to drop him from registration in the program.
In response to a written request from Ewing, the Board reconvened a week later to reconsider its decision. Ewing appeared personally and explained why he believed that his score on the test did not fairly reflect his academic progress or potential. After reconsidering the matter, the nine voting members present unanimously reaffirmed the prior action to drop Ewing from registration in the program.
In August, Ewing appealed the Board’s decision to the Executive Committee of the Medical School. After giving Ewing an opportunity to be heard in person, the Executive Committee unanimously approved a motion to deny his appeal for a leave of absence status that would enable him to retake Part I of the NBME examination. In the following year, Ewing reappeared before the Executive Committee on two separate occasions, each time unsuccessfully seeking readmission to the Medical School. On August 19, 1982, he commenced this litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
II
Ewing’s complaint against the Regents of the University of Michigan asserted a right to retake the NBME Part I test on three separate theories, two predicated on state law and one based on federal law. As a matter of state law, he alleged that the University’s action constituted a breach of contract and was barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As a matter of federal law, Ewing alleged that he had a property interest in his continued enrollment in the Inteflex program and that his dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, violating his “substantive due process rights” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and entitling him to relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
The District Court held a 4-day bench trial at which it took evidence on the University’s claim that Ewing’s dismissal was justified as well as on Ewing’s allegation that other University of Michigan medical students who had failed the NBME Part I had routinely been given a second opportunity to take the test. The District Court described Ewing’s unfortunate academic history in some detail. Its findings, set forth in the margin, reveal that Ewing “encountered immediate difficulty in handling the work,” Ewing v. Board of Regents, 559 F. Supp. 791, 793 (1983), and that his difficulties — in the form of marginally passing grades and a number of incompletes and makeup examinations, many experienced while Ewing was on a reduced course load — persisted throughout the 6-year period in which he was enrolled in the Inteflex program.
Ewing discounted the importance of his own academic record by offering evidence that other students with even more academic deficiencies were uniformly allowed to retake the NBME Part I. See App. 107-111. The statistical evidence indicated that of the 32 standard students in the Medical School who failed Part I of the NBME since its inception, all 32 were permitted to retake the test, 10 were allowed to take the test a third time, and 1 a fourth time. Seven students in the Inteflex program were allowed to retake the test, and one student was allowed to retake it twice. Ewing is the only student who, having failed the test, was not permitted to retake it. Dr. Robert Reed, a former Director of the Inteflex program and a member of the Promotion and Review Board, stated that students were “routinely” given a second chance. 559 F. Supp., at 794. Accord, App. 8, 30, 39-40, 68, 73, 163. Ewing argued that a promotional pamphlet released by the Medical School approximately a week before the examination had codified this practice. The pamphlet, entitled “On Becoming a Doctor,” stated:
“According to Dr. Gibson, everything possible is done to keep qualified medical students in the Medical School. This even extends to taking and passing National Board Exams. Should a student fail either part of the National Boards, an opportunity is provided to make up the failure in a second exam.” Id., at 113.
The District Court concluded that the evidence did not support either Ewing’s contract claim or his promissory es-toppel claim under governing Michigan law. There was “no sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendants bound themselves either expressly or by a course of conduct to give Ewing a second chance to take Part I of the NBME examination.” 559 F. Supp., at 800. With reference to the pamphlet “On Becoming A Doctor,” the District Court held that “even if [Ewing] had learned of the pamphlet’s contents before he took the examination, and I find that he did not, I would not conclude that this amounted either to an unqualified promise to him or gave him a contract right to retake the examination.” Ibid.
With regard to Ewing’s federal claim, the District Court determined that Ewing had a constitutionally protected property interest in his continued enrollment in the Inteflex program and that a state university’s academic decisions concerning the qualifications of a medical student are “subject to substantive due process review” in federal court. Id., at 798. The District Court, however, found no violation of Ewing’s due process rights. The trial record, it emphasized, was devoid of any indication that the University’s decision was “based on bad faith, ill will or other impermissible ulterior motives”; to the contrary, the “evidence demonstrate^] that the decision to dismiss plaintiff was reached in a fair and impartial manner, and only after careful and deliberate consideration.” Id., at 799. To “leave no conjecture” as to his decision, the District Judge expressly found that “the evidence demonstrate^] no arbitrary or capricious action since [the Regents] had good reason to dismiss Ewing from the program.” Id., at 800.
Without reaching the state-law breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Ewing’s federal constitutional claim. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that Ewing’s implied contract right to continued enrollment free from arbitrary interference qualified as a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, but it concluded that the University had arbitrarily deprived him of that property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because (1) “Ewing was a ‘qualified’ student, as the University defined that term, at the time he sat for NBME Part I”; (2) “it was the consistent practice of the University of Michigan to allow a qualified medical student who initially failed the NBME Part I an opportunity for a retest”; and (3) “Ewing was the only University of Michigan medical student who initially failed the NBME Part I between 1975 and 1982, and was not allowed an opportunity for a retest.” Ewing v. Board of Regents, 742 F. 2d 913, 916 (CA6 1984). The Court of Appeals therefore directed the University to allow Ewing to retake the NBME Part I, and if he should pass, to reinstate him in the Inteflex program.
We granted the University’s petition for certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals had misapplied the doctrine of “substantive due process.” 470 U. S. 1083 (1985). We now reverse.
HH HH HH
In Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U. S. 78, 91-92 (1978), we assumed, without deciding, that federal courts can review an academic decision of a public educational institution under a substantive due process standard. In this case Ewing contends that such review is appropriate because he had a constitutionally protected property interest in his continued enrollment in the Inteflex program. But remembering Justice Brandéis’ admonition not to “ ‘formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied,”’ Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (concurring opinion), we again conclude, as we did in Horowitz, that the precise facts disclosed by the record afford the most appropriate basis for decision. We therefore accept the University’s invitation to “assume the existence of a constitutionally protectible property right in [Ewing’s] continued enrollment,” and hold that even if Ewing’s assumed property interest gave rise to a substantive right under the Due Process Clause to continued enrollment free from arbitrary state action, the facts of record disclose no such action.
As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that any substantive constitutional protection against arbitrary dismissal would not necessarily give Ewing a right to retake the NBME Part I. The constitutionally protected interest alleged by Ewing in his complaint, App. 15, and found by the courts below, derives from Ewing’s implied contract right to continued enrollment free from arbitrary dismissal. The District Court did not find that Ewing had any separate right to retake the exam and, what is more, explicitly “reject[ed] the contract and promissory estoppel claims, finding no sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendants bound themselves either expressly or by a course of conduct to give Ewing a second chance to take Part I of the NBME examination.” 559 F. Supp., at 800. The Court of Appeals did not overturn the District Court’s determination that Ewing lacked a tenable contract or estoppel claim under Michigan law, see supra, at 220, and n. 5, and we accept its reasonable rendering of state law, particularly when no party has challenged it.
The University’s refusal to allow Ewing to retake the NBME Part I is thus not actionable in itself. It is, however, an important element of Ewing’s claim that his dismissal was the product of arbitrary state action, for under proper analysis the refusal may constitute evidence of arbitrariness even if it is not the actual legal wrong alleged. The question, then, is whether the record compels the conclusion that the University acted arbitrarily in dropping Ewing from the Inteflex program without permitting a reexamination.
It is important to remember that this is not a case in which the procedures used by the University were unfair in any respect; quite the contrary is true. Nor can the Regents be accused of concealing nonacademic or constitutionally impermissible reasons for expelling Ewing; the District Court found that the Regents acted in good faith.
Ewing’s claim, therefore, must be that the University misjudged his fitness to remain a student in the Inteflex program. The record unmistakably demonstrates, however, that the faculty’s decision was made conscientiously and with careful deliberation, based on an evaluation of the entirety of Ewing’s academic career. When judges are asked to review the substance of a genuinely academic decision, such as this one, they should show great respect for the faculty’s professional judgment. Plainly, they may not override it unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment. Cf. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 323 (1982).
Considerations of profound importance counsel restrained judicial review of the substance of academic decisions. As Justice White has explained:
“Although the Court regularly proceeds on the assumption that the Due Process Clause has more than a procedural dimension, we must always bear in mind that the substantive content of the Clause is suggested neither by its language nor by preconstitutional history; that content is nothing more than the accumulated product of judicial interpretation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This is . . . only to underline Mr. Justice Black’s constant reminder to his colleagues that the Court has no license to invalidate legislation which it thinks merely arbitrary or unreasonable.” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 543-544 (1977) (White, J., dissenting).
See id., at 502 (opinion of Powell, J.). Added to our concern for lack of standards is a reluctance to trench on the prerogatives of state and local educational institutions and our responsibility to safeguard their academic freedom, “a special concern of the First Amendment.” Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967). If a “federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the multitude of personnel decisions that are made daily by public agencies,” Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 349 (1976), far less is it suited to evaluate the substance of the multitude of academic decisions that are made daily by faculty members of public educational institutions — decisions that require “an expert evaluation of cumulative information and [are] not readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or administrative decision-making.” Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U. S., at 89-90.
This narrow avenue for judicial review precludes any conclusion that the decision to dismiss Ewing from the Inteflex program was such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the faculty did not exercise professional judgment. Certainly his expulsion cannot be considered aberrant when viewed in isolation. The District Court found as a fact that the Regents “had good reason to dismiss Ewing from the program.” 559 F. Supp., at 800. Before failing the NBME Part I, Ewing accumulated an unenviable academic record characterized by low grades, seven incompletes, and several terms during which he was on an irregular or reduced course load. Ewing’s failure of his medical boards, in the words of one of his professors, “merely culminate[d] a series of deficiencies. . . . In many ways, it’s the straw that broke the camel’s back.” App. 79. Accord, id., at 7, 54-55, 72-73. Moreover, the fact that Ewing was “qualified” in the sense that he was eligible to take the examination the first time does not weaken this conclusion, for after Ewing took the NBME Part I it was entirely reasonable for the faculty to reexamine his entire record in the light of the unfortunate results of that examination. Admittedly, it may well have been unwise to deny Ewing a second chance. Permission to retake the test might have saved the University the expense of this litigation and conceivably might have demonstrated that the members of the Promotion and Review Board misjudged Ewing’s fitness for the medical profession. But it nevertheless remains true that his dismissal from the Inteflex program rested on an academic judgment that is not beyond the pale of reasoned academic decisionmaking when viewed against the background of his entire career at the University of Michigan, including his singularly low score on the NBME Part I examination.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Inteflex program has since been lengthened to seven years.
At this and later meetings Ewing excused his NBME Part I failure because his mother had suffered a heart attack 18 months before the examination; his girlfriend broke up with him about six months before the examination; his work on an essay for a contest had taken too much time; his makeup examination in pharmacology was administered just before the NBME Part I; and his inadequate preparation caused him to panic during the examination.
A fourth count of Ewing’s complaint advanced a claim for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The District Court held that the Board of Regents is a state instrumentality immunized from liability for damages under the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed this count of the complaint. Ewing v. Board of Regents, 552 F. Supp. 881 (ED Mich. 1982).
“In the fall of 1975, when Ewing enrolled in the program, he encountered immediate difficulty in handling the work and he did not take the final examination in Biology. It was not until the following semester that he completed this course and received a C. His performance in his other first semester courses was as follows: a C in Chemistry 120, a C in his writing course, and an incomplete in the Freshman Seminar. In the next semester he took Chemistry 220, a Freshman Seminar, and Psychology 504. He received a B in the Freshman Seminar, a C in Chemistry 220, but he withdrew from Psychology 504. He was advised at that time that he could not take the Patient Care Course, usually given during the fall of an Inteflex student’s second year, and he was placed on an irregular program. Because of these difficulties, at the July 14, 1976 meeting of the Promotion and Review Board he requested a leave of absence, and when this was approved, he left the program.
“During the summer of 1976 while on leave, he took two Physics courses at Point Loma College in California. He reentered the Inteflex program at the University of Michigan in the winter 1977 term. In that term he repeated Chemistry 220 in which he received an A-. In the spring of 1977, he passed the Introduction to the Patient Care course.
“In the 1977-78 year, he completed the regular Year II program. But then he encountered new difficulty. In the fall of 1978 he received an incomplete in Clinical Studies 400, which was converted to a Pass; a B in Microbiology 420; and an incomplete in Gross Anatomy 507. The Gross Anatomy incomplete was converted to a C — by a make-up examination. During the winter of 1979 he received a C — in Genetics 505, a C in Microbiology 520, an E in Microanatomy and General Pathology 506, a B in Creative Writing, and a Pass in Clinical Studies 410. He appealed the Micro-anatomy and General Pathology grade, requesting a change from an E to a D, and a make-up exam to receive a Pass. His appeal was denied by the Grade Appeal Committee, and he was again placed on an irregular program; he took only the Clinical Studies 420 course in the spring 1979 semester.
“In July 1979, Ewing submitted a request to the Promotion and Review Board for an irregular program consisting of a course in Pharmacology in the fall and winter 1979-80 and a course in Human Illness and Neuroscience in 1980-81, thus splitting the fourth year into two years. The Board denied this request and directed him to take the fourth year curriculum in one academic year. He undertook to do so. He removed his deficiency in Microanatomy and General Pathology 506 by repeating the course during the winter 1980 semester and received a C +. In the spring term of 1980 he passed Developmental Anatomy with a B - grade, and he received a C grade in Neuroscience I 509 after a reexamination. In the fall of 1980, he received a passing grade in Neuroscience 609 and Pharmacology 626, and in the winter term of 1981, he received a passing grade in Clinical Studies 510 and a deficiency in Pharmacology 627. He was given a makeup examination in this course, and he received a 67.7 grade.
“He then took Part I of the NBME . . . .” Ewing v. Board of Regents, 559 P. Supp., at 793-794.
In a footnote, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because we believe this case can be disposed of on the Section 1983 claim, this Court does not expressly reach the breach of contract or promissory estoppel claims.” Ewing v. Board of Regents, 742 F. 2d 913, 914, n. 2 (CA6 1984).
The University’s petition for certiorari also presented the question whether the Eleventh Amendment constituted a complete bar to the action because it was brought against the “Board of Regents of the University of Michigan,” App. 13, a body corporate. Cf. Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147 (1981) (per curiam); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U. S. 781 (1978) (per curiam). After the petition was granted, however, respondent Ewing filed a motion to amend the complaint by joining the individual members of the Board of Regents as named defendants in their official capacities. The University did not oppose that motion. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12-13.
Granting the motion merely conforms the pleadings to the “course of proceedings” in the District Court. Cf. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 167, n. 14 (1985); Brandon v. Holt, 469 U. S. 464, 469 (1985). The record reveals that the Regents frequently referred to themselves in the plural, as “defendants,” indicating that they understood the suit to be against them individually, in their official capacities, rather than against the Board as a corporate entity. App. 11. Likewise, the District Court held that “defendants did not act in violation of Ewing’s due process rights,” 559 F. Supp., at 799, and accordingly found “in favor of the defendants,” id., at 800. We consequently grant the motion, thereby allowing Ewing to name as defendants the individual members of the Board of Regents in their official capacities. See Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U. S. 496, 516, n. 19 (1982). Given our resolution of the case, we need not consider the question whether the relief sought by Ewing would be available under Eleventh Amendment principles.
Ewing and the courts below reasoned as follows: In Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577 (1972), this Court held that property interests protected by due process are “defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565, 572-573 (1975). In a companion case, Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 601-602 (1972), we held that “agreements implied from ‘the promisor’s words and conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances’ ” could be independent sources of property interests. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 344 (1976) (implied contracts). According to an antiquated race discrimination decision of the Michigan Supreme Court (whose principal holding has since been overtaken by events), “when one is admitted to a college, there is an implied understanding that he shall not be arbitrarily dismissed therefrom.” Booker v. Grand Rapids Medical College, 156 Mich. 95, 99-100, 120 N. W. 589, 591 (1909). From the foregoing, Ewing would have us conclude that he had a protectible property interest in continued enrollment in the Inteflex program.
Tr. of Oral Arg. 3. Consistent with this suggestion, petitioner’s answer to Ewing’s complaint “admitted] that, under Michigan law, [Ewing] may have enjoyed a property right and interest in his continued enrollment in the Inteflex Program.” App. 21.
Although there is some ambiguity in its opinion, we understand the Court of Appeals to have found “clearly erroneous” the District Court’s rejection of Ewing’s federal substantive due process claim solely because of the “undisputed evidence of a consistent pattern of conduct” — namely, the “substantial and uncontroverted evidence in the trial record that at the time Ewing took the NBME Part I, medical students were routinely given a second opportunity to pass it.” 742 F. 2d, at 915. The Court of Appeals found no “rule” to the effect that medical students are entitled to retake failed examinations. Indeed, it relied on the University’s “promotional pamphlet entitled ‘On Becoming a Doctor’ ” only to the extent that it “memorialized the consistent practice of the medical school with respect to students who initially fail that examination.” Id., at 916 (emphasis added).
A property interest in a second examination, however, cannot be inferred from a consistent practice without some basis in state law. Yet in this case the Court of Appeals did not reverse the District Court’s finding that Ewing was not even aware of the contents of the pamphlet and left standing its holding that the statements in this promotional tract did not “amoun[t] either to an unqualified promise to him or ... a contract right to retake the examination” under state law. 559 F. Supp., at 800. We recognize, of course, that “mutually explicit understandings” may operate to create property interests. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S., at 601. But such understandings or tacit agreements must support “a legitimate claim of entitlement” under ‘“an independent source such as state law . . . .’” Id., at 602, n. 7 (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S., at 577). The District Court, it bears emphasis, held that the University’s liberal retesting custom gave rise to no state-law entitlement to retake the NBME Part I. We rejected an argument similar to Ewing’s in Board of Regents v. Roth. In that case Dr. Roth asserted a property interest in continued employment by virtue of the fact that “of four hundred forty-two non-tenured professors, four were not renewed during [a particular] academic year.” Brief for Respondent in Board of Regents v. Roth, O. T. 1971, No. 71-162, p. 28 (footnote and citation omitted). Absent a state statute or university rule or “anything approaching a ‘common law’ of reemployment,” however, we held that Dr. Roth had no property interest in the renewal of his teaching contract. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S., at 578, n. 16.
“In dealing with issues of state law that enter into judgments of federal courts, we are hesitant to overrule decisions by federal courts skilled in the law of particular states unless their conclusions are shown to be unreasonable.” Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, 486-487 (1949). Accord, Haring v. Prosise, 462 U. S. 306, 314, n. 8 (1983); Leroy v. Great Western United Corp., 443 U. S. 173, 181, n. 11 (1979); Butner v. United States, 440 U. S. 48, 58 (1979); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S., at 345-347.
“University faculties must have the widest range of discretion in making judgments as to the academic performance of students and their entitlement to promotion or graduation.” Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U. S. 78, 96, n. 6 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring). See id., at 90-92 (opinion of the Court).
Academic freedom thrives not only on the independent and uninhibited exchange of ideas among teachers and students, see Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S., at 603; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250 (1957) (opinion of Warren, C. J.), but also, and somewhat inconsistently, on autonomous decisionmaking by the academy itself, see University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 312 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S., at 263 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result). Discretion to determine, on academic grounds, who may be admitted to study, has been described as one of “the four essential freedoms” of a university. University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S., at 312 (opinion of Powell, J.) (quoting Sweezy v. New Hampshire, supra, at 263 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result)) (internal quotations omitted).
Even viewing the ease from Ewing’s perspective, we cannot say that the explanations and extenuating circumstances he offered were so compelling that their rejection can fairly be described as irrational. For example, the University might well have concluded that Ewing’s sensitivity to difficulties in his personal life suggested an inability to handle the stress inherent in a career in medicine. The inordinate amount of time Ewing devoted to his extracurricular essay writing may reasonably have revealed to the University a lack of judgment and an inability to set priorities.
Nor does the University’s termination of Ewing substantially deviate from accepted academic norms when compared with its treatment of other students. To be sure, the University routinely gave others an opportunity to retake the NBME Part I. But despite tables recording that some students with more incompletes or low grades were permitted to retake the examination after failing it the first time, App. 105-111, and charts indicating that these students lacked the outside research and honor grade in clinical work that Ewing received, id., at 119-120, we are not in a position to say that these students were “similarly situated” with Ewing. The Promotion and Review Board presumably considered not only the raw statistical data but also the nature and seriousness of the individual deficiencies and their concentration in particular disciplines — in Ewing’s case, the hard sciences. The Board was able to take into account the numerous incom-pletes and makeup examinations Ewing required to secure even marginally passing grades, and it could view them in connection with his reduced course loads. Finally, it was uniquely positioned to observe Ewing’s judgment, self-discipline, and ability to handle stress, and was thus especially well situated to make the necessarily subjective judgment of Ewing’s prospects for success in the medical profession. The insusceptibility of promotion decisions such as this one to rigorous judicial review is borne out by the fact that 19 other Inteflex students, some with records that a judge might find “better” than Ewing’s, were dismissed by the faculty without even being allowed to take the NBME Part I a first time. Id., at 165-166. Cf. id., at 66 (nine Inteflex students terminated after suffering one deficiency and failing one course after warning).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Douglas
délivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner and two others were indicted and convicted under three counts charging violations of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2113. One count charged taking the property by force and violence, and assaulting and jeopardizing the lives of several persons in the course of the taking, in violation of § 2113 (d). Another count charged that they did “receive, possess, conceal, store, and dispose” of the stolen money in violation of §2113 (c). A third count charged a conspiracy. The sentence imposed was 10 years on the first count mentioned above, 3 years on the conspiracy count to begin to run on expiration of the first, and 1 year and 1 day on the count charging receipt of the stolen property, this sentence to begin to run on expiration of the sentence on the conspiracy count.
All these events took place before our decision in Prince v. United States, 352 U. S. 322. Shortly thereafter petitioner instituted this proceeding under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 complaining that he could not be lawfully convicted under both subsections (c) and (d) of § 2113, i. e., of feloniously receiving and feloniously taking the same property. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 251 F. 2d 69. We granted certiorari (357 U. S. 935) because of an apparent conflict between that decision and the Prince case.
I. There is a preliminary question of jurisdiction. Petitioner is now in custody under the 10-year sentence which admittedly is valid. Since he has not completed that sentence nor the consecutive conspiracy sentence, it is argued that relief by way of § 2255 may not be had.
We reviewed in United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205, the history of § 2255 and emphasized that its purpose was to minimize some of the difficulties involved in the use of habeas corpus. It is now argued that when consecutive sentences are imposed, § 2255, no more than habeas corpus (McNally v. Hill, 293 U. S. 131, 138), can be used to question a sentence which the prisoner has not begun to serve. The Court is divided on that issue. Some think that when § 2255 says “A motion for such relief may be made at any time,” it means what it says. To them the correction of sentence, if made, will affect “the right to be released,” protected by § 2255, even though that right will not be immediately realized. A majority, however, are of the view, shared by several Courts of Appeals, that § 2255 is available only to attack a sentence under which a prisoner is” in custody. Yet in their view relief under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is available (at least where matters dehors the record are not involved), the only question here being whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face.
II. We held in Prince v. United States, supra, that the crime of entry into a bank with intent to rob was not intended by Congress to be a separate offense from the consummated robbery. We ruled that entering with intent to steal, which is “the heart of the crime,” id., at 328, “merges into the completed crime if the robbery is consummated.” Ibid. We gave the Act that construction because we resolve an ambiguity in favor of lenity when required to determine the intent of Congress in punishing multiple aspects of the same criminal act.
Subsection (c) of § 2113, with which we are now primarily concerned, came into the law in 1940. The legislative history is meagre. The Senate Report (S. Rep. No. 1801, 76th Cong., 3d Sess.) is captioned “Punishment for Receivers of Loot From Bank Robbers.” The Report states, “This bill would add another subsection to further make it a crime, with less severe penalties (maximum $5,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment, or both) to willfully become a receiver or possessor of property taken in violation of the statute,” p. 1. Similarly the House Report states “Present law does not make it a separate substantive offense knowingly to receive or possess property stolen from a bank in violation of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, and this bill is designed to cover the omission.” H. R. Rep. No. 1668, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 1.
This clue to the purpose of Congress argues strongly against the position of the Government. From these Reports it seems clear that subsection (c) was not designed to increase the punishment for him who robs a bank but only to provide punishment for those who receive the loot from the robber. We find no purpose of Congress to pyramid penalties for lesser offenses following the robbery. It may be true that in logic those who divide up the loot following a robbery receive from robbers and thus multiply the offense. But in view of the legislative history of subsection (c) we think Congress was trying to reach a new group of wrongdoers, not to multiply the offense of the bank robbers themselves.
Reversed.
This subsection provides:
“Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both.”
This subsection states:
“Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of, any property or money or other thing of value knowing the same to have been taken from a bank, or a savings and loan association, in violation of subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to the punishment provided by said subsection (b) for the taker.”
This was a corrected sentence imposed after the appeal, as reported in Heflin v. United States, 223 F. 2d 371.
Section 2255 reads in relevant part as follows:
“A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
“A motion for such relief may be made at any time.
“Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
“A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing. . . .” 62 Stat. 967, amended 63 Stat. 105.
United States v. Bradford, 194 F. 2d 197; United States v. McGann, 245 F. 2d 670; United States ex rel. Bogish v. Tees, 211 F. 2d 69, 71; Fooshee v. United States, 203 F. 2d 247; Duggins v. United States, 240 F. 2d 479; Crow v. United States, 186 F. 2d 704; Oughton v. United States, 215 F. 2d 578; Hoffman v. United States, 244 F. 2d 378; Miller v. United States, 256 F. 2d 501.
Rule 35 provides in part:
“The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.”
Since the motion under Rule 35 is made in the original case, the time within which review by certiorari of the Court of Appeals decision should be sought is 30 days. Supreme Court Rule 22 (2). The petition for writ of certiorari in this case was not filed until after the passage of 30 days from the judgment below. Nevertheless, because successive motions may be made under Rule 35 and because no jurisdictional statute is involved, the majority agrees to dispense with the requirements of our Rule in order to avoid wasteful circuity. To those of us who deem that § 2255 is available, there is no question but that the petition was in time. It was filed within the 90-day period provided by 28 U. S. C. § 2101 (e) governing this type of suit. For a motion under § 2255, like a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U. S. 333, 336), is not a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution but an independent civil suit.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 respondent, Acme Process Equipment Company, brought this action against the United States in the Court of Claims to recover damages for breach of a contract under which Acme undertook through itself and subcontractors to manufacture 2,751 75-mm. recoilless rifles for about $337 per rifle. Among other defenses, the United States alleged that it had rightfully canceled its contract with Acme because three of Acme's principal employees had accepted compensation for awarding subcontracts in violation of the Anti-Kickback Act set out in part below. The Court of Claims found, as facts, that the kickbacks had been paid as alleged and that this was the ground on which the United States had canceled the prime contract with Acme, but construed the Act as not authorizing the cancellation. 171 Ct. Cl. 324, 347 F. 2d 509. We hold that it does.
I.
In October 1952, Acme hired Harry Tucker, Jr., and his associate, James Norris, for the purpose of establishing and managing a new division of the company to handle government contracts. Norris was made general manager of production with authority to submit bids, sign government contracts, and award subcontracts. Tucker was placed in charge of sales, government contracts, and expediting subcontract operations. Prior to this time Tucker had entered into a contract with All Metals Industries, Inc., under which he was to receive a commission for all sales to customers, including Acme, procured by him. Tucker’s employment contract with Acme specifically stated that he represented and would continue to represent firms in other lines of business, but Acme did not consult with any of his other clients at the time Tucker was hired.
Late in October, Tucker advised his superiors at Acme of the proposed Army contract for rifles, and at Tucker’s suggestion, Acme submitted a bid of $337 per rifle. Since Acme’s bid was the lowest, the Army began negotiations with Acme culminating in the award of the contract in January 1953. The negotiations were handled by Tucker and Norris for Acme. Since it was contemplated that the project would be largely subcontracted, leaving to Acme only the final finishing and assembly of components, the Army expressed a keen interest in Acme’s proposed subcontractors. Not only did it review Acme’s subcontracting plans and require Acme to notify it of changes in those plans during the final stages of negotiation, but the contract eventually awarded required government approval of all subcontracts in excess of $25,000. All Metals, because its proposed subcontract amounted to one-third of the amount of the prime contract, actually participated in the negotiations between Acme and the Army.
During this period of negotiation two other developments took place. Tucker obtained agreements from two other potential subcontractors to pay him commissions on any orders he could procure from Acme. Army contracting officers warned Acme’s president, Joshua Epstein, that Tucker was suspected of having engaged in contingent-fee arrangements with other government contractors.
Finally, Acme was awarded the prime contract. Although the price was fixed at $337 per rifle, the contract contained a price redetermination clause under which, after 30% of the rifles were delivered, the parties could negotiate the price on past and future shipments upward or downward, with an upper limit of $385 per rifle. Within a few weeks after the prime contract was awarded, All Metals and the other two companies with which Tucker had prior kickback arrangements obtained subcontracts from Acme. Tucker was paid his kickbacks, but, apparently unsatisfied with the amount of his payoff, he got Jack Epstein, the superintendent of the chief Acme plant and the son of Acme’s president and principal stockholder, to join the kickback conspiracy. Together Epstein and Tucker threatened to cancel All Metals’ subcontract unless it paid $25,000 to a dummy corporation owned by Tucker, Norris, and Epstein for fictitious consulting services. All Metals reluctantly acceded to the shakedown. The amount paid to Tucker, Norris, and Epstein was charged to Acme through an increase in the subcontract price.
Although they knew that Tucker was representing other companies and had been notified of the Army’s suspicions of Tucker’s involvement in contingent-fee arrangements, other officials of Acme were not aware of the kickback activities of Tucker, Norris, and Epstein until late in 1953. At that time, Acme’s president caused the resignation of the three suspected officials.
In 1956 Tucker, Norris, and Epstein were indicted for violation of the then Anti-Kickback Act, 60 Stat. 37. After presentation of the Government’s case, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for acquittal on the ground that the Act — which at that time embraced only “cost-plus-a-fixed-fee or other cost reimbursable” government contracts — did not apply to Acme’s contract, a fixed-price contract with a provision for limited price redetermination. The court found the defendants’ actions “despicable and morally reprehensible, but unfortunately within the narrow letter of the law.” The court recommended that Congress amend the Anti-Kickback Act “to include as a crime the vicious and immoral type of conduct that has been exhibited in this case.” United States v. Norris, Crim. No. 18535 (D. C. E. D. Pa.), April 14, 1956.
The District Court’s opinion did indeed spur the Comptroller General to recommend amendatory legislation and in 1960 the Anti-Kickback Act was amended to apply to all “negotiated contracts.” The civil provision of the amended Act was made retroactive to allow government recovery of kickbacks “whether heretofore or hereafter paid or incurred by the subcontractor.”
II.
The Anti-Kickback Act, as originally passed in 1946 and as amended in 1960, provides two express sanctions for its violation: (1) fine or imprisonment for one who makes or receives a kickback, and (2) recovery of the kickback by the United States. The Court of Claims held, and it is argued here, that had Congress wanted “to provide the additional remedy of contract annulment, it could have done so” by express language, 171 Ct. Cl., at 343, 347 F. 2d, at 521, and of course it could have. But the fact that it did not see fit to provide for such a remedy by express language does not end the matter. The Anti-Kickback Act not only “prohibited” such payments, but clearly expressed a policy decidedly hostile to them. They were recognized as devices hurtful to the Government’s procurement practices. Extra expenditures to get subcontracts necessarily add to government costs in cost-plus-a-fixed-fee and other cost reimbursable contracts. And this is also true where the prime contract is a negotiated fixed-price contract with a price redetermination clause, such as this prime contract is here. The kickbacks here are passed on to the Government in two stages. The prime contractor rarely submits his bid until after he has tentatively lined up his subcontractors. Indeed, as here, the subcontractors frequently participate in negotiation of the prime contract. The subcontractor’s tentative bid will, of course, reflect the amount he contemplates paying as a kickback, and then his inflated bid will be reflected in the prime contractor’s bid to the Government. At the renegotiation stage, where the prime contractor’s actual cost experience is the basis for price redetermination, any kickbacks, paid by subcontractors and passed on to the prime contractor after the prime contract is awarded, will be passed on to the Government in the form of price redetermination upward.
Acme argues, however, that the express provision for recovery of kickbacks is enough to protect the Government from increased costs attributable to them. But this argument rests on two false assumptions. The first is that kickbacks can easily be detected and recovered. This is hardly the case. Kickbacks being made criminal means that they must be made — if at all — in secrecy. Though they necessarily inflate the price to the Government, this inflation is rarely detectable. This is particularly true as regards defense contracts where the products involved are not usually found on the commercial market and where there may not be effective competition. Such contracts are generally negotiated and awarded without formal advertising and competitive bidding, and there is often no opportunity to compare going prices with the price negotiated by the Government. Kickbacks will usually not be discovered, if at all, until after the prime contract is let. The second false assumption underlying Acme’s argument is that the increased cost to the Government is necessarily equal to the amount of the kickback which is recoverable. Of course, a subcontractor who must pay a kickback is likely to include the amount of the kickback in his contract price. But this is not all. A subcontractor who anticipates obtaining a subcontract by virtue of a kickback has little incentive to stint on his cost estimates. Since he plans to obtain the subcontract without regard to the economic merits of his proposal, he will be tempted to inflate that proposal by more than the amount of the kickback. And even if the Government could isolate and recover the inflation attributable to the kickback, it would still be saddled with a subcontractor who, having obtained the job other than on merit, is perhaps entirely unreliable in other ways. This unreliability in turn undermines the security of the prime contractor's performance — a result which the public cannot tolerate, especially where, as here, important defense contracts are involved.
III.
In United States v. Mississippi Valley Co., 364 U. S. 520, 563, the Court recognized that “a statute frequently implies that a contract is not to be enforced when it arises out of circumstances that would lead enforcement to offend the essential purpose of the enactment.” The Court there approved the cancellation of a government contract for violation of the conflict-of-interest statute on the ground that “the sanction of nonenforcement is consistent with and essential to effectuating the public policy embodied in” the statute. Ibid. We think the same thing can be said about cancellation here.
The Court of Claims, in holding that the Anti-Kickback Act does not authorize government cancellation because of its violation, distinguished Mississippi Valley Co. on the ground that the Anti-Kickback Act, unlike the conflict-of-interest statute, provides a civil as well as a criminal remedy. But we do not deem the provision of a civil remedy in the Anti-Kickback Act decisive. Where there is a mere conflict of interest, no concrete monetary rewards may have been received or paid which the Government can recover in a civil action. But where there is commercial bribery in the form of a kickback, there is something specific which the Government can recover, and hence it was quite natural for Congress to provide this express remedy. There is absolutely no indication in the legislative history of the Anti-Kickback Act that Congress, in providing a civil remedy for a more tangible evil, intended to preclude other civil sanctions necessary to effectuate the purpose of the Act.
There is likewise no merit to the Court of Claims’ distinction of the Mississippi Valley Co. case on the ground that there the criminal provision of the conflict-of-interest statute was violated whereas here the kickback conspirators were acquitted of violating the Anti-Kickback Act as it existed when the kickbacks occurred, prior to 1960. As we have seen, Acme’s employees were acquitted on the technical ground that Acme’s prime contract was not a “cost reimbursable” contract to which the Act then expressly applied. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether this holding was correct. For whether the kickbacks here contravened the narrow letter of the criminal law, strictly construed, they clearly were violative of the public policy against kickbacks first expressed by Congress in 1946. If Congress then limited the reach of the Act to cost reimbursable contracts, it was only because other types of negotiated contracts were rarely in use then. Though the recent extensive use of other forms of negotiated contracts led Congress in 1960 to amend the Act to cover clearly these types of contracts and to close the technical loophole opened by the acquittal of Acme’s employees, the congressional policy against all kickbacks was not changed. Congress merely reiterated its recognition of the evil and sought to correct the letter of the law to effectuate its longstanding policy. In making the civil remedy of the 1960 Act retroactive, Congress clearly indicated that there had been no basic change in the public policy against kickbacks.
This public policy requires that the United States be able to rid itself of a prime contract tainted by kickbacks. Though the kickbacks did not take place until after the prime contract was awarded to Acme, the kickback arrangements existed either at the time the prime contract was awarded or shortly thereafter, and at least one of the kickbacking subcontractors actually participated in the negotiation of the prime contract. These circumstances, as well as the price redetermination feature of the prime contract, produced a great likelihood that the cost of the prime contract to the Government and the reliability of Acme’s performance under it would be directly affected by the fact that the prime contract was to be performed largely through subcontracts obtained by kickbacks.
The Court of Claims, in holding that the Act does not authorize government cancellation because of kickbacks, relied heavily on its finding that none of the officers of Acme were aware of the kickbacks. But as previously stated those of Acme’s employees and agents who did know were in the upper echelon of its managers. One of the guilty employees was the general manager of one of the company’s chief plants and the son of Acme’s president, and the two other kickback receivers were in charge of operations, sales, and government contracts. They were the kind of company personnel for whose conduct a corporation is generally held responsible. Cf. Gleason v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 278 U. S. 349. Since Acme selected those agents to carry on its business in obtaining and performing government contracts, there is no obvious reason why their conduct in that field should- not be considered as Acme’s conduct, particularly where it touches the all-important subject of kickbacks. And here, as this Court said about the conflict-of-interest statute in United States v. Mississippi Valley Co., supra, at 565, it is appropriate to say that it is the “inherent difficulty in detecting corruption which requires that contracts made in violation of . . . [the Anti-Kickback Act] be held unenforceable, even though the party seeking enforcement ostensibly appears entirely innocent.”
The judgment of the Court of Claims is reversed with directions to sustain the United States’ right to cancel the prime contract.
It is so ordered.
Section 1 of the Anti-Kickback Act, 60 Stat. 37, as amended, 74 Stat. 740, 41 Ü. S. C. § 51, provides in pertinent part:
“That the payment of any fee, commission, or compensation of any kind or the granting of any gift or gratuity of any kind, either directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of a subcontractor, . . . (1) to any officer, partner, employee, or agent of a prime contractor holding a negotiated contract entered into by any department, agency, or establishment of the United States for the furnishing of supplies, materials, equipment or services of any kind whatsoever ... as an inducement for the award of a subcontract or order from the prime contractor ... is hereby prohibited. The amount of any such fee, commission, or compensation or the cost or expense of any such gratuity or gift, whether heretofore or hereafter paid or incurred by the subcontractor, shall not be charged, either directly or indirectly, as a part of the contract price charged by the subcontractor to the prime contractor .... The amount of any such fee, cost, or expense shall be recoverable on behalf of the United States from the subcontractor or the recipient thereof by setoff . . . or by an action in an appropriate court of the United States. . . .”
Section 4 of the Act, 41 U. S. C. §54, provides:
“Any person who shall knowingly, directly or indirectly, make or receive any such prohibited payment shall be fined not more than $10,000 or be imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”
Shortly after the prime contract was awarded, two other companies paid Tucker’s father and Norris’ assistant kickbacks for obtaining subcontracts from Acme. This made a total of five subcontracts obtained through kickbacks.
This was the original Anti-Kickback Act passed by Congress in 1946. It expressly prohibited kickbacks only to employees of “a prime contractor holding a contract ... on a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee or other cost reimbursable basis . . . ."
See generally H. R. Rep. No. 1880, S. Rep. No. 1585, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. The Act, as amended, is set out in part in note 1, supra.
This is precisely what happened here before the Government canceled Acme’s contract. Acme in 1953 submitted cost data for price redetermination purposes that included the charges of the five subcontractors which had paid kickbacks to Acme’s employees. These subcontracting charges in turn included the amounts paid as kickbacks. Had the kickbacks not been discovered and the contract not been canceled, Acme would have been able to use these costs to renegotiate the price per rifle from $337 to $385. Such price redetermination could have cost the Government about $132,000 more on the entire contract.
See S. Rep. No. 1585, supra, n. 4, at 3.
See United States v. Barnard, 255 F. 2d 583, cert. denied, 358 U. S. 919, holding that a fixed-price contract with provision for unlimited price redetermination is a “cost reimbursable” 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:
|
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.
Involved in this case is an appeal from a decision of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado upholding the validity, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, of the apportionment of seats in the Colorado Legislature pursuant to the provisions of a constitutional amendment approved by the Colorado electorate in 1962.
I.
Appellants, voters, taxpayers and residents of counties in the Denver metropolitan area, filed two separate actions, consolidated for trial and disposition, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in March and July 1962, challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of seats in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly. Defendants below, sued in their representative capacities, included various officials charged with duties in connection with state elections. Plaintiffs below asserted that Art. V, §§ 45, 46, and 47, of the Colorado Constitution, and the statutes implementing those constitutional provisions, result in gross inequalities and disparities with respect to their voting rights. They alleged that “one of the inalienable rights of citizenship... is equality of franchise and vote, and that the concept of equal protection of the laws requires that every citizen be equally represented in the legislature of his State.” Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and also requested the Court to order a constitutionally valid apportionment plan into effect for purposes of the 1962 election of Colorado legislators. Proponents of the current apportionment scheme, which was then to be voted upon in a November 1962 referendum as proposed Amendment No. 7 to the Colorado Constitution, were permitted to intervene. A three-judge court was promptly convened.
On August 10, 1962, the District Court announced its initial decision. Lisco v. McNichols, 208 F. Supp. 471. After holding that it had jurisdiction, that the issues presented were justiciable, and that grounds for abstention were lacking, the court below stated that the population disparities among various legislative districts under the existing apportionment “are of sufficient magnitude to make out a prima jade case of invidious discrimination....” However, because of the imminence of the primary and general elections, and since two constitutional amendments, proposed through the initiative procedure and prescribing rather different schemes for legislative apportionment, would be voted upon in the impending election, the District Court continued the cases without further action until after the November 1962 election. Colorado legislators were thus elected in 1962 pursuant to the provisions of the existing apportionment scheme.
At the November 1962 general election, the Colorado electorate adopted proposed Amendment No. 7 by a vote of 305,700 to 172,725, and defeated proposed Amendment No. 8 by a vote of 311,749 to 149,822. Amendment No. 8, rejected by a majority of the voters, prescribed an apportionment plan pursuant to which seats in both houses of the Colorado Legislature would purportedly be apportioned on a population basis. Amendment No. 7, on the other hand, provided for the apportionment of the House of Representatives on the basis of population, but essentially maintained the existing apportionment in the Senate, which was based on a combination of population and various other factors.
After the 1962 election the parties amended their pleadings so that the cases involved solely a challenge to the apportionment scheme established in the newly adopted Amendment No. 7. Plaintiffs below requested a declaration that Amendment No. 7 was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment since resulting in substantial disparities from population-based representation in the Senate, and asked for a decree reapportioning both houses of the Colorado Legislature on a population basis. After an extended trial, at which a variety of statistical and testimonial evidence regarding legislative apportionment in Colorado, past and present, was introduced, the District Court, on July 16, 1963, announced its decision on the merits. Lisco v. Love, 219 F. Supp. 922. Splitting 2-to-l, the court below concluded that the apportionment scheme prescribed by Amendment No. 7 comported with the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, and thus dismissed the consolidated actions. In sustaining the validity of the senatorial apportionment provided for in Amendment No. 7, despite deviations from population-based representation, the District Court stated that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require “equality of population within representation districts for each house of a bicameral state legislature.” Finding that the disparities from a population basis in the apportionment of Senate seats were based upon rational considerations, the court below stated that the senatorial apportionment under Amendment No. 7 “recognizes population as a prime, but not controlling, factor and gives effect to such important considerations as geography, compactness and contiguity of territory, accessibility, observance of natural boundaries, [and] conformity to historical divisions such as county lines and prior representation districts....” Stressing also that the apportionment plan had been recently adopted by popular vote in a statewide referendum, the Court stated:
“[Plaintiffs’] argument that the apportionment of the Senate by Amendment No. 7 is arbitrary, invidiously discriminatory, and without any rationality [has been answered by the] voters of Colorado.... By adopting Amendment No. 7 and by rejecting Amendment No. 8, which proposed to apportion the legislature on a per capita basis, the electorate has made its choice between the conflicting principles.”
Concluding, the District Court stated:
“We believe that no constitutional question arises as to the actual, substantive nature of apportionment if the popular will has expressed itself.... In Colorado the liberal provisions for initiation of constitutional amendments permit the people to act— and they have done so. If they become dissatisfied with what they have done, a workable method of change is available. The people are free, within the framework of the Federal Constitution, to establish the governmental forms which they desire and when they have acted the courts should not enter the political wars to determine the rationality of such action.”
In dissenting, District Judge Doyle stated that he regarded the senatorial apportionment under Amendment No. 7 as irrational and invidiously discriminatory, and that the constitutional amendment had not sufficiently remedied the gross disparities previously found by the District Court to exist in Colorado’s prior apportionment scheme. Instead, he stated, the adopted plan freezes senatorial apportionment and merely retains the former system with certain minor changes. Equality of voting power in both houses is constitutionally required, the dissent stated, since there is no logical basis for distinguishing between the two bodies of the Colorado Legislature. In rejecting the applicability of the so-called federal analogy, Judge Doyle relied on this Court’s decision in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368. He concluded that, although absolute equality is a practical impossibility, legislative districting based substantially on population is constitutionally required, and that the disparities in the apportionment of Senate seats under Amendment No. 7’s provisions cannot be rationalized.
Notices of appeal from the District Court’s decision were timely filed, and we noted probable jurisdiction on December 9, 1963. 375 U. S. 938.
II.
When this litigation was commenced, apportionment of seats in the Colorado General Assembly was based on certain provisions of the State Constitution and statutory provisions enacted to implement them. Article V, § 45, of the Colorado Constitution provided that the legislature “shall revise and adjust the apportionment for senators and representatives... according to ratios to be fixed by law/’ at the sessions following the state enumeration of inhabitants in 1885 and every 10 years thereafter, and following each decennial federal census. Article Y, § 46, as amended in 1950, stated that “[t]he senate shall consist of not more than thirty-five and the house of not more than sixty-five members.” Article V, § 47, provided that:
“Senatorial and representative districts may be altered from time to time, as public convenience may require. When a senatorial or representative district shall be composed of two or more counties, they shall be contiguous, and the district as compact as may be. No county shall be divided in the formation of a senatorial or representative district.”
Article V, § 3, provides that senators shall be elected for four-year terms, staggered so that approximately one-half of the members of the Senate are elected every two years, and that all representatives shall be elected for two-year terms.
Pursuant to these general constitutional provisions, the Colorado General Assembly has periodically enacted detailed statutory provisions establishing legislative districts and prescribing the apportionment to such districts of seats in both houses of the Colorado Legislature. Since the adoption of the Colorado Constitution in 1876, the General Assembly has been reapportioned or redistricted in the following years: 1881, 1891, 1901, 1909, 1913,1932, 1953, and, with the adoption of Amendment No. 7, in 1962. The 1932 reapportionment was an initiated measure, adopted because the General Assembly had neglected to perform its duty under the State Constitution. In 1933 the legislature attempted to thwart the initiated measure by enacting its ow.n legislative reapportionment statute, but the latter measure was held unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court.
The 1953 apportionment scheme, implementing the existing state constitutional provisions and in effect immediately prior to the adoption of Amendment No. 7, was contained in several statutory provisions which provided for a 35-member Senate and a 65-member House of Representatives. Section 63-1-2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes established certain population “ratio” figures for the apportionment of Senate and House seats among the State's 63 counties. One Senate seat was to be allocated to each senatorial district for the first 19,000 popu-' lation, with one additional senator for each senatorial district for each additional 50,000 persons or fraction over 48,000. One House seat was to be given to each representative district for the first 8,000 population, with one additional representative for each House district for each additional 25,000 persons or fraction over 22,400. Sections 63-1-3 and 63-1-6 established 25 senatorial districts and 35 representative districts, respectively, and allocated the 35 Senate seats and 65 House seats among them according to the prescribed population ratios. No counties were divided in the formation of senatorial or representative districts, in compliance with the constitutional proscription. Thus, senators and representatives in those counties entitled to more than one seat in one or both bodies were elected at large by all of the county’s voters. The City and County of Denver was given eight Senate seats and 17 House seats, and Pueblo County was allocated two Senate seats and four House seats. Other populous counties were also given more than one Senate and House seat each. Certain counties were entitled to separate representation in either or both of the houses, and were given one seat each. Sparsely populated counties were combined in multicounty districts.
Under the 1953 apportionment scheme, applying 1960 census figures, 29.8% of the State’s total population lived in districts electing a majority of the members of the Senate, and 32.1% resided in districts electing a majority of the House members. Maximum population-variance ratios of approximately 8-to-l existed between the most populous and least populous districts in both the Senate and the House. One senator represented a district containing 127,520 persons, while another senator had only 17,481 people in his district. The smallest representative district had a population of only 7,867, while another district was given only two House seats for a population of 127,520. In discussing the 1953 legislative apportionment scheme, the District Court, in its initial opinion, stated that “[f] actual data presented at the trial reveals the existence of gross and glaring disparity in voting strength as between the several representative and senatorial districts,” and that “[t]he inevitable effect... [of the existing apportionment provisions] has been to develop severe disparities in voting strength with the growth and shift of population.”
Amendment No. 7 provides for the establishment of a General Assembly composed of 39 senators and 65 representatives, with the State divided geographically into 39 senatorial and 65 representative districts, so that all seats in both houses are apportioned among single-member districts. Responsibility for creating House districts “as nearly equal in population as may be” is given to the legislature. Allocation of senators among the counties follows the existing scheme of districting and apportionment, except that one sparsely populated county is detached from populous Arapahoe County and joined with four others in forming a senatorial district, and one additional senator is apportioned to each of the counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder and Jefferson. Within counties given more than one Senate seat, senatorial districts are to be established by the legislature “as nearly equal in population as may be.” Amendment No. 7 also provides for a revision of representative districts, and of senatorial districts within counties given more than one Senate seat, after each federal census, in order to maintain conformity with the prescribed requirements. Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the Colorado Legislature, in early 1963, enacted a statute establishing 66 representative districts and creating senatorial districts in counties given more than one Senate seat. Under the newly adopted House apportionment plan, districts in which about 45.1% of the State’s total population reside are represented by a majority of the members of that body. The maximum population-variance ratio, between the most populous and least populous House districts, is approximately 1.7-to-l. The court below concluded that the House was apportioned as nearly on a population basis as was practicable, consistent with Amendment No. 7’s requirement that “[n]o part of one county shall be added to another county or part of another county” in the formation of a legislative district, and directed its concern solely to the question of whether the deviations from a population basis in the apportionment of Senate seats were rationally justifiable.
Senatorial apportionment, under Amendment No. 7, involves little more than adding four new Senate seats and distributing them to four populous counties in the Denver area, and in substance perpetuates the existing senatorial apportionment scheme. Counties containing only 33.2% of the State’s total population elect a majority of the 39-member Senate under the provisions of Amendment No. 7. Las Animas County, with a 1960 population of only 19,983, is given one Senate seat, while El Paso County, with 143,742 persons, is allotted only two Senate seats. Thus, the maximum population-variance ratio, under the revised senatorial apportionment, is about 3.6-to-l. Denver and the three adjacent suburban counties contain about one-half of the State’s total 1960 population of 1,753,947, but are given only 14 out of 39 senators. The Denver, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs metropolitan areas, containing 1,191,832 persons, about 68%, or over two-thirds of Colorado’s population, elect only 20 of the State’s 39 senators, barely a majority. The average population of Denver’s eight senatorial districts, under Amendment No. 7, is 61,736, while the five least populous districts contain less than 22,000 persons each. Divergences from population-based representation in the Senate are growing continually wider, since the underrepresented districts in the Denver, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs metropolitan areas are rapidly gaining in population, while many of the overrepresented rural districts have tended to decline in population continuously in recent years.
III.
Several aspects of this case serve to distinguish it from the other cases involving state legislative apportionment also decided this date. Initially, one house of the Colorado Legislature is at least arguably apportioned substantially on a population basis under Amendment No. 7 and the implementing statutory provisions. Under the apportionment schemes challenged in the other cases, on the other hand, clearly neither of the houses in any of the state legislatures is apportioned sufficiently on a population basis so as to be constitutionally sustainable. Additionally, the Colorado scheme of legislative apportionment here attacked is one adopted by a majority vote of the Colorado electorate almost contemporaneously with the District Court's decision on the merits in this litigation. Thus, the plan at issue did not result from prolonged legislative inaction. How.ever, the Colorado General Assembly, in spite of the state constitutional mandate for periodic reapportionment, has enacted only one effective legislative apportionment measure in the past 50 years.
As appellees have correctly pointed out, a majority of the voters in every county of the State voted in favor of the apportionment scheme embodied in Amendment No. 7’s provisions, in preference to that contained in proposed Amendment No. 8, which, subject to minor deviations, would have based the apportionment of seats in both houses on a population basis. However, the choice presented to the Colorado electorate, in voting on these two proposed constitutional amendments, was hardly as clear-cut as the court below regarded it. One of the most undesirable features of the existing apportionment scheme was the requirement that, in counties given more than one seat in either or both of the houses of the General Assembly, all legislators must be elected at large from the county as a whole. Thus, under the existing plan, each Denver voter was required to vote for eight senators and 17 representatives. Ballots were long and cumbersome, and an intelligent choice among candidates for seats in the legislature was made quite difficult. No identifiable constituencies within the populous counties resulted, and the residents of those areas had no single member of the Senate or House elected specifically to represent them. Rather, each legislator elected from a multimember county represented the county as a whole. Amendment No. 8, as distinguished from Amendment No. 7, while purportedly basing the apportionment of seats in both houses on a population basis, would have perpetuated, for all practical purposes, this debatable feature of the existing scheme. Under Amendment No. 8, senators were to be elected at large in those counties given more than one Senate seat, and no provision was made for subdistricting within such counties for the purpose of electing senators. Representatives were also to be elected at large in multimember counties pursuant to the provisions of Amendment No. 8, at least initially, although subdistricting for the purpose of electing House members was permitted if the voters of a multimember county specifically approved a representative subdistrict-ing plan for that county. Thus, neither of the proposed plans was, in all probability, wholly acceptable to the voters in the populous counties, and the assumption of the court below that the Colorado voters made a definitive choice between two contrasting alternatives and indicated that “minority process in the Senate is what they want” does not appear to be factually justifiable.
Finally, this case differs from the others decided this date in that the initiative device provides a practicable political remedy to obtain relief against alleged legislative malapportionment in Colorado. An initiated measure proposing a constitutional amendment or a statutory enactment is entitled to be placed on the ballot if the signatures of 8% of those voting for the Secretary of State in the last election are obtained. No geographical distribution of petition signers is required. Initiative and referendum has been frequently utilized throughout Colorado’s history. Additionally, Colorado courts have traditionally not been hesitant about adjudicating controversies relating to legislative apportionment. However, the Colorado Supreme Court, in its 1962 decision discussed previously in this opinion, refused to consider or pass upon the federal constitutional questions, but instead held only that the Colorado General Assembly was not required to enact a reapportionment statute until the following legislative session.
IV.
In Reynolds v. Sims, ante, p. 533, decided also this date, we held that the Equal Protection Clause requires that both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned substantially on a population basis. Of course, the court below assumed, and the parties apparently conceded, that the Colorado House of Representatives, under the statutory provisions enacted by the Colorado Legislature in early 1963 pursuant to Amendment No. 7’s dictate that the legislature should create 65 House districts “as nearly equal in population as may be,” is now apportioned sufficiently on a population basis to comport with federal constitutional requisites. We need not pass on this question, since the apportionment of Senate seats, under Amendment No. 7, clearly involves departures from population-based representation too extreme to be constitutionally permissible, and there is no indication that the apportionment of the two houses of the Colorado General Assembly, pursuant to the 1962 constitutional amendment, is severable. We therefore conclude that the District Court erred in holding the legislative apportionment plan embodied in Amendment No. 7 to be constitutionally valid. Under neither Amendment No. 7’s plan, nor, of course, the previous statutory scheme, is the overall legislative representation in the two houses of the Colorado Legislature sufficiently grounded on population to be constitutionally sustainable under the Equal Protection Clause.
Except as an interim remedial procedure justifying a court in staying its hand temporarily, we find no significance in the fact that a non judicial, political remedy may be available for the effectuation of asserted rights to equal representation in a state legislature. Courts sit to adjudicate controversies involving alleged denials of constitutional rights. While a court sitting as a court of equity might be justified in temporarily refraining from the issuance of injunctive relief in an apportionment case in order to allow for resort to an available political remedy, such as initiative and referendum, individual constitutional rights cannot be deprived, or denied judicial effectuation, because of the existence of a non judicial remedy through which relief against the alleged malapportionment, which the individual voters seek, might be achieved. An individual’s constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote cannot be denied even by a vote of a majority of a State’s electorate, if the apportionment scheme adopted by the voters fails to measure up to the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. Manifestly, the fact that an apportionment plan is adopted in a popular referendum is insufficient to sustain its constitutionality or to induce a court of equity to refuse to act. As stated by this Court in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638, “One’s right to life, liberty, and property... and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” A citizen’s constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be. We hold that the fact that a challenged legislative apportionment plan was approved by the electorate is without federal constitutional significance, if the scheme adopted fails to satisfy the basic requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, as delineated in our opinion in Reynolds v. Sims. And we conclude that the fact that a practicably available political remedy, such as initiative and referendum, exists under state law provides justification only for a court of equity to stay its hand temporarily while recourse to such a remedial device is attempted or while proposed initiated measures relating to legislative apportionment are pending and will be submitted to the State’s voters at the next election.
Because of the imminence of the November 1962 election, and the fact that two initiated proposals relating to legislative apportionment would be voted on by the State’s electorate at that election, the District Court properly stayed its hand and permitted the 1962 election of legislators to be conducted pursuant to the existing statutory scheme. But appellees’ argument, accepted by the court below, that the apportionment of the Colorado Senate, under Amendment No. 7, is rational because it takes into account a variety of geographical, historical, topographic and economic considerations fails to provide an adequate justification for the substantial disparities from population-based representation in the allocation of Senate seats to the disfavored populous areas. And any attempted reliance on the so-called federal analogy is factually as well as constitutionally without merit.
Since the apportionment of seats in the Colorado Legislature, under the provisions of Amendment No. 7, fails to comport with the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, the decision below must be reversed. Beyond what we said in our opinion in Reynolds, we express no view on questions relating to remedies at the present time. On remand, the District Court must now determine whether the imminence of the 1964 primary and general elections requires that utilization of the apportionment scheme contained in the constitutional amendment be permitted, for purposes of those elections, or whether the circumstances in Colorado are such that appellants' right to cast adequately weighted votes for members of the State Legislature can practicably be effectuated in 1964.. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court below and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the views stated here and in our opinion in Reynolds v. Sims.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Amendment No. 7, approved by a vote of the Colorado electorate in November 1962, appears in Colo. Laws 1963, c. 312, p. 1045 et seq., and, in relevant part, provides as follows:
“Sections 45, 46, and 47 of Article V of the Constitution of the State of Colorado are hereby repealed and new Sections 45, 46, 47 and 48 of Article V are adopted, to read as follows:
“Section 45. GENERAL ASSEMBLY. The general assembly shall consist of 39 members of the senate and 65 members of the house, one to be elected from each senatorial and representative district. Districts of the same house shall not overlap. All districts shall be as compact as may be and shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. No part of one county shall be added to another county or part of another county in forming a district. When a district includes two or more counties they shall be contiguous.
“Section 46. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The state shall be divided into 65 representative districts which shall be as nearly equal in population as may be.
“Section 47. SENATE. The state shall be divided into 39 senatorial districts. The apportionment of senators among the counties shall be the same as now provided by 63-1-3 of Colorado Revised Statutes 1953, which shall not be repealed or amended other than in numbering districts, except that the counties of Cheyenne, Elbert, Kiowa, Kit Carson and Lincoln shall form one district, and one additional senator is hereby apportioned to each of the counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder and Jefferson. Within a county to which there is apportioned more than one senator, senatorial districts shall be as nearly equal in population as may be.
“Section 48. REVISION OF DISTRICTS. At the regular session of the general assembly of 1963 and each regular session next following official publication of each Federal enumeration of the population of the state, the general assembly shall immediately alter and amend the boundaries of all representative districts and of those senatorial districts within any county to which there is apportioned more than one senator to conform to the requirements of Sections 45, 46 and 47 of this Article Y. After 45 days from the beginning of each such regular session, no member of the general assembly shall be entitled to or earn any compensation or receive any payments on account of salary or expenses, and the members of any general assembly shall be ineligible for election to succeed themselves in office, until such revisions have been made. Until the completion of the terms of the representatives elected at the general election held in November of 1962 shall have expired, the apportionment of senators and representatives and the senatorial and representative districts of the general assembly shall be as provided by law.”
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see ante, p. 589.]
Colo. Rev. Stat. 1953, c. 63, §§ 63-1-1 — 63-1-6.
The District Court wisely refrained from acting at all until a case pending in the Colorado Supreme Court was decided without that court’s passing on the federal constitutional questions relating to Colorado’s scheme of legislative apportionment which were raised in that suit. In re Legislative Reapportionment, 150 Colo. 380, 374 P. 2d 66 (1962). After accepting jurisdiction, the Colorado Supreme Court, over a vigorous dissent, ignored the federal constitutional issues and instead discussed only the matter of when the Colorado Legislature was required, pursuant to the State Constitution, to reapportion seats in the General Assembly. The Court concluded that a reapportionment measure enacted during the 1963 session of the Colorado Legislature, on the basis of 1960 census figures, would, if neither of the proposed constitutional amendments relating to legislative apportionment was approved by the voters in November 1962, be in sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement of periodic legislative reapportionment. See also 208 F. Supp., at 474, discussing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in that case.
In its initial opinion, the District Court properly concluded that the argument that “the Colorado Supreme Court has preempted jurisdiction by first hearing the controversy, is without merit in view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Colorado has refrained from even considering the issue of infringement of the plaintiffs’ federally-guaranteed constitutional rights.” 208 F. Supp., at 475. Continuing, the court below correctly held that, under the circumstances, it was not required to abstain, and stated:
“The considerations which demand abstinence are not present in the instant case. Here, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has repeatedly refused to perform the mandate imposed by the Colorado Constitution to apportion the legislature. The likelihood that the unapportioned General Assembly will ever apportion itself now appears remote. The Supreme Court of Colorado, while retaining jurisdiction of the subject matter of the controversy presented to it, has postponed further consideration of the cause until June, 1963. Under these circumstances, we must conclude that the parties do not, at least at present, have an adequate, speedy and complete remedy apart from that asserted in the case at bar and thus grounds for abstention are at this time lacking.” 208 F. Supp., at 476. See also Davis v. Mann, ante, pp. 690-691, decided also this date, where we discussed the question of abstention by a federal court in a state legislative apportionment controversy.
As stated succinctly by the District Court, in its opinion on the merits,
“The defeated Amendment No. 8 proposed a three-man commission to apportion the legislature periodically. The commission was to have the duty of delineating, revising and adjusting senatorial and representative districts. Its actions were to be reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court. The districting was to be on a strict population ratio for both the Senate and the House with limited permissible variations therefrom.” 219 F. Supp., at 925.
Additionally, under proposed Amendment No. 8, the commission would determine a strict population ratio for both the Senate and the House by dividing the State’s total population, as ascertained in each decennial federal census, by the number of seats assigned to the Senate and the House, respectively. No legislative district should contain a population per senator or representative of 33Ys% more or less than the strict population ratio, except certain mountainous senatorial districts of more than 5,500 square miles in area, but no senatorial district was to contain a population of less than 50% of the strict population ratio. Senatorial districts should consist of one county or two or more contiguous counties, but no county should be divided in the formation of a senatorial district. Representative districts should consist of one county or two or more contiguous counties. Any county apportioned two or more representatives could be divided into representative subdistricts, but only after a majority of the voters in the county had approved, in a general election, the exact method of subdivision and the specific apportionment of representatives among the subdistricts and the county at large. A proposal to divide a county into subdistricts could be placed on the ballot only by initiative petition in accordance with state law, and only at the general elections in 1966 and 1974, and at the general elections held each 10 years thereafter. Amendment No. 8, like Amendment No. 7, would have required implementing legislation and would not have become effective, if adopted, until the 1964 elections.
219 F. Supp., at 932.
Ibid. Continuing, the court below stated:
“The initiative gives the people of a state no power to adopt a constitutional amendment which violates the Federal Constitution. Amendment No. 7 is not valid just because the people voted for it.... [But] the traditional and recognized criteria of equal protection... are arbitrariness, discrimination, and lack of rationality. The actions of the electorate are material to the application of the criteria. The contention that the voters have discriminated against themselves appalls rather than convinces. Difficult as it may be at times to understand mass behavior of human beings, a proper recognition of the judicial function precludes a court from holding that the free choice of the voters between two conflicting theories of apportionment is irrational or the result arbitrary.
“The electorate of every county from which the plaintiffs come preferred Amendment No. 7. In the circumstances it is difficult to comprehend how the plaintiffs can sue to vindicate a public right. At the most they present a political issue which they lost. On the questions before us we shall not substitute any views which we may have for the decision of the electorate.... [W]e decline to act as a superelectorate to weigh the rationality of a method of legislative apportionment adopted by a decisive vote of the people.” Id., at 932-933.
And, earlier in its opinion on the merits, the District Court stated: “With full operation of the one-man, one-vote principle, the Colorado electorate by an overwhelming majority approved a constitutional amendment creating a Senate, the membership of which is not apportioned on a strict population basis. By majority process the voters have said that minority process in the Senate is what they want. A rejection of their choice is a denial of the will of the majority. If the majority becomes dissatisfied with that which it has created, it can make a change at an election in which each vote counts the same as every other vote.” Id., at 926-927.
Id., at 933.
Additionally, Judge Doyle correctly stated that “a properly apportioned state legislative body must at least approximate by bona fide attempt the creation of districts substantially related to population.” 219 F. Supp., at 941. With respect to the relatively easy availability of the initiative procedure in Colorado, the dissent perceptively pointed out that “it is of little consolation to an individual voter who is being deprived of his rights that he can start a popular movement to change the Constitution. This possible remedy is not merely questionable, it is for practical purposes impossible.” Id,., at 942. Judge Doyle referred to Amendment No. 7’s provisions relating to senatorial apportionment as “the product of a mechanical and arbitrary freezing accomplished by adoption, with slight modification, of the unlawful alignments which had existed in the previous statute.” Id., at 943. Discussing the majority’s view that geographic and economic considerations were relevant in explaining the disparities from population-based senatorial representation, he discerningly stated that geographic and area factors carry "little weight when considered in the light of modern methods of electronic communication, modern highways, automobiles and airplanes,” and, with regard to economic considerations, that “[e]conomic interests are remarkably well represented without special representation,” that “[i]t is dangerous to build into a political system a favored position for a segment of the population of the state,” that “[t]here exists no practical method of ridding ourselves of them,” and that, “long after the institutions pass, the built-in advantage remains even though it is at last only a vestige of the dead past.” Ibid.
Admittedly, the Colorado Legislature has never complied with the state constitutional provision requiring the conducting of a decennial state census in
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
As in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., ante, p. 225, the question here is whether the use of a state unfair competition law to give relief against the copying of an unpatented industrial design conflicts with the federal patent laws. Both Compeo and Day-Brite are manufacturers of fluorescent lighting fixtures of a kind widely used in offices and stores. Day-Brite in 1955 secured from the Patent Office a design patent on a reflector having cross-ribs claimed to give both strength and attractiveness to the fixture. Day-Brite also sought, but was refused, a mechanical patent on the same device. After Day-Brite had begun selling its fixture, Compco’s predecessor began making and selling fixtures very similar to Day-Brite’s. This action was then brought by Day-Brite. One count alleged that Compco had infringed Day-Brite’s design patent; a second count charged that the public and the trade had come to associate this particular design with Day-Brite, that Compco had copied Day-Brite’s distinctive design so as to confuse and deceive purchasers into thinking Compco’s fixtures were actually Day-Brite’s, and that by doing this Compco had unfairly competed with Day-Brite. The complaint prayed for both an accounting and an injunction.
The District Court held the design patent invalid; but as to the second count, while the court did not find that Compco had engaged in any deceptive or fraudulent practices, it did hold that Compco had been guilty of unfair competition under Illinois law. The court found that the overall appearance of Compco’s fixture was “the same, to the eye of the ordinary observer, as the overall appearance” of Day-Brite’s reflector, which embodied the design of the invalidated patent; that the appearance of Day-Brite’s design had “the capacity to identify [Day-Brite] in the trade and does in fact so identify [it] to the trade”; that the concurrent sale of the two products was “likely to cause confusion in the trade”; and that “[a]ctual confusion has occurred.” On these findings the court adjudged Compco guilty of unfair competition in the sale of its fixtures, ordered Compco to account to Day-Brite for damages, and enjoined Compco “from unfairly competing with plaintiff by the sale or attempted sale of reflectors identical to, or confusingly similar to” those made by Day-Brite. The Court of Appeals held there was substantial evidence in the record to support the District Court’s finding of likely confusion and that this finding was sufficient to support a holding of unfair competition under Illinois law. 311 F. 2d 26. Although the District Court had not made such a finding, the appellate court observed that “several choices of ribbing were apparently available to meet the functional needs of the product,” yet Compco “chose precisely the same design used by the plaintiff and followed it so closely as to make confusion likely.” 311 F. 2d, at 30. A design which identifies its maker to the trade, the Court of Appeals held, is a “protectable” right under Illinois law, even though the design is unpatentable. We granted certiorari. 374 U. S. 825.
To support its findings of likelihood of confusion and actual confusion, the trial court was able to refer to only one circumstance in the record. A plant manager who had installed some of Compco’s fixtures later asked Day-Brite to service the fixtures, thinking they had been made by Day-Brite. There was no testimony given by a purchaser or by anyone else that any customer had ever been misled, deceived, or “confused,” that is, that anyone had ever bought a Compco fixture thinking it was a Day-Brite fixture. All the record shows, as to the one instance cited by the trial court, is that both Compco and Day-Brite fixtures had been installed in the same plant, that three years later some repairs were needed, and that the manager viewing the Compco fixtures — hung at least 15 feet above the floor and arranged end to end in a continuous line so that identifying marks were hidden— thought they were Day-Brite fixtures and asked Day-Brite to service them. Not only is this incident suggestive only of confusion after a purchase had been made, but also there is considerable evidence of the care taken by Compco to prevent customer confusion, including clearly labeling both the fixtures and the containers in which they were shipped and not selling through manufacturers’ representatives who handled competing lines.
Notwithstanding the thinness of the evidence to support findings of likely and actual confusion among purchasers, we do not find it necessary in this case to determine whether there is “clear error” in these findings. They, like those in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., supra, were based wholly on the fact that selling an article which is an exact copy of another unpatented article is likely to produce and did in this case produce confusion as to the source of the article. Even accepting the findings, we hold that the order for an accounting for damages and the injunction are in conflict with the federal patent laws. Today we have held in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., supra, that when an article is unprotected by a patent or a copyright, state law may not forbid others to copy that article. To forbid copying would interfere with the federal policy, found in Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution and in the implementing federal statutes, of allowing free access to copy whatever the federal patent and copyright laws leave in the public domain. Here Day-Brite’s fixture has been held not to be entitled to a design or mechanical patent. Under the federal patent laws it is, therefore, in the public domain and can be copied in every detail by whoever pleases. It is true that the trial court found that the configuration of Day-Brite’s fixture identified Day-Brite to the trade because the arrangement of the ribbing had, like a trademark, acquired a “secondary meaning” by which that particular design was associated with Day-Brite. But if the design is not entitled to a design patent or other federal statutory protection, then it can be copied at will.
As we have said in Sears, while the federal patent laws prevent a State from prohibiting the copying and selling of unpatented articles, they do not stand in the way of state law, statutory or decisional, which requires those who make and sell copies to take precautions to identify their products as their own. A State of course has power to impose liability upon those who, knowing that the public is relying upon an original manufacturer’s reputation for quality and integrity, deceive the public by palming off their copies as the original. That an article copied from an unpatented article could be made in some other way, that the design is “nonfunctional” and not essential to the use of either article, that the configuration of the article copied may have a “secondary meaning” which identifies the maker to the trade, or that there may be “confusion” among purchasers as to which article is which or as to who is the maker, may be relevant evidence in applying a State’s law requiring such precautions as labeling; however, and regardless of the copier’s motives, neither these facts nor any others can furnish a basis for imposing liability for or prohibiting the actual acts of copying and selling. Cf. Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U. S. 111, 120 (1938). And of course a State cannot hold a copier accountable in damages for failure to label or otherwise to identify his goods unless his failure is in violation of valid state statutory or decisional law requiring the copier to label or take other precautions to prevent confusion of customers as to the source of the goods.
Since the judgment below forbids the sale of a copy of an unpatented article and orders an accounting for damages for such copying, it cannot stand.
Reversed.
The sales of which Day-Brite complained in this action had actually been made by the Mitchell Lighting Company. However, by the time the complaint was filed, Mitchell had been acquired by Compco, which was therefore the defendant in the action and is the petitioner here. For simplicity we shall throughout the opinion refer only to Compco even though the transactions for which Compco was sought to be held liable were those of the predecessor company, Mitchell.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the holding that the design patent was invalid. No review of this ruling is sought here.
As stated in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., ante, at p. 228, n. 2, we do not here decide whether the Court of Appeals was correct in its statement of Illinois law.
The only testimony about this incident was given by a sales representative of Day-Brite, who said that the plant manager had climbed up on a forklift truck to look at the fixtures. The manager was not called as a witness.
As we pointed out in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., ante, p. 232, n. 9, there is no showing that Illinois has any such 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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases call into question the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(2), which, for specified categories of black lung benefit claimants, provides that “[cjriteria applied by the Secretary of Labor in the case of . . . any claim . . . shall not be more restrictive than the criteria applicable to a claim filed on June 30, 1973.” Respondents contend that interim regulations applied by the Secretary in adjudicating their claims, see 20 CFR pt. 727 (1988), did not comply with this provision. In Broyles v. Director, OWCP, 824 F. 2d 327 (CA4 1987) (No. 87-1095), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed, and directed the Secretary to adjudicate the claims pursued by respondents Broyles and Colley under the less restrictive standards in force on June 30, 1973. See 20 CFR § 410.490 (1973). In In re Sebben, 815 F. 2d 475 (CA8 1987) (Nos. 87-821 and 87-827), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit similarly found the interim Labor regulation invalid under § 902(f)(2), and reversed the District Court’s refusal to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary to readjudicate a class of claims previously considered under the interim regulation, notwithstanding that the Secretary’s decision in those cases had become final. We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 1058 (1988), to decide the statutory issue, which is the subject of` a Circuit conflict, and further to decide, in the event we find the Secretary’s interpretation of the statute unlawful, whether mandamus will lie to compel the readjudication of claims decided under erroneous standards but not directly appealed to the courts within the time prescribed.
I
The black lung benefits program provides benefits to those who have become totally disabled because of pneumoconiosis, a chronic respiratory and pulmonary disease arising from coal mine employment. See Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 484 U. S. 135, 141 (1987). Originally enacted as Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (FCMHSA), Pub. L. 91-173, 83 Stat. 792-798, the program has consisted of two separate parts. Under the original legislation, part B constituted a temporary program of federally financed benefits to be administered by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), and part C envisioned a more permanent program operating under the auspices of the Secretary of Labor and relying on state workers’ compensation programs where possible.
For part B claims, the FCMHSA provided that the Secretary of HEW “shall by regulation prescribe standards for determining . . . whether a miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis.” FCMHSA § 411(b). The regulations relevant here consisted of “permanent” and “interim” components. The permanent HEW regulations generally prescribed methods and standards for establishing elements of statutory entitlement. See 20 CFR §§410.401-410.476 (1973). In addition, following (and in response to) the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-303, 86 Stat. 150, the Secretary of HEW adopted an interim regulation designed to “permit prompt and vigorous processing of the large backlog of claims” that had developed during the early phases of administering part B. See 20 CFR § 410.490(a) (1973). To deal with a perceived inadequacy in facilities and medical tests, this interim HEW regulation established two classes of presumptions. First, under the presumption at issue here, a claimant could establish presumptive entitlement by showing that “[a] chest roentgenogram (X-ray), biopsy, or autopsy establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis” and that “[t]he impairment . . . arose out of coal mine employment.” §§410.490(b)(l)(i), (b)(2). The proof of causality required for this first presumption was to be established under §410.416 or §410.456, both of which accorded a rebuttable presumption of causality to claimants with 10 years of mining service and also permitted claimants to prove causality by direct evidence. See § 410.490(b)(2). The second presumption (drafted in a most confusing manner) enables a claimant to obtain presumptive entitlement by establishing specified scores on ventilatory tests if the miner had “at least 10 years of the requisite coal mine employment.” §§ 410.490(b)(l)(ii), (b)(3). Both presumptions were rebuttable by a showing that the miner was working or could work at his former mine employment or the equivalent. § 410.490(c). Miners unable to obtain either presumption had to proceed under the permanent HEW regulations. § 410.490(e). The term of the interim regulation coincided with the term of the part B program, and expired after June 30, 1973, for claims filed by living miners and after December 31, 1973, for survivors’ claims. § 410.490(b).
The FCMHSA provided that after part B ceased, part C would shift black lung benefits claims into state workers’ compensation programs approved by the Secretary of Labor as “adequate” under statutory standards. FCMHSA §421. If no statutorily approved program existed in a given State, the Secretary of Labor was to handle the benefits claims arising in that State directly, and was to prescribe regulations for assigning liability to responsible mine owners. See FCMHSA § 422(a). Events did not unfold as expected, however. The Secretary of Labor approved no state workers’ compensation program during the relevant period, see Lopatto, The Federal Black Lung Program: A 1983 Primer, 85 W. Va. L. Rev. 677, 688 (1983), and part C became exclusively a federally run workers’ compensation program administered by the Secretary of Labor. Significantly, the FCMHSA provided that “[t]he regulations of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under section 411(a) of this title shall also be applicable to claims [processed by the Secretary of Labor] under [part C].” FCMHSA § 422(h). Thus, because the interim HEW regulation expired as part C began, the Secretary of Labor adjudicated part C claims exclusively under the permanent HEW regulations.
This state of affairs persisted until Congress passed the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 (BLBRA), Pub. L. 95-239, 92 Stat. 95. The BLBRA amended 30 U. S. C. § 902(f) to give the Secretary of Labor authority to establish total disability regulations for part C cases. § 902(f)(1). Pending issuance of the new Labor Department regulations, the BLBRA provided for an interim administrative regime applying standards different from (and more generous than) those of the permanent HEW regulations. Moreover, the BLBRA provided not only that these interim standards would be applied to cases filed or pending during the interim period, but also that claims previously denied would, upon the claimant’s request, be reopened and readjudicated under the interim standards. 30 U. S. C. § 945. The nature of the interim standards was to be such that the “[cjriteria applied by the Secretary of Labor in the case of . . . any claim . . . shall not be more restrictive than the criteria applicable to a claim filed on June 30, 1973.” 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(2). That is the language giving rise to the dispute in these cases.
In response to the BLBRA, the Secretary of Labor promulgated the interim regulation at issue here for claims within the scope of § 902(f)(2). This regulation accords a presumptive claim of entitlement to miners having 10 years’ experience in coal mines and satisfying one of several “medical requirements,” including X-ray, biopsy, or autopsy evidence of pneumoconiosis or ventilatory study evidence identical to that required by the HEW interim regulation. 20 CFR § 727.203(a) (1988). It is central to the present cases that under this interim regulation, unlike the interim HEW regulation (§§410.490(b)(l)(i), (b)(2)), a miner cannot obtain the first presumption of entitlement without 10 years of coal mine service. Moreover, the rebuttal provisions of the interim Labor regulation mandate that “all relevant medical evidence shall be considered,” § 727.203(b), permitting rebuttal not only on the grounds available in the interim HEW regulation (§ 410.490(c)), but also on the basis that “the total disability or death of the miner did not arise in whole or in part out of coal mine employment” or that “the miner does not, or did not, have pneumoconiosis.” See §§727.203(b)(l)-(4). A § 902(f)(2) claimant unable to obtain the interim Labor presumption can prove entitlement under either the permanent HEW regulations or the (subsequently issued) permanent Labor regulations, depending on when the claim was filed and adjudicated. 20 CFR § 727.4(b) (1988). The permanent Labor regulations took effect on April 1, 1980. See 20 CFR § 718.2 (1988).
II
One of the three consolidated cases before us, Director, OWCP v. Broyles, No. 87-1095, is itself a consolidation by the Fourth Circuit of two separate cases brought by, respectively, Lisa Kay Colley and Charlie Broyles. Respondent Colley’s father, Bill Colley, and respondent Broyles filed claims for black lung benefits in 1974 and 1976, respectively. Under 30 U. S. C. § 945(b), both claimants were entitled to have their claims adjudicated pursuant to the BLBRA amendments. Thus, the interim Labor regulation applied. Since, however, neither claimant had worked 10 years in the mines, neither qualified for the presumption of entitlement under §727.203, so that both cases were adjudicated under the permanent HEW regulations. In both cases, the Administrative Law Judge found against the claimants, and the Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the BRB as to both claimants, holding that the unavailability of the interim Labor presumption to short-term miners violated § 902(f)(2) by forcing the application of the “more restrictive” “criteria” found in the permanent HEW regulations. See 824 F. 2d, at 329-330.
The other two consolidated cases before us, Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, No. 87-821, and McLaughlin v. Sebben, No. 87-827, both involve a potential class of claimants consisting of those who
“(1) have filed claims for benefits under the BLBA between December 30, 1969, and April 1, 1980; (2) have claimed a disability due to pneumoconiosis caused by employment in the coal mining industry; (3) have submitted a positive X-ray as proof of the presence of pneumoconiosis; (4) have been denied the benefit of the presumption of pneumoconiosis contained in 20 CFR § 727.203(a)(1) because they did not prove that they had worked ten years in the coal mines; (5) were not afforded the opportunity to submit a claim under 20 CFR §410.490; and (6) do not have claims under 20 CFR § 410.490 or 20 CFR § 727.203(a)(1) currently pending before the Department of Labor.” 815 F. 2d, at 484-485.
These claimants differ from those in No. 87-1095 in that the latter have timely appealed the Labor Department’s adverse decisions to the courts, while these claimants have permitted the time for direct appeal to expire. See 815 F. 2d, at 478, 485. The Eighth Circuit ordered the certification of this class and decided that mandamus would appropriately lie to compel the Secretary of Labor to readjudicate the class members’ claims under §410.490. The panel’s opinion relied on the Eighth Circuit’s earlier decision in Coughlan v. Director, OWCP, 757 F. 2d 966 (CA8 1985), which, like Broyles, had determined that 30 U. S. C. § 902(f)(2) required the application of §410.490 standards to claims filed before April 1, 1980. It further held that the claimants’ failure to perfect direct appeals from the Secretary’s adverse decisions was no obstacle to the present suit.
Ill
The statutory text at issue here provides that “[cjriteria applied by the Secretary of Labor . . . shall not be more restrictive than the criteria applicable” under the interim HEW regulation. The respect in which it is claimed here that the Labor criteria are more restrictive is this: whereas under the first presumption of the interim HEW regulation (see supra, at 109) a miner would obtain a presumption of entitlement by establishing (1) pneumoconiosis and (2) either 10 years of coal mining experience or proof that the pneumoconiosis was caused by mining employment, under the interim Labor regulation 10 years’ experience is the exclusive element of the second factor. In defending the interim Labor regulation, the Secretary maintains that the term “criteria” is ambiguous, and that her resolution of that ambiguity is reasonable and therefore must be sustained. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843, and n. 9 (1984). We disagree. In our view, the statute simply will not bear the meaning the Secretary has adopted.
“Criteria” are “standard[s] on which a judgment or decision may be based.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 307 (1983). It is undisputed that in the current context the standards referred to include the standards for obtaining the presumption of entitlement. The distinctive feature of the interim HEW regulation was precisely its establishment of presumptions, and to fix it as a benchmark without reference to its presumptions would be meaningless.
The Secretary contends, however, that the criteria referred to in § 902(f)(2) do not include the criteria for all the elements necessary to a successful claim. Those elements are essentially three: (1) pneumoconiosis; (2) causation by coal mine employment; and (3) total disability (defined as the inability of the claimant to do his former mine work or the equivalent because of pneumoconiosis). See Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 484 U. S. 135 (1987). The Secretary argues that since § 902(f)(2) is part of the statutory definition section dealing with “total disability,” the “criteria” to which it refers must be limited to those bearing upon that element. Total disability criteria would in her view consist of essentially medical (and to some extent vocational) factors, but in no circumstances could include the 10-year-employment requirement at issue here, which obviously goes to causation rather than disability.
The premise of the Secretary’s argument — that “criteria” means total disability criteria — has considerable merit, though it is by no means free from doubt. Assuming it is correct, however, we find it unavailing to sustain the Secretary’s interim regulation, which in our view does impose more restrictive total disability criteria. For although the categorical 10-year-employment requirement bears proximately upon causation, it bears ultimately upon total disability as well. The interim HEW regulation had provided, in effect, that if certain evidence of the first two elements of entitlement (pneumoconiosis and causation) was established, the third element (total disability) would, aidomatically be presumed. Thus, to increase the requirements for the presumption of causality is necessarily to increase the requirements for the presumption of total disability. No other view of the matter accords with the reality. By making the criteria for proving causation “more restrictive” for miners who seek a presumption of entitlement and can establish pneumoconiosis, the interim Labor regulation necessarily applies “more restrictive” total disability criteria than those in the interim HEW regulation.
The Secretary goes further still, however, and argues that the legislative history leading up to the enactment of the BLBRA actually discloses a congressional intention to preserve only “medical criteria” in the adoption of § 902(f)(2). We need not canvass in detail that legislative history, which shows at most that medical criteria were the focus of the House and Senate debates. It is not the law that a statute can have no effects which are not explicitly mentioned in its legislative history, and the text of the present statute plainly embraces criteria of more general application. We refer not merely to use of the unqualified term “criteria” in § 902(f)(2) itself, but also to the text of related provisions. Immediately preceding § 902(f)(2) in the text of the BLBRA and of the United States Code is § 902(f)(1)(D), which provides that the “Secretary of Labor . . . shall establish criteria for all appropriate medical tests under this subsection which accurately reflect total disability.” (Emphasis added.) If, as the Secretary contends, Congress intended the word “criteria” to cover only medical criteria (such as ventilatory scores) in both of these simultaneously adopted subsections, it is most implausible that it would have qualified the word in the one but not in the other.
Moreover, the Secretary has suggested no reason why Congress should insist that only the medical criteria under the interim Labor regulation be no more restrictive, while being utterly indifferent as to the addition of other conditions for recovery. There was assuredly no belief that the interim HEW medical criteria were particularly precise or accurate. Quite to the contrary, the prologue of the regulation that adopted them made very clear that they were rough guesses adopted for the time being “in the light of limited medical resources and techniques.” 20 CFR §410.490 (1988). Petitioners Pittston Coal Group et al. cite persuasive evidence for the proposition that the X-ray evidence required in §410.490 does not conclusively establish pneumoconiosis, and that the ventilatory scores employed in that provision “are basically normal values for retired coal miners.” Brief for Petitioners in No. 87-821, pp. 31-33. It seems likely that Congress had no particular motive in preserving the HEW interim medical criteria other than to assure the continued liberality of black lung awards. Since that motive applies to racwmedical criteria with equal force, there is no apparent reason for giving the unqualified word “criteria” the unnaturally limited meaning the Secretary suggests.
Even if we agreed with the Secretary’s assertion that the “criteria” in § 902(f)(2) consist solely of “medical criteria,” we would still conclude that the interim Labor regulation is in violation of the statute. The various criteria that go into determining a claim of entitlement under the interim HEW regulation are closely — indeed, inextricably — intertwined. The configuration of a claimant’s nonmedical characteristics effectively determines which “medical criteria” the claimant must establish in order to obtain presumptive entitlement. Thus, in order to make out a prima facie claim of entitlement by submitting X-ray, biopsy, or autopsy evidence establishing pneumoconiosis, a miner proceeding under the interim HEW regulation must fall within either the class of claimants having 10 years of coal mine experience or the class of claimants able to prove that respiratory impairment arose out of coal mine employment. Under the interim Labor regulation, however, this medical evidence no longer suffices for the latter class of claimants; they must in addition submit affirmative proof of total disability (regardless of whether they then proceed under the permanent HEW or the permanent Labor regulations), which would principally involve submission of medical proof of disability. See 20 CFR §§410.422-410.426 (1988) (permanent HEW regulations); id., §718.204 (permanent Labor regulations). Thus, for claims brought by miners in that class, the medical criteria are necessarily more restrictive — violating the statutory requirement of “no more restrictive” criteria “in the case of . . . any claim.”
That the Secretary has increased medical criteria can be more readily understood by transposing the substance of what has occurred here to a more commonplace, analogous context. Just as the black lung program considers both medical and nonmedical criteria for entitlement, college admissions programs typically consider both academic and extracurricular criteria for admission. Assume a hypothetical college that has traditionally tendered offers of admission to all applicants with a B + average, and to all high school student-body presidents and football-team captains with a B average. • The Board of Trustees, concerned about increasing intellectualism at the institution, issues a directive providing that “the academic criteria applied by the admissions committee in considering any application for admission shall be no more restrictive than those employed in the past.” Surely one would not say that this directive permits the admissions committee to terminate the practice of admitting football-team captains with a B average. To be sure, the admissions committee could assert that it was merely applying stricter extracurricular activity requirements for those who had B averages, just as the Secretary here claims that she is merely applying stricter causality requirements for those miners who have the requisite evidence of pneumoconiosis. But the admissions committee would at the same time be raising the academic criteria for all football-team captains — just as the Secretary is raising the medical criteria for miners who can establish causality only by direct evidence.
The Secretary’s remaining arguments require little discussion. She points out that Congress could very easily have adopted the entire interim HEW regulation if it had meant to preserve all aspects of the HEW presumptions. But that course (which is in any event no more simple than § 902(f)(2)) would have produced a different result, because it would not have permitted the Secretary to adopt less restrictive criteria. The' Secretary also observes that in enacting the BLBRA, Congress had before it evidence suggesting that disabling pneumoconiosis rarely manifests itself in miners with fewer than 10 years of coal mine experience. Though that is quite true, we do not sit to determine what Congress ought to have done given the evidence before it, but to apply what Congress enacted — and, as we have discussed, the exclusion of short-term miners from the benefits of the presumption finds no support in the statute. The Secretary and private petitioners cite favorable postenactment statements by key sponsors of the BLBRA. Since such statements cannot possibly have informed the vote of the legislators who earlier enacted the law, there is no more basis for considering them than there is to conduct postenactment polls of the original legislators. Finally, the Secretary focuses on the interim Labor regulation’s additional rebuttal provisions, which permit the introduction of evidence disputing both the presence of pneumoconiosis and the connection between total disability and coal mine employment. Respondents have conceded the validity of these provisions, even though they permit rebuttal of more elements of statutory entitlement than did the interim HEW regulation. The Secretary argues that there is no basis for drawing a line that permits alteration of the rebuttal provisions, but not the affirmative factors addressed by the Secretary. That may or may not be so, but it does not affect our determination regarding the affirmative factors, for which it seems to us the statutory requirements are clear. Respondents’ concession on the rebuttal provisions means that we are not required to decide the question of their validity, not that we must reconcile their putative validity with our decision today. (The concession also means that we have no occasion to consider the due process arguments of petitioners, which are predicated upon the proposition that the rebuttal provisions must be more expansive than those in the' HEW interim regulation.)
Finally, we address an argument not made by the Secretary — neither before us nor, as far as appears, before any other court in connection with this extensive litigation — but relied upon by the dissent. The dissent believes that the Secretary of HEW made a typographical error in drafting §410.490, and that the reference in paragraph (b)(3) to subparagraph (b)(1)(h) should be a reference to subparagraph (b)(l)(i). Even if this revision of what the Secretary wrote (and defended here) made total sense, we would hesitate to impose it uninvited. But in fact it does not bring order to the regulation. It does not, as the dissent contends, eliminate redundancy in §410.490, but merely shifts redundancy from one paragraph to another. Under the dissent’s revision of the regulation, a claimant submitting X-ray, biopsy, or autopsy evidence of pneumoconiosis under subparagraph (b)(l)(i) would also have to establish disease causation under paragraph (b)(2) and total disability causation under paragraph (b)(3). The last of these requires 10 years of coal mine employment. But if that can be established, the second requirement, contained in paragraph (b)(2), is entirely superfluous, since that provides (by cross-references to §§410.416 and 410.456) that a presumption of disease causation is established by 10 years of coal mine employment. (To be sure, §§410.416 and 410.456 permit rebuttal of the presumption, but it is plainly not the intended purpose of paragraph (b)(2) to serve as a rebuttal provision rather than a substantive requirement.) Nor would paragraph (b)(2) have any operative effect for a claimant proceeding under subparagraph (b)(1)(h), since that itself (without reference to paragraph (b) (3)) requires a minimum of 15 years of coal mine employment.
Moreover, even if the Secretary of HEW had made a typographical error, the dissent offers no evidence whatever to establish that in enacting the BLBRA, Congress, unlike past and present Secretaries, was aware of that error, and meant to refer to the regulation as the dissent would amend it. To support congressional agreement with its understanding of the regulation, the dissent produces, from the voluminous legislative history of hearings, debates, and committee reports dealing with this subject, nothing more than stray remarks made by a United Mine Workers official and a single Representative at hearings occurring four years and two Congresses before the BLBRA was enacted, see post, at 147-148 — remarks that the dissent concedes could be attributable to a simple “misread[ing] [of] the regulation,” post, at 148, n. 12. We do not think this suffices to justify rewriting §410.490 as the dissent believes (perhaps quite reasonably) it should have been written.
IV
Having agreed with the conclusion of both courts below that the interim Labor regulation violates § 902(f)(2), there remains for us to consider the propriety of the orders which that conclusion produced. In Broyles (No. 87-1095), the Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the Benefits Review Board for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion. That action was correct — with the clarification, however, that its opinion requires application of criteria no more restrictive than §410.490 only as to the affirmative factors for invoking the presumption of entitlement, and not as to the rebuttal factors, the validity of which respondents have conceded.
The order of the Eighth Circuit in Sebben (Nos. 87-821 and 87-827) is more problematic. There, as we described earlier, the finding that the interim Labor regulation violated § 902(f)(2) was the basis for mandamus instructing the Secretary to readjudicate, under the correct standard, cases that had already become final by reason of the claimants’ failure to pursue administrative remedies or petition for judicial review in a timely manner. The Eighth Circuit’s rationale for this order is deceptively simple: with respect to both the claims reopened and readjudicated pursuant to 30 U. S. C. §945, and the claims initially adjudicated under the interim Labor regulation, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the Secretary had never fulfilled her statutory duty because she had failed to adjudicate the claims “under the proper standard.” 815 F. 2d, at 482. This rationale does not suffice.
The extraordinary remedy of mandamus under 28 U. S. C. § 1361 will issue only to compel the performance of “a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602, 616 (1984). Under the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act made applicable to the adjudication of black lung benefits claims by 30 U. S. C. 932(a), initial administrative determinations become final after 30 days if not appealed to the Benefits Review Board, see 33 U. S. C. § 921(a), and persons aggrieved by a final order of the Board may have such an order set aside only by petitioning for review in a court of appeals within 60 days of the final order, see 33 U. S. C. § 921(c). Determinations of all of the Sebben claims became final at one of these two stages. Thus, to succeed in the present cases the Sebben respondents had to establish not only a duty to apply less restrictive criteria than those found in 20 CFR §727.203 (1988), but also a duty to reopen the final determinations. The latter was not established.
With respect to claims filed between the effective date of the BLBRA and that of the permanent Labor regulations, and with respect to claims filed before the effective date of the BLBRA but not yet adjudicated at that time, there is not even a colorable basis for the contention that Congress has imposed a duty to reconsider finally determined claims. And with respect to the already adjudicated pre-BLBRA claims that 30 U. S. C. § 945 required the Secretary to readjudicate under the new, interim Labor regulation, a basis for reopening can be found only if one interprets § 945 to override the principle of res, judicata not just once but perpetually, requiring readjudication and re-readjudication (despite the normal rules of finality) until the Secretary finally gets it right. But there is no more reason to interpret a command to readjudicate pursuant to a certain standard as permitting perpetual reopening, until the Secretary gets it right, than there is to interpret a command to adjudicate in this fashion. That is to say, one could as plausibly contend that every statutory requirement that adjudication be conducted pursuant to a particular standard permits reopening until that requirement is complied with. This is not the way the law works. The pre-BLBRA claimants received what § 945 required: a readjudication of their cases governed by the new statutorily prescribed standards. Assuming they are correct that these new standards would have entitled them to benefits, they would have been vindicated if they had sought judicial review; they chose instead to accept incorrect adjudication. They are in no different position from any claimant who seeks to avoid the bar of res judicata on the ground that the decision was wrong.
We do not believe that Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S. 467 (1986), upon which the Sebben respondents place principal reliance, has any bearing upon the present cases. There we held that the application of a secret, internal policy by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in adjudicating Social Security Act claims equitably tolled the limitations periods for seeking administrative or judicial review. Id., at 478-482. Even assuming that equitable tolling is available under the relevant provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, the conditions for applying it do not exist. The agency action here was not taken pursuant to a secret, internal policy, but under a regulation that was published for all to see. If respondents wished to challenge it they should have done so when their cases were decided.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Fourth Circuit, and reverse the decision of the Eighth Circuit and remand with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the petition for mandamus.
It is so ordered.
Besides the Fourth and Eighth Circuits, two other federal appeals courts have found the interim Labor regulations impermissibly “restrictive” under § 902(f)(2). See Kyle v. Director, OWCP, 819 F. 2d 139 (CA6 1987); Halon v. Director, OWCP, 713 F. 2d 21 (CA3 1983). The Seventh Circuit has held to the contrary. See Strike v. Director, OWCP, 817 F. 2d 395, 404-405 (1987).
The dissent asserts that “criteria” in § 902(f)(2) was merely “shorthand” for the earlier phrase “criteria for all appropriate medical tests,” proving the point to its satisfaction by recasting the two statutory provisions into a single sentence where such shorthand reference would be obvious. See post, at 133-134. It is difficult to argue with the proposition that a statute can be rephrased to say something different. The point here is that the two provisions do not occur within the same sentence, or indeed even within parallel sentences (one being a subparagraph, and the next the beginning of a new paragraph), and that they do not naturally suggest any ellipsis. Moreover, not only is the unqualified term “criteria” used in the separate paragraph immediately following the lengthier phrase “criteria for all appropriate medical tests,” but it is also used in the separate subparagraph immediately preceding use of the lengthier phrase — namely, in § 902(f)(1)(C), which provides that the Secretary’s regulations “shall not provide more restrictive criteria than those applicable under section 223(d) of the Social Security Act.” Surely this preceding provision cannot be interpreted as a “shorthand” for a longer provision that has not yet appeared, which means that if the dissent’s construction is correct the word “criteria” in the statute is used twice, one paragraph apart, with two different meanings. It is true that § 902(f)(1)(C) was a pre-existing provision, whereas §§ 902(f)(1)(D) and 902(f)(2) were simultaneously added by the BLBRA; even so, one should not attribute to the draftsmen of the BLBRA the use of a shorthand that produces such a peculiarity in the United States Code.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 suspends the use of any test or device as a prerequisite to registering to vote in any election, in any State or political subdivision which, on November 1, 1964, maintained a test or device, and in which less than 50% of the residents of voting age were registered on that date or voted in the 1964 presidential election. Suspension is automatic upon publication in the Federal Register of determinations by the Attorney General and the Director of the Census, respectively, that these conditions apply to a particular governmental unit. If the unit wishes to reinstate the test or device, it must bring suit against the Government in a three-judge district court in the District of Columbia and prove “that no such test or device has been used during the five years preceding the filing of the action for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,” §4 (a). The constitutionality of these provisions was upheld in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 (1966).
On March 29, 1966, the Attorney General and the Director of the Census published the necessary determinations with respect to appellant, Gaston County, North Carolina. Use of the State’s literacy test within the County was thereby suspended. On August 18,1966, appellant brought this action in the District Court, making the requisite averments and seeking to reinstate the literacy test.
The United States opposed the granting of relief on the ground, inter alia, that use of the test had “the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color” because it placed a specially onerous burden on the County’s Negro citizens for whom the County had maintained separate and inferior schools.
After a full trial on this and other issues, the District Court denied the relief requested, holding that appellant had not met its burden of proving that its use of the literacy test, in the context of its historic maintenance of segregated and unequal schools, did not discrimina-torily deprive Negroes of the franchise. Gaston County v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 678 (1968). The court made clear:
“[W]e do not rely solely on the fact that the schools in Gaston County have been segregated during the period when persons presently of voting age were of school age, but instead have reviewed the evidence adduced by the Government in this case and concluded that the Negro schools were of inferior quality in fact as well as in law.” Id., at 689-690, n. 23.
Pursuant to § 4 (a) of the Act, the County appealed directly to this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction, 393 U. S. 1011 (1969), and we affirm for substantially the reasons given by the majority in the District Court.
Appellant contends that the decision of the District Court is erroneous on three scores: first, as a matter of statutory construction and legislative history, the court could not consider Gaston County’s practice of educational discrimination in determining whether its literacy test had the effect of discriminatorily denying the franchise; second, on the facts of this case, appellant met its burden of proving that the education it provided had no such effect; and third, whatever may have been the situation in the past, Gaston County has not fostered discrimination in education or voting in recent years. We consider these arguments in turn.
I.
The legislative history of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 discloses that Congress was fully cognizant of the potential effect of unequal educational opportunities upon exercise of the franchise. This causal relationship was, indeed, one of the principal arguments made in support of the Act’s test-suspension provisions. Attorney General Katzenbach testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary:
“It might be suggested that this kind of [voting] discrimination could be ended in a different way— by wiping the registration books clean and requiring all voters, white or Negro, to register anew under a uniformly applied literacy test.
“. . . [S]uch an approach would not solve, but would compound our present problems.
“To subject every citizen to a higher literacy standard would, inevitably, work unfairly against Negroes — Negroes who have for decades been systematically denied educational opportunity equal to that available to the white population. Although the discredited ‘separate but equal’ doctrine had colorable constitutional legitimacy until 1954, the notorious and tragic fact is that educational opportunities were pathetically inferior for thousands of Negroes who want to vote today.
“The impact of a general reregistration would produce a real irony. Years of violation of the 14th amendment, right of equal protection through equal education, would become the excuse for continuing violation of the 15th amendment, right to vote.” Hearings on S. 1564 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 22.
Mr. Katzenbach testified similarly before the House Committee. See Hearings on H. R. 6400 before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 18-19, 49. And significantly, the Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee explicitly asserted:
“[T]he educational differences between whites and Negroes in the areas to be covered by the prohibitions — differences which are reflected in the record before the committee — would mean that equal application of the tests would abridge 15th amendment rights. This advantage to whites is directly attributable to the States and localities involved.” S. Rep. No. 162, pt. 3, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 16.
Appellant’s response to this seemingly unequivocal legislative history is, in essence, that it proves too much. As Judge Gasch put it in his separate opinion below:
“[I]t is clear that the Voting Rights Act was primarily directed at the Southern states. In the Act, the Congress allowed a fair opportunity for a certified unit to rebut the presumption that its literacy test was used in a discriminatory manner. Thus, sections 4 and 5 of the Act provide a procedure whereby a State or political subdivision which has been the subject of a certification under the Act, may petition this Court for declaratory relief to reinstate its test before the five-year suspension period has elapsed. Sections 4 and 5 will provide no remedy to a Southern state, however, if, as the majority finds, a segregated school system coupled with census data showing higher literacy and education for whites than for Negroes, is sufficient to preclude recovery under the Act. We can take judicial notice that the segregated school system was the prevailing system throughout the South. If this were what Congress had in mind, it would have stated that no test could be used where literacy was higher among whites than among Negroes. I do not believe that Congress intended that the Act be interpreted in such a way as to render §§ 4 and 5 inapplicable to Southern states or those which had segregated educational systems.” 288 F. Supp., at 690, 695.
Appellant's contentions fundamentally misconceive the import of the majority opinion below, as we read it. That opinion explicitly disclaims establishing any per se rule. The court's decision is premised not merely on Gaston County’s historic maintenance of a dual school system, but on substantial evidence that the County deprived its black residents of equal educational opportunities, which in turn deprived them of an equal chance to pass the literacy test. Consistent with the court’s holding, a State or subdivision may demonstrate that although its schools suffered from the inequality inherent in any segregated system, see Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), the dual educational system had no appreciable discriminatory effect on the ability of persons of voting age to meet a literacy requirement.
It is of no consequence that Congress might have dealt with the effects of educational discrimination by employing a coverage formula different from the one it enacted. The coverage formula chosen by Congress was designed to be speedy, objective, and incontrovertible; it is triggered appropriately by voting or registration figures. The areas at which the Act was directed
“share two characteristics incorporated by Congress into the coverage formula: the use of tests and devices for voter registration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below the national average. Tests and devices are relevant to voting discrimination because of their long history as a tool for perpetrating the evil; a low voting rate is pertinent for the obvious reason that widespread disenfranchisement must inevitably affect the number of actual voters. Accordingly, the coverage formula is rational in both practice and theory.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 330 (1966).
In contrast, a coverage formula based on educational disparities, or one based on literacy rates, would be administratively cumbersome: the designation of racially disparate school systems is not susceptible of speedy, objective, and incontrovertible determination; and the Bureau of the Census collects no' accurate county statistics on literacy. Furthermore, a coverage formula based on either of these factors would not serve as an appropriate basis for suspending all of the tests and devices encompassed by § 4 (c) of the Act — for example, a “good moral character” requirement.
We conclude that in an action brought under § 4 (a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it is appropriate for a court to consider whether a literacy or educational requirement has the “effect of denying . .. the right to vote on account of race or color” because the State or subdivision which seeks to impose the requirement has maintained separate and inferior schools for its Negro residents who are now of voting age.
II.
In an action for declaratory relief under § 4 (a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the plaintiff carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff cannot be expected to raise and refute every conceivable defense, however, cf. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9 (c), and it was incumbent upon the Government in the case at bar to put into issue its contention that appellant’s use of the literacy test, coupled with its racially segregated and unequal school system, discriminatorily deprived Negroes of the franchise. The plaintiff-appellant would then have the burden of proving the contrary. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 332 (1966). The Government did place this contention in issue, and in support thereof it introduced considerable evidence, which we now summarize.
All persons of voting age in 1966 who attended schools in Gaston County attended racially separate and unequal schools. Between the years 1908 and 1929, when approximately 45% of the voting age population was of school age, the salaries of Negro teachers in the County ranged from a low of about 20% to a high of about 50% of those of their white colleagues. In 1919, when uniform teacher certification was first required in North Carolina, 98% of the white teachers, but only 5% of the Negro teachers, qualified for regular state teaching certificates. The remaining 95% of the Negro teachers held “second grade” certificates. The Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1918-1920, described a second grade certificate as “the lowest permit issued to any teacher in the State. It is not a certificate in the proper sense, but merely a permit to teach until someone can be found who is competent to take the place.”
During this same period, the per-pupil valuation of Negro school property in the County ranged from 20% to about 40% of that of the white schools. A much higher proportion of Negro than of white children attended one-room, one-teacher, wooden schoolhouses which contained no desks.
By the 1938-1939 school year, Negro teachers’ salaries had increased to about 70% of that of white teachers, and by the 1948-1949 school year, salaries were almost equal. At this later date, the per-pupil valuation of Negro school property was still only about one-third that of the white schools.
Of those persons over 25 years old at the time of the 1960 census, the proportion of Negroes with no schooling whatever was twice that of whites in Gaston County; the proportion of Negroes with four or less years of education was slightly less than twice that of whites.
In 1962, Gaston County changed its system of registration and required a general reregistration of all voters. North Carolina law provides that “[e]very person presenting himself for registration shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in the English language.” N. C. Const., Art. VI, § 4; see n. 3, supra. The State Supreme Court has described this requirement as “relatively high, even after more than a half century of free public schools and universal education,” Bazemore v. Bertie County Board of Elections, 254 N. C. 398, 402, 119 S. E. 2d 637, 641 (1961), and a Negro minister active in voter registration testified that it placed an especially heavy burden on the County’s older Negro citizens. Appendix 131-132. It was publicized throughout the County that the literacy requirement would be enforced. A registrar told a Negro leader not to bring illiterates to register. Some Negroes who attempted to register were, in fact, rejected because they could not pass the test, and others did not attempt to register, knowing that they could not meet the standard.
With this evidence, the Government had not only put its contention in issue, but had made out a prima facie case. It is only reasonable to infer that among black children compelled to endure a segregated and inferior education, fewer will achieve any given degree of literacy than will their better-educated white contemporaries. And on the Government’s showing, it was certainly proper to infer that Gaston County’s inferior Negro schools provided many of its Negro residents with a subliterate education, and gave many others little inducement to enter or remain in school.
The only evidence introduced by the appellant in rebuttal was the testimony of Thebaud Jeffers, a Negro principal of a Negro high school, who had first come to Gaston County in 1932. He stated that “[a] 11 of our schools . . . would have been able to teach any Negro child to read and write so that he could read a newspaper, so that he could read any simple material,” and so that he could pass the literacy test. Appendix 169.
The District Court characterized Mr. Jeffers as an “interested witness,” and found his testimony “unpersuasive” when measured against the Government’s evidence. The court further noted that the principal’s knowledge about the school system dated only from 1932, by which time some of the more blatant educational disparities were being reduced. Almost one-half of the county’s black adults were of school age well before Mr. Jeffers’ arrival.
The District Court concluded that appellant had not met the burden imposed by § 4 (a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This was not clearly erroneous.
III.
Appellant urges that it administered the 1962 reregistration in a fair and impartial manner, and that in recent years it has made significant strides toward equalizing and integrating its school system. Although we accept these claims as true, they fall wide of the mark. Affording today’s Negro youth equal educational opportunities will doubtless prepare them to meet, on equal terms, whatever standards of literacy are required when they reach voting age. It does nothing for their parents, however. From this record, we cannot escape the sad truth that throughout the years Gaston County systematically deprived its black citizens of the educational opportunities it granted to its white citizens. “Impartial” administration of the literacy test today would serve only to perpetuate these inequities in a different form.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black dissents for substantially the same reasons he stated in § (b) of his separate opinion in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 355, 358.
“The phrase ‘test or device’ shall mean any requirement that a person as a prerequisite for voting or registration for voting (1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.” Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 4 (c), 79 Stat. 438, 42 U. S. C. § 1973b (c) (1964 ed., Supp. III).
§4 (a), 79 Stat. 438, 42 U. S. C. § 1973b (a) (1964 ed., Supp. III).
N. C. Const., Art. VI, § 4, provides: “Every person presenting himself for registration shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in the English language.” At all times relevant to this case, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 163-28 mirrored the constitutional provision. In 1967 the statute was renumbered § 163-58 and its wording was amended in minor aspects.
Judge Wright wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Robinson joined. Judge Gasch dissented from the court’s holding, see infra, at 290-291, but would have denied appellant relief for different reasons.
In view of this obvious relationship, and acknowledgment of it by the Attorney General and Congress, it is of no consequence that the Act was explicitly designed to enforce the Fifteenth, and not the Fourteenth, Amendment. See, e. g., Hearings on S. 1564 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 141-142; Hearings on H. R. 6400 before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 49-50, 66, 102. The Act was, of course, concerned solely with voting rights, and discrimination in education bears on the Act only insofar as it may result in discriminatory abridgment of the franchise.
Section 4 (b) of the Act makes the determinations by the Attorney General and the Director of the Census unreviewable in any court. “[T]he findings not subject to review consist of objective statistical determinations by the Census Bureau and a routine analysis of state statutes by the Justice Department. These functions are unlikely to arouse any plausible dispute.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 333 (1966).
See n. 1, su-pra; Hearings on H. R. 6400 before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 30-31.
We have no occasion to decide whether the Act would permit reinstatement of a literacy test in the face of racially disparate educational or literacy achievements for which a government bore no responsibility.
We assume, and appellant does not suggest otherwise, that most of the adult residents of Gaston County resided there as children. Cf. Bureau of the Census, 1960 Census of Population, Vol. I, pt. 35, table 39. It would seem a matter of no legal significance that they may have been educated in other counties or States also maintaining segregated and unequal school systems.
Gaston County v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 678, 686 (1968). Unless otherwise indicated, the facts and statistics set out below, which are not controverted, appear in the opinion of the District Court, 288 F. Supp., at 686-687, or in Government’s Exhibit No. 2 (Excerpts from the Reports of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of North Carolina).
Elsewhere in its opinion, the court stated that a registrant must be able to read aloud, as well as copy, a section of the State Constitution. 254 N. C., at 404, 119 S. E. 2d, at 642. Appellant’s registrars required only that a registrant copy one of three sentences of the Constitution.
This is, indeed, an inference that appears throughout the Act’s legislative history. See supra, at 289-290.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, the mother of an illegitimate child, brought this action in United States District Court on behalf of herself, her child, and others similarly situated to enjoin the “discriminatory application” of Art. 602 of the Texas Penal Code. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, but that court dismissed the action for want of standing. 335 F. Supp. 804 (ND Tex. 1971). We postponed consideration of jurisdiction until argument on the merits, 405 U. S. 1064, and now affirm the judgment below.
Article 602, in relevant part, provides: “any parent who shall wilfully desert, neglect or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his or her child or children under eighteen years of age, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be punished by confinement in the County Jail for not more than two years.” The Texas courts have consistently construed this statute to apply solely to the parents of legitimate children and to impose no duty of support on the parents of illegitimate children. See Home of the Holy Infancy v. Kaska, 397 S. W. 2d 208, 210 (Tex. 1966); Beaver v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 179, 256 S. W. 929 (1923). In her complaint, appellant alleges that one Richard D. is the father of her child, that Richard D. has refused to provide support for the child, and that although appellant made application to the local district attorney for enforcement of Art. 602 against Richard D., the district attorney refused to take action for the express reason that, in his view, the fathers of illegitimate children were not within the scope of Art. 602.
Appellant argues that this interpretation of Art. 602 discriminates between legitimate and illegitimate children without rational foundation and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S. 535 (1973) ; Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164 (1972); Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 391 U. S. 73 (1968); Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 68 (1968). But cf. Labine v. Vincent, 401 U. S. 532 (1971). Although her complaint is not entirely clear on this point, she apparently seeks an injunction running against the district attorney forbidding him from declining prosecution on the ground that the unsupported child is illegitimate.
Before we can consider the merits of appellant’s claim or the propriety of the relief requested, however, appellant must first demonstrate that she is entitled to invoke the judicial process. She must, in other words, show that the facts alleged present the court with a “case or controversy” in the constitutional sense and that she is a proper plaintiff to raise the issues sought to be litigated. The threshold question which must be answered is whether the appellant 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.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962).
Recent decisions by this Court have greatly expanded the types of “personal stake [s]” which are capable of conferring standing on a potential plaintiff. Compare Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U. S. 118 (1939), and Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. S. 464 (1938), with Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159 (1970), and Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150 (1970). But as we pointed out only last Term, “broadening the categories of injury that may be alleged in support of standing 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). Although the law of standing has been greatly changed in the last 10 years, we have steadfastly adhered to the requirement that, at least in the absence of a statute expressly conferring standing, federal plaintiffs must allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal court may assume jurisdiction. See, e. g., Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163, 166-167 (1972); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 101 (1968); Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962): Cf. Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1, 13 (1972).
Applying this test to the facts of this case, we hold that, in the unique context of a challenge to a criminal statute, appellant has failed to allege a sufficient nexus between her injury and the government action which she attacks to justify judicial intervention. To be sure, appellant no doubt suffered an injury stemming from the failure of her child’s father to contribute support payments. But the bare existence of an abstract injury meets only the first half of the standing requirement. “The party who invokes [judicial] power must be able to show . . . that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of [a statute’s] enforcement.” Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (emphasis added). See also Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U. S. 633, 634 (1937). As this Court made plain in Flast v. Cohen, supra, a plaintiff must show “a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated. . . . Such inquiries into the nexus between the status asserted by the litigant and the claim he presents are essential to assure that he is a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power.” Id., at 102.
Here, appellant has made no showing that her failure to secure support payments results from the nonenforcement, as to her child’s father, of Art. 602. Although the Texas statute appears to create a continuing duty, it does not follow the civil contempt model whereby the defendant “keeps the keys to the jail in his own pocket” and may be released whenever he complies with his legal obligations. On the contrary, the statute creates a completed offense with a fixed penalty as soon as a parent fails to support his child. Thus, if appellant were granted the requested relief, it would result only in the jailing of the child’s father. The prospect that prosecution will, at least in the future, result in payment of support can, at best, be termed only speculative. Certainly the “direct” relationship between the alleged injury and the claim sought to be adjudicated, which previous decisions of this Court suggest is a prerequisite of standing, is absent in this case.
The Court’s prior decisions consistently hold that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself- is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 42 (1971); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 33 (1962); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 501 (1961). Although these cases arose in a somewhat different context, they demonstrate that, in American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another. Appellant does have an interest in the support of her child. But given the special status of criminal prosecutions in our system, we hold that appellant has made an insufficient showing of a direct nexus between the vindication of her interest and the enforcement of the State’s criminal laws. The District Court was therefore correct in dismissing the action for want of standing, and its judgment must be affirmed.
go or^ere^
The District Court also considered an attack on Art. 4.02 of the Texas Family Code, which imposes civil liability upon “spouses” for the support of their minor children. Petitioner argued that the statute violated equal protection because it imposed no civil liability on the parents of illegitimate children. However, the three-judge court held that the challenge to this statute was not properly before it since appellant did not seek an injunction running against any state official as to it. See 28 U. S. C. § 2281. The Court, therefore, remanded this portion of the case to a single district judge. 335 F. Supp. 804, 807. The District Court’s disposition of petitioner’s Art. 4.02 claim is not presently before us. But see Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S. 535 (1973).
Appellant attached to her complaint an affidavit, signed by an assistant district attorney, stating that the State was unable to institute prosecution “due to caselaw construing Art. 602 of the Penal Code to be inapplicable to fathers of illegitimate children.”
It is, of course, true that “Congress may not confer jurisdiction on Art. Ill federal courts to render advisory opinions,” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 732 n. 3 (1972). But Congress may enact statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing, even though no injury would exist without the statute. See, e. g., Traficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205, 212 (1972) (White, J., concurring); Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U. S. 1, 6 (1968).
One of the leading commentators on standing has written, “Even though the past law of standing is so cluttered and confused that almost every proposition has some exception, the federal courts have consistently adhered to one major proposition without exception: One who has no interest of his own at stake always lacks standing.” K. Davis, Administrative Law Text 428-429 (3d ed. 1972).
We noted last Term that “[t]he requirement that a party seeking review must allege facts showing that he is himself adversely affected does not insulate executive action from judicial review, nor does it prevent any public interests from being protected through the judicial process.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S., at 740. That observation is fully applicable here. As the District Court stated, “the proper party to challenge the constitutionality of Article 602 would be a parent of a legitimate child who has been prosecuted under the statute. Such a challenge would allege that because the parents of illegitimate children may not be prosecuted, the statute unfairly discriminates against the parents of legitimate children.” 335 F. Supp., at 806.
Since we dispose of this case on the basis of lack of standing, we intimate no view as to the merits of appellant’s claim. But cf. Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S. 535 (1973).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to condemn more than 250 acres of the respondents’ land for a federal development known as the Nolin Reservoir Project located in that State. An important issue in the case was raised by the respondents’ claim that 78 acres of the land, taken for construction of recreational facilities adjacent to the reservoir, had not been within the original scope of the project. A jury awarded the respondents $20,000 as just compensation for all the land taken. Upon an appeal by the respondents, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, finding that the District Judge in his instructions to the jury had erroneously referred to matters disclosed outside the jury’s presence. The trial and appellate courts were in agreement, however, in rejecting the Government’s contention that the “scope-of-the-project” issue was for the trial judge to decide and should not, therefore, have been submitted to the jury at all. There being a conflict between the circuits on this question, we granted certiorari to consider a recurring problem of importance in federal condemnation proceedings. 396 U. S. 814.
The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. And “just compensation” means the full monetary-equivalent of the property taken. The owner is to be put in the same position monetarily as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken. In enforcing the constitutional mandate, the Court at an early date adopted the concept of market value: the owner is entitled to the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking. But this basic measurement of compensation has been hedged with certain refinements developed over the years in the interest of effectuating the constitutional guarantee. It is one of these refinements that is in controversy here.
The Court early recognized that the “market value” of property condemned can be affected, adversely or favorably, by the imminence of the very public project that makes the condemnation necessary. And it was perceived that to permit compensation to be either reduced or increased because of an alteration in market value attributable to the project itself would not lead to the “just compensation” that the Constitution requires. On the other hand, the development of a public project may also lead to enhancement in the market value of neighboring land that is not covered by the project itself. And if that land is later condemned, whether for an extension of the existing project or for some other public purpose, the general rule of just compensation requires that such enhancement in value be wholly taken into account, since fair market value is generally to be determined with due consideration of all available economic uses of the property at the time of the taking.
In United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, the Court gave full articulation to these principles:
“If a distinct tract is condemned, in whole or in part, other lands in the neighborhood may increase in market value due to the proximity of the public improvement erected on the land taken. Should the Government, at a later date, determine to take these other lands, it must pay their market value as enhanced by this factor of proximity. If, however, the public project from the beginning included the taking of certain tracts but only one of them is taken in the first instance, the owner of the other tracts should not be allowed an increased value for his lands which are ultimately to be taken any more than the owner of the tract first condemned is entitled to be allowed an increased market value because adjacent lands not immediately taken increased in value due to the projected improvement.
“The question then is whether the respondents' lands were probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it. If they were not, but were merely adjacent lands, the subsequent enlargement of the project to include them ought not to deprive the respondents of the value added in the meantime by the proximity of the improvement. If, on the other hand, they were, the Government ought not to pay any increase in value arising from the known fact that the lands probably would be condemned. The owners ought not to gain by speculating on probable increase in value due to the Government’s activities.” 317 U. S., at 376-377.
There is no controversy in the present case regarding these basic principles. The parties agree that if the acreage in issue was “probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it,” substantially less compensation is due than if it was not. For if the property was probably within the project’s original scope, then its compensable value is to be measured in terms of agricultural use. If, on the other hand, the acreage was outside the original scope of the project, its compensable value is properly measurable in terms of its economic potential as lakeside residential or recreational property.
The issue between the parties is simply whether the “scope-of-the-project” question is to be determined by the trial judge or by the jury. There is no claim that the issue is of constitutional dimensions. For it has long been settled that there is no constitutional right to a jury in eminent domain proceedings. See Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 593. As Professor Moore has put the matter:
“The practice in England and in the colonies prior to the adoption in 1791 of the Seventh Amendment, the position taken by Congress contemporaneously with, and subsequent to, the adoption of the Amendment, and the position taken by the Supreme Court and nearly all of the lower federal courts lead to the conclusion that there is no constitutional right to jury trial in the federal courts in an action for the condemnation of property under the power of eminent domain.”
It is not, therefore, to the Seventh Amendment that we look in this case, but to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 71A (h) provides that, except in circumstances not applicable here, “any party” to a federal eminent domain proceeding “may have a trial by jury of the issue of just compensation,” unless the court in its discretion orders that that issue “shall be determined by a commission of three persons appointed by it. ... Trial of all issues shall otherwise be by the court.” The Rule thus provides that, except for the single issue of just compensation, the trial judge is to decide all issues, legal and factual, that may be presented. The critical inquiry is thus whether “the issue of just compensation,” as that phrase is used in the Rule, is broad enough to embrace the question whether the condemned property was probably within the scope of the federal project.
Although the matter could be decided either way without doing violence to the language of Rule 71A (h), we think the Rule’s basic structure makes clear that a jury in federal condemnation proceedings is to be confined to the performance of a single narrow but important function — the determination of a compensation award within ground rules established by the trial judge. The Rule gives the trial court discretion to eliminate a jury entirely. And when a jury is afforded, the sweeping language of the final sentence of the Rule discloses a clear intent to give the district judge a role in condemnation proceedings much broader than he occupies in a conventional jury trial. It is for him to decide “all issues” other than the precise issue of the amount of compensation to be awarded. It follows that it is for the judge to tell the jury the criteria it must follow in determining what amount will constitute just compensation, and that in order to do so he must decide the “scope-of-the-project” issue as a preliminary matter. We therefore approve and adopt the procedural rule announced by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Wardy v. United States, 402 F. 2d 762, and hold that it is for the judge and not the jury to decide whether the property condemned was probably within the project’s original scope.
Finally, the Government asks us to take this occasion to “clarify” the “scope-of-the-project” test. We think the test was stated with admirable clarity by a unanimous Court in Miller: if the “lands were probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it,” no enhancement in value attributable to the project is to be considered in awarding compensation. As with any test that deals in probabilities, its application to any particular set of facts requires discriminating judgment. The rule does not require a showing that the land ultimately taken was actually specified in the original plans for the project. It need only be shown that during the course of the planning or original construction it became evident that land so situated would probably be needed for the public use.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Congress authorized the Nolin Reservoir Project in 1938 as part of a comprehensive flood control plan for the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. See Act of June 28, 1938, § 4, 52 Stat. 1217. Congress first appropriated funds for the planning stage of the project in 1956. See Public Works Appropriation Act of 1957, 70 Stat. 479. In July 1958 the Chief of Army Engineers approved a general design memorandum contemplating the construction of recreational areas in connection with the project, but evidently not specifying where they would be. The first funds for construction were appropriated in 1958. See Public Works Appropriation Act of 1959, 72 Stat. 1573. Construction began in January 1959.
Most of the respondents’ acreage condemned by the Government was taken because it would be inundated by the reservoir, and there is no question that this land was within the original scope of the project. But 78 acres of the tract were taken for the construction of recreational facilities adjacent to the reservoir itself. These 78 acres were not referred to in a design memorandum submitted in June 1959. They were, however, designated for taking in a memorandum approved in October of that year. It has been Government policy to build recreational areas in conjunction with federal reservoir projects since 1944. Act of December 22, 1944, § 4, 58 Stat. 889.
United States v. 811.92 Acres of Land, 404 F. 2d 303.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that the “scope-of-the-project” issue is to be determined by the trial judge. Wardy v. United States, 402 F. 2d 762, 763.
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 326.
United States v. New River Collieries Co., 262 U. S. 341, 343; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299, 304.
New York v. Sage, 239 U. S. 57, 61; Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 408.
Kerr v. South Park Commissioners, 117 U. S. 379, 386.
Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282, 304-305.
United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 365 U. S. 624, 635-636; United States v. Cors, 337 U. S. 325, 332-334.
United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 81; Boom Co. v. Patterson, supra.
5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶38.32 [1], p. 239 (2d ed. 1969). (Footnote omitted.)
The full text of Rule 71A (h) is as follows:
“If the action involves the exercise of the power of eminent domain under the law of the United States, any tribunal specially constituted by an Act of Congress governing the case for the trial of the issue of just compensation shall be the tribunal for the determination of that issue; but if there is no such specially constituted tribunal any party may have a trial by jury of the issue of just compensation by filing a demand therefor within the time allowed for answer or within such further time as the court may fix, unless the court in its discretion orders that, because of the character, location, or quantity of the property to be condemned, or for other reasons in the interest of justice, the issue of compensation shall be determined by a commission of three persons appointed by it. If a commission is appointed it shall have the powers of a master provided in subdivision (c) of Rule 53 and proceedings before it shall be governed by the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (d) of Rule 53. Its action and report shall be determined by a majority and its findings and report shall have the effect, and be dealt with by the court in accordance with the practice, prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Rule 53. Trial of all issues shall otherwise be by the court.”
In United States v. Miller, supra, it appears that that question was decided by the trial judge, who excluded all evidence of enhanced value attributable to the project. 317 U. S., at 372-373. While this Court's opinion in Miller approved of that procedure, it is to be remembered that the case was decided before the adoption of Rule 71A (h) in 1951, at a time when federal courts in condemnation proceedings followed the procedures of the States in which they were located. See Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 71A; 7 J. Moore, supra, ¶ 71A.03, p. 2716 (2d ed. 1968).
“The question was whether appellants’ ‘lands were probably within the scope of ,the project from the time the Government was committed to it.’ . . . Appellants contend that the jury should have been allowed to answer this question. Under rule 71A (h) the jury’s function is limited to determining ‘just compensation.’ It is the duty of the court to decide the legal issues, as well as all other fact issues. [Citations omitted.] Thus, instead of infringing on the jury’s functions, the judge merely decided a legal question which limited the factors necessary to the determination of ‘just compensation.’ ” Wardy v. United States, 402 F. 2d, at 763. See also Scott Lumber Co. v. United States, 390 F. 2d 388, 392 (C. A. 9th Cir.); United States v. 91.69 Acres of Land, 334 F. 2d 229, 231-232 (C. A. 4th Cir.).
Compare John L. Roper Lumber Co. v. United States, 150 F. 2d 329, 332, with Scott v. United States, 146 F. 2d 131, 132-133.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 44 Stat. (part 2) 1424, as amended, 38 U. S. C. §§ 901-950 (1976 ed. and Supp. III), compensation for a permanent partial disability must be determined in one of two ways. First, if the injury is of a kind specifically identified in the schedule set forth in §§8(c)(1)-(20) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. §§ 908 (c)(1)-(20), the injured employee is entitled to receive two-thirds of his average weekly wages for a specific number of weeks, regardless of whether his earning capacity has actually been impaired. Second, in all other cases, § 8 (c)(21), 33 U. S. C. § 908 (c)(21), authorizes compensation equal to two-thirds of the difference between the employee’s preinjury average weekly wages and his postinjury wage-earning capacity, during the period of his disability. The question, in this case is whether a permanently partially disabled employee, entitled to compensation under the statutory schedule, may elect to receive a larger recovery under § 8(c) (21) measured by the actual impairment of wage-earning capacity caused by his injury. Although Congress could surely authorize such an election, it has not yet done so. We therefore hold that respondent Cross’ recovery must be limited by the statutory schedule.
Cross is employed by Potomac Electric Power Co. (Pepeo) as a cable splicer — a job that requires strength and agility. In 1974, he earned a total of $21,959.38, including overtime pay of $8,543.30. In December of that year, he injured his left knee in the course of his employment, thereby suffering a permanent partial loss of the use of his leg. The physical impairment is described as a 5 to 20% loss of the use of one leg, but the resulting impairment of his earning capacity is apparently in excess of 40%. Although Cross has retained his job, he has not been able to perform all of the strenuous duties required of a cable splicer and therefore he has received no overtime and has not qualified for certain pay increases.
Because he worked in the District of Columbia, respondent Cross is entitled to compensation under the LHWCA. It is undisputed that the injury to his leg is a “permanent partial disability” within the meaning of § 8 (c) of the Act; he therefore has an unquestioned right to a compensation award measured by a fraction of his earnings for 288 weeks. His claim, however, is for the larger amount measured by two-thirds of the difference between his average weekly earnings before the injury and his present wage-earning capacity, multiplied by the number of weeks that his disability continues.
The Administrative Law Judge allowed the larger recovery. He held that an injured employee is not required to accept the specific amount authorized by §§ 8 (c) (2) and (19) for the partial loss of the use of a leg, but instead may recover an amount based on the formula set forth in § 8(c) (21) for “all other cases.” Using that formula, the Administrative Law Judge found that respondent Cross’ permanent loss of earning capacity amounted to approximately $130 per week, and ordered Pepeo to pay him two-thirds of that amount each week for the remainder of his working life. The Benefits Review Board affirmed. Cross v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 7 BRBS 10 (1977).
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also affirmed. 196 U. S. App. D. C. 417, 606 F. 2d 1324 (1979). Recognizing that the Act “must be construed in light of its humanitarian objectives,” and noting a “recent trend in workmen’s compensation law away from the idea of exclusivity of scheduled benefits,” the court concluded that the “all other cases” language in § 8 (c)(21) provided a “remedial alternative” measure of compensation for cases in which “the scheduled benefits fail adequately to compensate for a diminution in [wage-earning] capabilities.” While expressing sympathy for the result reached by the majority, one judge dissented.
I
The language of the Act plainly supports the view that the character of the disability determines the method of compensation. Section 8 identifies four different categories of disability and separately prescribes the method of compensation for each. In the permanent partial disability category, § 8 (c) provides a compensation schedule which covers 20 different specific injuries. It then adds an additional sub-paragraph, § 8(c) (21), that applies to any injury not included within the list of specific injuries. There is no language in that additional subparagraph indicating that it was intended to provide an alternative method of compensation for the cases described in the preceding subparagraphs; quite the contrary, by its terms, subparagraph (21) is applicable “In all other cases.”
It is also noteworthy that the statutory direction that precedes the schedule of specifically described partial disabilities mandates that the compensation prescribed by the schedule “shall be paid to the employee, as follows.” We are not free to read this language as though it granted the employee an election. Nor are we free to read the subsequent words “all other cases” as though they described “all of the foregoing” as well; the use of the word “other” forecloses that reading.
In sum, we find nothing in the statute itself to support the view that the reference to “all other cases” in § 8 (c)(21) was intended to authorize an alternative method for computation of disability benefits in certain cases of permanent partial disability already provided for in the schedule.
II
The legislative history of the Act is entirely consistent with the conclusion that it was intended to mean what it says. Although that history contains no specific consideration of the precise question before us, one aspect of the Act’s history is somewhat enlightening. The relevant language was enacted in 1927. It was patterned after a similar “scheduled benefits” provision in the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law enacted in 1922. A few years after enactment of the LHWCA, the New York Court of Appeals was confronted with the same question of construction under the New York statute that is now presented to us under the federal statute. The New York Court of Appeals apparently considered the statutory language so clear on its face that little discussion of this issue was necessary:
“Obviously, the phrase 'in all other cases’ signifies that the provisions of the paragraph shall apply only in cases where the injuries received are not confined to a specific member or specific members.” Sokolowski v. Bank of America, 261 N. Y. 57, 62, 184 N. E. 492, 494 (1933).
Nothing in the original legislative history of the federal Act or in the legislative history of subsequent amendments indicates that Congress did not intend the plain language of the federal statute to receive the same construction as the substantially identical language of its New York ancestor.
Ill
The weight of judicial authority also supports a literal reading of the Act.
During the first half century of administration of the LHWCA, federal tribunals consistently construed the schedule benefits provision as exclusive. Although the exclusivity question did not explicitly arise until 1964, prior to that time evidence of loss of wages or wage-earning capacity was considered irrelevant in cases of permanent partial disability falling within the schedule provisions. In 1964, in Williams v. Donovan, 234 F. Supp. 135 (ED La.), aff’d, 367 F. 2d 825 (CA5 1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 977 (1967), the first federal court to address the exclusivity issue found that “the form and language of the Act” indicated that compensation under § 8 (c)(21) for loss of wage-earning capacity was not available in cases covered by the schedule. 234 F. Supp., at 139. This construction of the Act went unchallenged for the next decade.
It was not until 1975 that the Benefits Review Board announced its dissatisfaction with the Williams construction of the statute and concluded that claimants suffering from a permanent partial disability may elect to proceed under either the schedule or § 8 (c)(21). The Board has since applied its construction of the Act in a series of decisions of which the instant case is a member. The divided opinion of the Court of Appeals is apparently the first and only federal court de-cisión accepting that construction. The notion that the plain language of the LHWCA might not mean what it says is thus a relatively recent development surfacing for the first time almost 50 years after its enactment. The relevant judicial authority prior to 1975, although not abundant, indicates that the schedule benefits were considered exclusive.
While the federal decisional authority on this question is scarce, state-law authority apparently is not. The lower court cited, and the respondents rely upon, the “recent trend in workmen’s compensation law away from the idea of exclusivity of scheduled benefits.” 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 421, 606 F. 2d, at 1328. Although this “trend” unquestionably exists, it is neither uniform nor based entirely on cases presenting issues comparable to the precise issue before us. More importantly, a proper understanding of the judicial role in this case reveals that the recent trend actually supports a literal reading of the federal statute. Our task is to ascertain the congressional intent underlying the schedule benefit provisions enacted in 1927; we are not free to incorporate into those provisions subsequent state-law developments that we may consider sound as a matter of policy. In attempting to ascertain the legislative intent underlying a statute enacted over 50 years ago, the view that once “dominate [d] the field” is more enlightening than a recent state-law trend that has not motivated subsequent Congresses to amend the federal statute. The once dominant view is entirely consistent with a literal reading of the Act.
IV
Respondents suggest two reasons why this settled construction is erroneous. They submit that it does not fulfill the fundamental remedial purpose of the Act and that it may produce anomalous results that Congress probably did not intend. The first submission is not entirely accurate; the second, though theoretically correct, has insufficient force to overcome the plain language of the statute itself.
Respondents correctly observe that prior decisions of this Court require that the LHWCA be liberally construed in order to effectuate its remedial purposes. Respondents accordingly argue that the Act should be interpreted in a manner which provides a complete and adequate remedy to an injured employee. Implicit in this argument, however, is the assumption that the sole purpose of the Act was to provide disabled workers with a complete remedy for their industrial injuries. The inaccuracy of this implicit assumption undercuts the validity of respondents’ argument.
The LHWCA, like other workmen’s compensation legislation, is indeed remedial in that it was intended to provide a certain recovery for employees who are injured on the job. It imposes liability without fault and precludes the assertion of various common-law defenses that had frequently resulted in the denial of any recovery for disabled laborers. While providing employees with the benefit of a more certain recovery for work-related harms, statutes of this kind do not purport to provide complete compensation for the wage earner’s economic loss. On the contrary, they provide employers with definite and lower limits on potential liability than would have been applicable in common-law tort actions for damages. None of the categories of disability covered by the LHWCA authorizes recovery measured by the full loss of an injured employee’s earnings; even those in the most favored categories may recover only two-thirds of the actual loss of earnings. It therefore is not correct to interpret the Act as guaranteeing a completely adequate remedy for all covered disabilities. Rather, like most workmen’s compensation legislation, the LHWCA represents a compromise between the competing interests of disabled laborers and their employers. The use of a schedule of fixed benefits as an exclusive remedy in certain cases is consistent with the employees’ interest in receiving a prompt and certain recovery for their industrial injuries as well as with the employers’ interest in having their contingent liabilities identified as precisely and as early as possible.
It is true, however, that requiring resort to the schedule may produce certain incongruous results. Unless an injury results in a scheduled disability, the employee’s compensation is dependent upon proving a loss of wage-earning capacity; in contrast, even though a scheduled injury may have no actual effect on an employee’s capacity to perform a particular job or to maintain a prior level of income, compensation in the schedule amount must be paid. Conversely, the schedule may seriously undercompensate some employees like respondent Cross. The result seems particularly unfair when his case is compared with an employee who suffers an unscheduled disability resulting in an equivalent impairment of earning capacity. Indeed, it is possible that the award for a serious.temporary partial disability could exceed the amount scheduled for a permanent disability of like character.
As this Court has observed in the past, it is not to be lightly assumed that Congress intended that the LHWCA produce incongruous results. Baltimore & Phila. Steamboat Co. v. Norton, 284 U. S. 408, 412-413 (1932). But if “compelling language” produces incongruities, the federal courts may not avoid them by rewriting or ignoring that language. Id., at 413. Such compelling statutory language is present in this case. See Part I, supra. The fact that it leads to seemingly unjust results in particular cases does not give judges a license to disregard it.
If anomalies actually do occur with any frequency in the day-to-day administration of the Act, they provide a persuasive justification for a legislative review of the statutory compensation schedule. It would obviously be sound policy for Congress t<5 re-examine the schedule of permanent partial disability benefits more frequently than every half century. In such a re-examination the extent and importance of hypothetical cases such as those described by respondents could be fairly evaluated. In this judical proceeding, however, concern with such hypothetical cases is less compelling than sympathy for the actual plight of the individual litigant in the case before us. Nonetheless, that sympathy is an insufficient basis for approving a recovery that Congress has not authorized.
The judgment is
Reversed.
Section 8, as set forth in 33 U. S. C. § 908, provides, in part, as follows:
"Compensation for disability shall be paid to the employee as follows:
“(c) Permanent partial disability: In case of disability partial in character but permanent in quality the compensation shall be 66% per centum of the average weekly wages, which shall be in addition to compensation for temporary total disability or temporary partial disability paid in accordance with subdivision (b) or subdivision (e) of this section, respectively, and shall be paid to the employee, as follows:
“(1) Arm lost, three hundred and twelve weeks’ compensation.
“(2) Leg lost, two hundred and eighty-eight weeks’ compensation.
“(3) Hand lost, two hundred and forty-four weeks’ compensation.
“(4) Foot lost, two hundred and five weeks’ compensation.
“(5) Eye lost, one hundred and sixty weeks’ compensation.
“(18) Total loss of use: Compensation for permanent total loss of use of a member shall be the same as for loss of the member.
“(19) Partial loss or partial loss of use: Compensation for permanent partial loss or loss of use of a member may be for proportionate loss or loss of use of the member.
“(20) Disfigurement: Proper and equitable compensation not to exceed $3,500 shall be awarded for serious disfigurement of the face, head, or neck or of other normally exposed areas likely to handicap the employee in securing or maintaining employment.
“(21) Other cases: In all other cases in this class of disability the compensation shafi be 66% per centum of the difference between his average weekly wages and his wage-earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of such partial disability, but subject to reconsideration of the degree of such impairment by the deputy commissioner on his own motion or upon application of any party in interest.”
Cross’ 1975 earnings amounted to $12,086.48, in contrast to 1974 earnings of $21,959.38.
The District of Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act, D. C. Code §§ 36-501 to 36-504 (1973 and Supp. V-1978), adopts the LHWCA as the workmen’s compensation law for the District of Columbia. See Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 330 U. S. 469, 471 (1947). Section 1 of the Act, D. C. Code §36-501 (1973), provides:
“The provisions of chapter 18 of title 33, U. S. Code, including all amendments that may hereafter be made thereto, shall apply in respect to the injury or death of an employee of an employer carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia, irrespective of the place where the injury or death occurs; except that in applying such provisions the term ‘employer’ shall be held to mean every person carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia, and the term ‘employee’ shall be held to mean every employee of any such person.”
Under §§8 (e)(2) and (18), an employee suffering a total loss of the use of one leg is entitled to receive two-thirds of his average weekly wages for a period of 288 weeks. If an injury results in a partial loss of the use of a scheduled member, as in this case, § 8 (c) (19) provides that compensation is to be calculated as a proportionate loss of the use of that member. Under the schedule, Cross is therefore entitled to receive two-thirds of his average weekly wages for whatever fraction of 288 weeks represents the proportionate loss of the use of his leg caused by the knee injury. Because this case was decided under § 8 (c) (21), rather than the schedule, it was not necessary for the Administrative Law Judge to determine the precise extent of respondent Cross’ disability. The medical testimony indicates that he suffered a 5 to 20% loss of the use of his leg.
This computation is derived from § 8(c) (21), 33 U. S. C. § 908 (c) (21), quoted in n. 1, supra. It should be noted that “wage-earning capacity” under § 8 (c) (21) is not necessarily measured by an injured employee’s actual postinjury earnings. Section 8 (h) of the Act, as set forth in 33 U. S. C. §908 (h), provides:
“The wage-earning capacity of an injured employee in cases of partial disability under subdivision (c) (21) of this section or under subdivision (e) of this section shall be determined by his actual earnings if such actual earnings fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity: Pro vided, however, That if the employee has no actual earnings or his actual earnings do not fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity, the deputy commissioner may, in the interest of justice, fix such wage-earning capacity as shall be reasonable, having due regard to the nature of his injury, the degree of physical impairment, his usual employment, and any other factors or circumstances in the case which may affect his capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future.”
196 U. S. App. D. C., at 420-421, 606 F. 2d, at 1327-1328.
Before analyzing the statute and its history in detail, Judge MacKinnon wrote:
“Nothing in section 8 permits an employee whose injury is unquestionably confined to one of those set out in the schedule to circumvent Congress' conclusive presumptions with a showing of lost earning capacity in excess of the specified benefit. The majority holds otherwise, and does so despite the fact that during the fifty-two year old regime of an essentially unaltered statutory scheme no federal court has ever read section 8 in that manner while a number of federal courts have adopted a contrary approach. I am not unsympathetic to the result the majority’s holding achieves, but I submit that it is within the province of the legislative branch to weigh and decide whether this result ought to obtain.” Id., at 422-423, 606 F. 2d, at 1329-1330.
In addition to permanent partial disability, the Act provides for permanent total, temporary total, and temporary partial disability. The remedies for permanent and temporary total disability — essentially two-thirds of the employee’s average weekly wages during the period of the disability — are set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of § 8, 33 U. S. C. §§ 908 (a) and (b). The remedy for temporary partial disability — two-thirds of the difference between the employee’s preinjury average weekly wages and his postinjury wage-earning capacity during the period of disability, up to a maximum of five years — is set forth in § 8 (e), 33 U. S. C. §908 (e).
Indeed, it should be noted that the words “other cases” appear twice in subparagraph (21). See n. 1, supra.
33 U. S. C. § 908 (c) (emphasis supplied). See n. 1, supra.
Judge MacKinnon’s dissenting opinion reviewed the legislative history in detail; although he discovered no clear answer to the exclusivity question, see 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 425, 606 F. 2d, at 1332, he found that, to the extent any conclusions could be drawn, the legislative history supported the view that the schedule and “all other cases” categories were intended to be mutually exclusive. Id., at 425-429, 606 F. 2d, at 1332-1336.
Act of Mar. 4, 1927, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq.
1922 N. Y. Laws, ch. 615, § 15 (3). The 1922 Act was an extensive revision of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of 1914, 1914 N. Y. Laws, ch. 41. A schedule covering particular cases of permanent partial disability initially appeared in the 1914 Act. See 1914 N. Y. Laws, ch. 41, § 15 (3). This schedule was retained, in a slightly revised form, in the 1922 Act. The schedule adopted by Congress in the LHWCA was substantially identical to the New York schedule of 1922. Congress selected the New York statute as the model for the LHWCA because that statute was considered one of the best workmen’s compensation laws of its time. See H. R. Rep. No. 1190, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1926).
In 1972, Congress considered and failed to pass an amendment to § 8 (c) that would have permitted an employee suffering from a permanent partial disability caused by a scheduled injury to recover both the schedule benefits and two-thirds of his lost wage-earning capacity after expiration of the schedule period. See S. 2318, § 7, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1971), reprinted in Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1972: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1972); H. R. 12006, §7, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971), and H. R. 15023, §7, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972), reprinted in Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act: Hearings before the Select Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 27, 38 (1972). Although Pepeo relies heavily upon Congress’ rejection of this proposed amendment as support for its position that schedule benefits are exclusive, this action is of marginal relevance in this case because the amendment would have authorized cumulative, not alternative, remedies. Pepco’s reliance upon 1949 and 1966 amendments to the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U. S. C. §8101 et seq., is similarly misplaced. These amendments, authorizing cumulative remedies under the FECA, shed little light upon Congress’ intention with respect to alternative remedies under the LHWCA. See Act of Oct. 14, 1949, ch. 691, § 104, 63 Stat. 855; Act of Sept. 6, 1966, Pub. L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 536.
See, e. g., Travelers Insurance Co. v. Cardillo, 225 F. 2d 137, 143-144 (CA2), cert. denied, 350 U. S. 913 (1955). It should be noted, however, that this principle was announced in response to employer attempts to defeat an injured employee’s claim for schedule benefits on the ground that the employee had suffered no actual loss of wages or wage-earning capacity. Prior to 1964, the federal courts apparently had not been confronted with an employee, entitled to compensation under the schedule, who attempted to secure a greater recovery by establishing an actual loss of wages or wage-earning capacity in excess of the schedule benefit.
Although the question arose in a significantly different context, another 1964 decision, Flamm v. Hughes, 329 F. 2d 378, 380, suggests that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered the schedule and “other cases” provisions mutually exclusive.
Mason v. Old Dominion Stevedoring Corp., 1 BRBS 357, 363-365 (1975). In Mason, the Board rejected Williams in favor of American Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jones, 138 U. S. App. D. C. 269, 426 F. 2d 1263 (1970), a decision upon which the court below also relied. See 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 421, 606 F. 2d, at 1328. The opinion in Jones, however, does not address the exclusivity issue presented in this case. Rather, Jones held merely that a scheduled injury can give rise to an award for permanent total disability under § 8 (a) where the facts establish that the injury prevents the employee from engaging in the only employment for which he is qualified. 138 U. S. App. D. C., at 271-272, 426 F. 2d, at 1265-1266. This conclusion is entirely consistent with the statute which, in § 8 (a), directs that “permanent total disability shall be determined in accordance with the facts.” 33 U. S. C. §908 (a). Indeed, since the §8(c) schedule applies only in cases of permanent partial disability, once it is determined that an employee is totally disabled the schedule becomes irrelevant. The question presented in Mason and in this case is the very different question of whether § 8 (c) permits an employee suffering from a disability determined to be partial in character to choose between recovery under the schedule and recovery under § 8 (c) (21). The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently recognized this distinction when it noted that Williams and Jones are in no way inconsistent, because the former concerns partial disability while the latter concerns total disability. See Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. v. Dugger, 587 F. 2d 197, 198 (1979).
See Collins v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 9 BRBS 1015 (1979); Brandt v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 8 BRBS 698 (1978); Dugger v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 8 BRBS 552 (1978); Richardson v. Perna & Cantrell, Inc., 6 BRBS 588 (1977); Longo v. Universal Terminal & Stevedoring Corp., 2 BRBS 357 (1975). It should be noted that two of these decisions, Dugger and Longo, involved permanent total, not permanent partial, disability; therefore, comments in those decisions pertaining to the exclusivity issue are dicta. See n. 17, supra. It should also be noted that the Benefits Review Board is not a policymaking agency; its interpretation of the LHWCA thus is not entitled to any special deference from the courts. See Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp., 202 U. S. App. D. C. 85, 94, 628 F. 2d 85, 94 (1980) cert. denied, post, p. 905; Tri-State Terminals, Inc. v. Jesse, 596 F. 2d 752, 757, n. 5 (CA7 1979).
In the Board’s most recent examination of the exclusivity issue, Collins v. Todd Shipyards, supra, Chairman Smith vigorously dissented from the majority’s conclusion that § 8 (c) (21) benefits are available for scheduled injuries. 9 BRBS, at 1027-1036. Chairman Smith acknowledged that the contrary construction could produce inequitable results, but concluded that the statutory language would support no other construction: “The statute is not ambiguous or indefinite. It needs no strained interpretation or construction. The statutory language contained in Section 8 (c) clearly indicates that the schedule awards and the Section 8 (c) (21) awards are mutually exclusive. Sections 8 (c)(1) through (20) set forth the provisions and conditions for making schedule awards. Section 8 (e) (21) represents a clear line of demarcation from the schedule in that it applies to 'all other cases’ in the permanent partial class of disability.” Id., at 1027.
The majority quoted the following passage from a leading treatise on workmen’s compensation law:
“ 'Although it is difficult to speak in terms of a majority rule on this point, because of significant differences in statutory background, it can be said that at one time the doctrine of exclusiveness of schedule allowances did dominate the field. But in recent years there has developed such a strong trend in the opposite direction that one might now, with equal justification, say that the field is dominated by the view that schedule allowances should not be deemed exclusive, whether the issue is treatment of a smaller member as a percentage loss of a larger, or treatment of any scheduled loss as a partial or total disability of the body as a whole.’ ” 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 214-215, 606 F. 2d, at 1328-1329, quoting 2 A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 58.20, pp. 10-212 to 10-214 (1976) (footnotes omitted).
The trend away from exclusivity identified by Professor Larson has developed, at least in part, in eases involving scheduled injuries which result in either total disability or permanent partial disability extending in effect to other parts of the body. See id., § 58.20, pp. 10-196 to 10-206, 10-214 to 10-220. We are concerned here solely with a case in which a scheduled injury, limited in effect to the injured part of the body, results in a permanent partial disability.
With respect to the limited question before us, it appears that, despite the recent trend to the contrary, a significant number of jurisdictions continue to view schedule benefits as exclusive in cases of permanent partial disability. See, e. g., E. Blair, Reference Guide to Workmen’s Compensation Law §11:07, p. 11-24 (1974); 11 W. Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation §2322 (a), pp. 562-565 (Perm. ed. 1957). Indeed, Professor Larson’s treatise indicates that exclusivity, although perhaps no longer the majority view, nonetheless represents the view of “many jurisdictions.” See 2 A. Larson, supra, § 58.00, p. 10-164; § 58.20, pp. 10-206 to 10-212; see also id., § 58.13, p. 10-174.
As Professor Larson noted in the passage quoted by the court below, “at one time the doctrine of exclusiveness of schedule allowances did dominate the field.” Id., § 58.20, p. 10-212, quoted in 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 421, 606 F. 2d, at 1328. See n. 19, supra.
See, e. g., Reed v. The Yaka, 373 U. S. 410, 415 (1963); Voris v. Eikel, 346 U. S. 328, 333 (1953); Baltimore & Phila. Steamboat Co. v. Norton, 284 U. S. 408, 414 (1932).
The LHWCA clearly does not attempt to compensate injured employees for their entire loss. In all four classes of disability covered by the Act, see n. 8, swpra, the maximum compensation available is expressly designated to be less than an employee’s actual economic loss. In this respect, the LHWCA is typical of most workmen’s compensation statutes. See 1 A. Larson, supra n. 19, § 2.50, p. 11; Small, The General Structure of Law Applicable to Employee Injury and Death, 16 Vand. L. Rev. 1021, 1027-1028 (1963).
The compromise nature of workmen’s compensation legislation is well recognized:
“Workmen’s compensation acts are in the nature of a compromise or quid pro quo between employer and employee. Employers relinquish certain legal rights which the law affords to them and so, in tum, do the employees. Employers give up the common-law defenses of the fellow servant rule and assumption of risk. Employees are assured hospital and medical care and subsistence during the convalescence period. In return for a fixed schedule of payments and a fixed amount in the event of the worker’s death, employers are made certain that irrespective of their fault, liability to an injured workman is limited under workmen’s compensation. Employees, on the other hand, ordinarily give up the right of suit for damages for personal injuries against employers in return for the certainty of compensation payments as recompense for those injuries.” 1 M. Norris, The Law of Maritime Personal Injuries § 55, p. 102 (3d ed. 1975).
See also E. Blair, supra n. 20, §1:00, pp. 1-1 to 1-2; W. Prosser, Law of Torts 531-532 (4th ed. 1971). This Court has previously recognized that the concept of compromise is central to the LHWCA, as adopted by the District of Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act:
“A prime purpose of the Act is to provide residents of the District of Columbia with a practical and expeditious remedy for their industrial accidents and to place on District of Columbia employers a limited and determinate liability.” Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 330 U. S., at 476.
Under the schedule, Cross is entitled to an award of approximately $3,200 to $12,800, depending upon the ultimate conclusion with respect to the degree of his disability. See n. 4, supra. Under §8(c)(21), in contrast, Cross was awarded $86.76 per week for the remainder of his working life, which
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 127(a) of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA or Act), 111 Stat. 2328, 21 U. S. C. § 353a, exempts “compounded drugs” from the Food and Drug Administration’s standard drug approval requirements as long as the providers of those drugs abide by several restrictions, including that they refrain from advertising or promoting particular compounded drugs. Respondents, a group of licensed pharmacies that specialize in compounding drugs, sought to enjoin enforcement of the subsections of the Act dealing with advertising and solicitation, arguing that those provisions violate the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. The District Court agreed with respondents and granted their motion for summary judgment, holding that the provisions do not meet the test for acceptable government regulation of commercial speech set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, 566 (1980). The court invalidated the relevant provisions, severing them from the rest of § 127(a).
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, agreeing that the provisions regarding advertisement and promotion are unconstitutional but finding them not to be severable from the rest of § 127(a). Petitioners challenged only the Court of Appeals’ constitutional holding in their petition for certiorari, and respondents did not file a cross-petition. We therefore address only the constitutional question, having no occasion to review the Court of Appeals’ severability determination. We conclude, as did the courts below, that §127(a)’s provisions regarding advertisement and promotion amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech, and we therefore affirm.
I
Drug compounding is a process by which a pharmacist or doctor combines, mixes, or alters ingredients to create a medication tailored to the needs of an individual patient. Compounding is typically used to prepare medications that are not commercially available, such as medication for a patient who is allergic to an ingredient in a mass-produced product. It is a traditional component of the practice of pharmacy, see J. Thompson, A Practical Guide to Contemporary Pharmacy Practice 11.3 (1998), and is taught as part of the standard curriculum at most pharmacy schools, see American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, Accreditation Standards and Guidelines for the Professional Program in Pharmacy Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree, Standard 10(a) (adopted June 14, 1997). Many States specifically regulate compounding practices as part of their regulation of pharmacies. See, e. g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §§ 1716.2, 1751 (2002); Ind. Admin. Code, tit. 856, §§ 1-30-8, 1-30-18, 1-28-8 (2001); N. H. Code Admin. Rules Ann. Pharmacy, pts. PH 404, PH 702.01 (2002); 22 Tex. Admin. Code §291.36 (2002). Some require all licensed pharmacies to offer compounding services. See, e. g., 49 Pa. Code §27.18(p)(2) (2002); W. Va. Code St. Rules, tit. 15, §19.4 (2002). Pharmacists may provide compounded drugs to patients only upon receipt of a valid prescription from a doctor or other medical practitioner licensed to prescribe medication. See, e.g., Okla. Admin. Code §§535:15-10-3, 535:15-10-9(d) (2001); Colo. State Board of Pharmacy Rule 3.02.10 (2001).
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA), 21 U. S. C. §§ 301-397, regulates drug manufacturing, marketing, and distribution. Section 505(a) of the FDCA, 52 Stat. 1052, as amended, 76 Stat. 784, provides that “[n]o person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed [with the Food and Drug Administration] is effective with respect to such drug.” 21 U. S. C. § 355(a). “[N]ew drug” is defined by §201(p)(l) of the FDCA, 52 Stat. 1041, as amended, 76 Stat. 781, as “[a]ny drug . . . not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof.” 21 U. S. C. §321(p). The FDCA invests the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the power to enforce its requirements. § 371(a).
For approximately the first 50 years after the enactment of the FDCA, the FDA generally left regulation of compounding to the States. Pharmacists continued to provide patients with compounded drugs without applying for FDA approval of those drugs. The FDA eventually became concerned, however, that some pharmacists were manufacturing and selling drugs under the guise of compounding, thereby avoiding the FDCA’s new drug requirements. In 1992, in response to this concern, the FDA issued a Compliance Policy Guide, which announced that the “FDA may, in the exercise of its enforcement discretion, initiate federal enforcement actions ... when the scope and nature of a pharmacy’s activities raises the kinds of concerns normally associated with a manufacturer and . . . results in significant violations of the new drug, adulteration, or misbranding provisions of the Act.” Compliance Policy Guide 7132.16 (hereinafter Guide), App. to Pet. for Cert. 76a. The Guide explained that the “FDA recognizes that pharmacists traditionally have extemporaneously compounded and manipulated reasonable quantities of drugs upon receipt of a valid prescription for an individually identified patient from a licensed practitioner,” and that such activity was not the subject of the Guide. Id., at 71a. The Guide said, however, “that while retail pharmacies ... are exempted from certain requirements of the [FDCA], they are not the subject of any general exemption from the new drug, adulteration, or mis-branding provisions” of the FDCA. Id., at 72a. It stated that the “FDA believes that an increasing number of establishments with retail pharmacy licenses are engaged in manufacturing, distributing, and promoting unapproved new drugs for human use in a manner that is clearly outside the bounds of traditional pharmacy practice and that constitute violations of the [FDCA].” Ibid. The Guide expressed concern that drug products “manufactured and distributed in commercial amounts without [the] FDA’s prior approval” could harm the public health. Id., at 73a.
In light of these considerations, the Guide announced that it was FDA policy to permit pharmacists to compound drugs after receipt of a valid prescription for an individual patient or to compound drugs in “very limited quantities” before receipt of a valid prescription if they could document a history of receiving valid prescriptions “generated solely within an established professional practitioner-patient-pharmaey relationship” and if they maintained the prescription on file as required by state law. Id., at 73a-75a. Compounding in such circumstances was permitted as long as the pharmacy’s activities did not raise “the kinds of concerns normally associated with a manufacturer.” Id., at 76a. The Guide listed nine examples of activities that the FDA believed raised such concerns and that would therefore be considered by the agency in determining whether to bring an enforcement action. These activities included: “[s]oliciting business (e. g., promoting, advertising, or using salespersons) to compound specific drug products, product classes, or therapeutic classes of drug products”; “[c]ompounding, regularly, or in inordinate amounts, drug products that are commercially available ... and that are essentially generic copies of commercially available, FDA-approved drug products”; using commercial scale manufacturing or testing equipment to compound drugs; offering compounded drugs at wholesale; and “[distributing inordinate amounts of compounded products out of state.” Id., at 76a-77a. The Guide further warned that pharmacies could not dispense drugs to third parties for resale to individual patients without losing their status as retail entities. Id., at 75a.
Congress turned portions of this policy into law when it enacted the FDAMA in 1997. The FDAMA, which amends the FDCA, exempts compounded drugs from the FDCA’s “new drug” requirements and other requirements provided the drugs satisfy a number of restrictions. First, they must be compounded by a licensed pharmacist or physician in response to a valid prescription for an identified individual patient, or, if prepared before the receipt of such a prescription, they must be made only in “limited quantities” and in response to a history of the licensed pharmacist’s or physician’s receipt of valid prescription orders for that drug product within an established relationship between the pharmacist, the patient, and the prescribes 21 U. S. C. § 353a(a). Second, the compounded drug must be made from approved ingredients that meet certain manufacturing and safety standards, §§ 353a(b)(l)(A)-(B), and the compounded drug may not appear on an FDA list of drug products that have been withdrawn or removed from the market because they were found to be unsafe or ineffective, §353a(b)(l)(C). Third, the pharmacist or physician compounding the drug may not “compound regularly or in inordinate amounts (as defined by the Secretary) any drug products that are essentially copies of a commercially available drug product.” § 353a(b)(l)(B). Fourth, the drug product must not be identified by the FDA as a drug product that presents demonstrable difficulties for compounding in terms of safety or effectiveness. § 353a(b)(3)(A). Fifth, in States that have not entered into a “memorandum of understanding” with the FDA addressing the distribution of “inordinate amounts” of compounded drugs in interstate commerce, the pharmacy, pharmacist, or physician compounding the drug may not distribute compounded drugs out of state in quantities exceeding five percent of that entity’s total prescription orders. § 353a(b)(3)(B). Finally, and most relevant for this litigation, the prescription must be “unsolicited,” §353a(a), and the pharmacy, licensed pharmacist, or licensed physician compounding the drug may “not advertise or promote the compounding of any particular drug, class of drug, or type of drug,” §353a(c). The pharmacy, licensed pharmacist, or licensed physician may, however, “advertise and promote the compounding service.” Ibid.
Respondents are a group of licensed pharmacies that specialize in drug compounding. They have prepared promotional materials that they distribute by mail and at medical conferences to inform patients and physicians of the use and effectiveness of specific compounded drugs. Fearing that they would be prosecuted under the FDAMA if they continued to distribute those materials, respondents filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, arguing that the Act’s requirement that they refrain from advertising and promoting their products if they wish to continue compounding violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, they challenged the requirement that prescriptions for compounded drugs be “unsolicited,” 21 U. S. C. § 353a(a), and the requirement that pharmacists “not advertise or promote the compounding of any particular drug, class of drug, or type of drug,” § 353a(c). The District Court granted summary judgment to respondents, finding that the FDAMA’s speech-related provisions constitute unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech under Central Hudson, 447 U. S., at 566, and that their enforcement should therefore be enjoined. Western States Medical Center v. Shalala, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (Nev. 1999). The District Court, however, found those provisions to be severable from the rest of § 127(a) of the FDAMA, 21 U. S. C. §353a, and so left the Act’s other compounding requirements intact.
The Government appealed both the holding that the speech-related provisions were unconstitutional and the holding that those provisions were severable from the rest of § 127(a). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Western States Med ical Center v. Shalala, 238 F. 3d 1090 (2001). The Court of Appeals agreed that the FDAMA’s advertisement and solicitation restrictions fail Central Hudson’s test for permissible regulation of commercial speech, finding that the Government had not demonstrated that the speech restrictions would directly advance its interests or that alternatives less restrictive of speech were unavailable. The Court of Appeals disagreed, however, that the speech-related restrictions were severable from the rest of § 127(a), 21U. S. C. § 353a, explaining that the FDAMA’s legislative history demonstrated that Congress intended to exempt compounding from the FDCA’s requirements only in return for a prohibition on promotion of specific compounded drugs. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals invalidated § 127(a) in its entirety.
We granted certiorari, 534 U. S. 992 (2001), to consider whether the FDAMA’s prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs violate the First Amendment. Because neither party petitioned for certiorari on the severability issue, we have no occasion to review that portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Likewise, the provisions of the FDAMA outside § 127(a), which are unrelated to drug compounding, are not an issue here and so remain unaffected.
II
The parties agree that the advertising and soliciting prohibited by the FDAMA constitute commercial speech. In Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748 (1976), the first case in which we explicitly held that commercial speech receives First Amendment protection, we explained the reasons for this protection: “It is a matter of public interest that [economic] decisions, in the aggregate, be intelligent and well-informed. To this end, the free flow of commercial information is indispensable.” Id., at 765. Indeed, we recognized that a “particular consumer’s interest in the free flow of commercial information . . . may be as keen, if not keener by far, than his interest in the day’s most urgent political debate.” Id., at 763. We have further emphasized:
“The commercial marketplace, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish. Some of the ideas and information are vital, some of slight worth. But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented. Thus, even a communication that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is entitled to the coverage of the First Amendment.” Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 767 (1993).
Although commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, not all regulation of such speech is unconstitutional. See Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, supra, at 770. In Central Hudson, supra, we articulated a test for determining whether a particular commercial speech regulation is constitutionally permissible. Under that test we ask as a threshold matter whether the commercial speech concerns unlawful activity or is misleading. If so, then the speech is not protected by the First Amendment. If the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading, however, we next ask “whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial.” Id., at 566. If it is, _then we “determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted,” and, finally, “whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.” Ibid. Each of these latter three inquiries must be answered in the affirmative for the regulation to be found constitutional.
Neither party has challenged the appropriateness of applying the Central Hudson framework to the speech-related provisions at issue here. Although several Members of the Court have expressed doubts about the Central Hudson analysis and whether it should apply in particular cases, see, e. g., Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States, 527 U. S. 173, 197 (1999) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); Uh Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S. 484, 501, 510-514 (1996) (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Kennedy and Ginsburg, JJ.); id., at 517 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 518 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), there is no need in this case to break new ground. “ ‘Central Hudson, as applied in our more recent commercial speech cases, provides an adequate basis for decision.’ ” Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525, 554-555 (2001) (quoting Greater New Orleans, supra, at 184).
Ill
The Government does not attempt to defend the FDAMA’s speech-related provisions under the first prong of the Central Hudson test; i. e., it does not argue that the prohibited advertisements would be about unlawful activity or would be misleading. Instead, the Government argues that the FDAMA satisfies the remaining three prongs of the Central Hudson test.
The Government asserts that three substantial interests underlie the FDAMA. The first is an interest in “preserving] the effectiveness and integrity of the FDCA’s new drug approval process and the protection of the public health that it provides.” Brief for Petitioners 19. The second is an interest in “preserving] the availability of compounded drugs for those individual patients who, for particularized medical reasons, cannot use commercially available products that have been approved by the FDA.” Id., at 19-20. Finally, the Government argues that “[achieving the proper balance between those two independently compelling but competing interests is itself a substantial governmental interest.” Id., at 20.
Explaining these interests, the Government argues that the FDCA’s new drug approval requirements are critical to the public health and safety. It claims that the FDA’s experience with drug regulation demonstrates that proof of the safety and effectiveness of a new drug needs to be established by rigorous, scientifically valid clinical studies because impressions of individual doctors, who cannot themselves compile sufficient safety data, cannot be relied upon. The Government also argues that a premarket approval process, under which manufacturers are required to put their proposed drugs through tests of safety and effectiveness in order to obtain FDA approval to market the drugs, is the best way to guarantee drug safety and effectiveness.
While it praises the FDCA’s new drug approval process, the Government also acknowledges that “because obtaining FDA approval for a new drug is a costly process, requiring FDA approval of all drug products compounded by pharmacies for the particular needs of an individual patient would, as a practical matter, eliminate the practice of compounding, and thereby eliminate availability of compounded drugs for those patients who have no alternative treatment.” Id., at 26. The Government argues that eliminating the practice of compounding, drugs for individual patients would be undesirable because compounding is sometimes critical to the care of patients with drug allergies, patients who cannot tolerate particular drug delivery systems, and patients requiring special drug dosages.
Preserving the effectiveness and integrity of the FDCA’s new drug approval process is clearly an important governmental interest, and the Government has every reason to want as many drugs as possible to be subject to that approval process. The Government also has an important interest, however, in permitting the continuation of the practice of compounding so that patients with particular needs may obtain medications suited to those needs. And it would not make sense to require compounded drugs created to meet the unique needs of individual patients to undergo the testing required for the new drug approval process. Pharmacists do not make enough money from small-scale compounding to make safety and efficacy testing of their compounded drugs economically feasible, so requiring such testing would force pharmacists to stop providing compounded drugs. Given this, the Government needs to be able to draw a line between small-scale compounding and large-scale drug manufacturing. That line must distinguish compounded drugs produced on such a small scale that they could not undergo safety and efficacy testing from drugs produced and sold on a large enough scale that they could undergo such testing and therefore must do so.
The Government argues that the FDAMA’s speech-related provisions provide just such a line, i. e., that, in the terms of Central Hudson, they “directly advanc[e] the governmental interest[s] asserted.” 447 U. S., at 566. Those provisions use advertising as the trigger for requiring FDA approval — essentially, as long as pharmacists do not advertise particular compounded drugs, they may sell compounded drugs without first undergoing safety and efficacy testing and obtaining FDA approval. If they advertise their compounded drugs, however, FDA approval is required. The Government explains that traditional (or, in its view, desirable) compounding responds to a physician’s prescription and an individual patient’s particular medical situation, and that “[advertising the particular products created in the provision of [such] service (as opposed to advertising the compounding service itself) is not necessary to . . . this type of responsive and customized service.” Brief for Petitioners 34. The Government argues that advertising particular products is useful in a broad market but is not useful when particular products are designed in response to an individual’s “often unique need[s].” Ibid. The Government contends that, because of this, advertising is not typically associated with compounding for particular individuals. In contrast it is typically associated, the Government claims, with large-scale production of a drug for a substantial market. The Government argues that advertís-ing, therefore, is “a fair proxy for actual or intended large-scale manufacturing,” and that Congress’ decision to limit the FDAMA’s compounding exemption to pharmacies that do not engage in promotional activity was “rationally calculated” to avoid creating “‘a loophole that would allow unregulated drug manufacturing to occur under the guise of pharmacy compounding.’” Id., at 35 (quoting 143 Cong. Rec. S9839 (Sept. 24, 1997) (statement of Sen. Kennedy)).
The Government seems to believe that without advertising it would not be possible to market a drug on a large enough scale to make safety and efficacy testing economically feasible. The Government thus believes that conditioning an exemption from the FDA approval process bn refraining from advertising is an ideal way to permit compounding and yet also guarantee that compounding is not conducted on such a scale as to undermine the FDA approval process. Assuming it is true that drugs cannot be marketed on a large scale without advertising, the FDAMA’s prohibition on advertising compounded drugs might indeed “directly advanc[e]” the Government’s interests. Central Hudson, 447 U. S., at 566. Even assuming that it does, however, the Government has failed to demonstrate that the speech restrictions are “not more extensive than is necessary to serve [those] interests]. ” Ibid. In previous cases addressing this final prong of the Central Hudson test, we have made clear that if the Government could achieve its interests in a manner that does not restrict speech, or that restricts less speech, the Government must do so. In Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U. S. 476 (1995), for example, we found a law prohibiting beer labels from displaying alcohol content to be unconstitutional in part because of the availability of alternatives “such as directly limiting the alcohol content of beers, prohibiting marketing efforts emphasizing high alcohol strength ... , or limiting the labeling ban only to malt liquors.” Id., at 490-491. The fact that “all of [these alternatives] could advance the Government’s asserted interest in a manner less intrusive to . . . First Amendment rights” indicated that the law was “more extensive than necessary.” Id., at 491. See also 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S., at 507 (plurality opinion) (striking down a prohibition on advertising the price of alcoholic beverages in part because “alternative forms of regulation that would not involve any restriction on speech would be more likely to achieve the State’s goal of promoting temperance”).
Several non-speech-related means of drawing a line between compounding and large-scale manufacturing might be possible here. First, it seems that the Government could use the very factors the FDA relied on to distinguish compounding from manufacturing in its 1992 Guide. For example, the Government could ban the use of “commercial scale manufacturing or testing equipment for compounding drug products.” Guide, App. to Pet. for Cert. 76a. It could prohibit pharmacists from compounding more drugs in anticipation of receiving prescriptions than in response to prescriptions already received. See ibid. It could prohibit pharmacists from “[o]ffering compounded drug products at wholesale to other state licensed persons or commercial entities for resale.” Id., at 77a. Alternately, it could limit the amount of compounded drugs, either by volume or by numbers of prescriptions, that a given pharmacist or pharmacy sells out of state. See ibid. Another possibility not suggested by the Guide would be capping the amount of any particular compounded drug, either by drug volume, number of prescriptions, gross revenue, or profit that a pharmacist or pharmacy may make or sell in a given period of time. It might even be sufficient to rely solely on the non-speech-related provisions of the FDAMA, such as the requirement that compounding only be conducted in response to a prescription or a history of receiving a prescription, 21 U. S. C. § 353a(a), and the limitation on the percentage of a pharmacy’s total sales that out-of-state sales of compounded drugs may represent, § 353a(b)(3)(B).
The Government has not offered any reason why these possibilities, alone or in combination, would be insufficient to prevent compounding from occurring on such a scale as to undermine the new drug approval process. Indeed, there is no hint that the Government even considered these or any other alternatives. Nowhere in the legislative history of the FDAMA or petitioners’ briefs is there any explanation of why the Government believed forbidding advertising was a necessary as opposed to merely convenient means of achieving its interests. Yet “[i]t is well established that ‘the party seeking to uphold a restriction on commercial speech carries the burden of justifying it.’ ” Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S., at 770 (quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U. S. 60, 71, n. 20 (1983)). The Government simply has not provided sufficient justification here. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last — not first — resort. Yet here it seems to have been the first strategy the Government thought to try.
The dissent describes another governmental interest — an interest in prohibiting the sale of compounded drugs to “patients who may not clearly need them,” post, at 379 (opinion of Breyer, J.) — and argues that “Congress could . . . conclude that the advertising restrictions ‘directly advance’ ” that interest, post, at 384. Nowhere in its briefs, however, does the Government argue that this interest motivated the advertising ban. Although, for the reasons given by the dissent, Congress conceivably could have enacted the advertising ban to advance this interest, we have generally only sustained statutes on the basis of hypothesized justifications when reviewing statutes merely to determine whether they are rational. See L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1444-1446 (2d ed. 1988) (describing the “rational basis” or “conceivable basis” test); see also, e. g., Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456, 466 (1981) (sustaining a milk packaging regulation under the “rational basis” test because “the Minnesota Legislature could rationally have decided that [the regulation] might foster greater use of environmentally desirable alternatives” (emphasis deleted)). The Central Hudson test is significantly stricter than the rational basis test, however, requiring the Government not only to identify specifically “a substantial interest to be achieved by [the] restrictio[n] on commercial speech,” 447 U. S., at 564, but also to prove that the regulation “directly advances” that interest and is “not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest,” id., at 566. The Government has not met any of these requirements with regard to the interest the dissent describes.
Even if the Government had argued that the FDAMA’s speech-related restrictions were motivated by a fear that advertising compounded drugs would put people who do not need such drugs at risk by causing them to convince their doctors to prescribe the drugs anyway, that fear would fail to justify the restrictions. Aside from the fact that this concern rests on the questionable assumption that doctors would prescribe unnecessary medications (an assumption the dissent is willing to make based on one magazine article and one survey, post, at 383-384, neither of which was relied upon by the Government), this concern amounts to a fear that people would make bad decisions if given truthful information about compounded drugs. See supra, at 368 (explaining that the Government does not claim the advertisements forbidden by the FDAMA would be false or misleading). We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information. In Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, the State feared that if people received price advertising from pharmacists, they would “choose the low-cost, low-quality service and drive the ‘professional’ pharmacist out of business” and would “destroy the pharmacist-customer relationship” by going from one pharmacist to another. We found these fears insufficient to justify a ban on such advertising. 425 U. S., at 769. We explained:
“There is, of course, an alternative to this highly paternalistic approach. That alternative is to assume that this information is not in itself harmful, that people will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and that the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication rather than to close them. . . . But the choice among these alternative approaches is not ours to make or the Virginia General Assembly’s. It is precisely this kind of choice, between the dangers of suppressing information, and the dangers of its misuse if it is freely available, that the First Amendment makes for us. Virginia is free to require whatever professional standards it wishes of its pharmacists; it may subsidize them or protect them from competition in other ways.... But it may not do so by keeping the public in ignorance of the entirely lawful terms that competing pharmacists are offering.” Id., at 770 (citation omitted).
See also 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S., at 503 (“[B]ans against truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech . . . usually rest solely on the offensive assumption that the public will respond ‘irrationally’ to the truth. . . . The First Amendment directs us to be especially skeptical of regulations that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government perceives to be their own good” (citation omitted)).
Even if the Government had asserted an interest in preventing people who do not need compounded drugs from obtaining those drugs, the statute does not directly advance that interest. The dissent claims that the Government “must exclude from the area of permitted drug sales ... those compounded drugs sought by patients who may not clearly need them.” Post, at 379. Yet the statute does not directly forbid such sales. It instead restricts advertising, of course not just to those who do not need compounded drugs, but also to individuals who do need compounded drugs and their doctors. Although the advertising ban may reduce the demand for compounded drugs from those who do not need the drugs, it does nothing to prevent such individuals from obtaining compounded drugs other than requiring prescriptions. But if it is appropriate for the statute to rely on doctors to refrain from prescribing compounded drugs to patients who do not need them, it is not clear why it would not also be appropriate to rely on doctors to refrain from prescribing compounded drugs to patients who do not need them in a world where advertising was permitted.
The dissent may also be suggesting that the Government has an interest in banning the advertising of compounded drugs because patients who see such advertisements will be confused about the drugs’ risks. See post, at 387 (“[The Government] fears the systematic effect ... of advertisements that will not fully explain the complicated risks at issue”). This argument is precluded, however, by the fact that the Government does not argue that the advertisements are misleading. Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring each compounded drug to be labeled with a warning that the drug had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown.
If the Government’s failure to justify its decision to regulate speech were not enough to convince us that the FDAMA’s advertising provisions were unconstitutional, the amount of beneficial speech prohibited by the FDAMA would be. Forbidding the advertisement of compounded drugs would affect pharmacists other than those interested in producing drugs on a large scale. It would prevent pharmacists with no interest in mass-producing medications, but who serve clienteles with special medical needs, from telling the doctors treating those clients about the alternative drugs available through compounding. For example, a pharmacist serving a children’s hospital where many patients are unable to swallow pills would be prevented from telling the children’s doctors about a new development in compounding that allowed a drug that was previously available only in pill form to be administered another way. Forbidding advertising of particular compounded drugs would also prohibit a pharmacist from posting a notice informing customers that if their children refuse to take medications because of the taste, the pharmacist could change the flavor, and giving examples of medications where flavoring is possible. The fact that the FDAMA would prohibit such seemingly useful speech even though doing so does not appear to directly further any asserted governmental objective confirms our belief that the prohibition is unconstitutional.
Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment that the speech-related provisions of FDAMA § 127(a) are unconstitutional.
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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we must decide whether § 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1365(a), confers federal jurisdiction over citizen suits for wholly past violations.
I
The Clean Water Act (Act), 86 Stat. 816, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), was enacted in 1972 “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” § 1251(a). In order to achieve these goals, § 301(a) of the Act makes unlawful the discharge of any pollutant into navigable waters except as authorized by specified sections of the Act. 33 U. S. C. § 1311(a).
One of these specified sections is §402, which establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 33 U. S. C. §1342. Pursuant to § 402(a), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may issue permits authorizing the discharge of pollutants in accordance with specified conditions. § 1342(a). Pursuant to § 402(b), each State may establish and administer its own permit program if the program conforms to federal guidelines and is approved by the Administrator. § 1342(b). The Act calls for the Administrator to suspend the issuance of federal permits as to waters subject to an approved state program. § 1342(c)(1).
The holder of a federal NPDES permit is subject to enforcement action by the Administrator for failure to comply with the conditions of the permit. The Administrator’s enforcement arsenal includes administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions. § 1319. The holder of a state NPDES permit is subject to both federal and state enforcement action for failure to comply. §§ 1319, 1342(b)(7). In the absence of federal or state enforcement, private citizens may commence civil actions against any person “alleged to be in violation of” the conditions of either a federal or state NPDES permit. § 1365(a)(1). If the citizen prevails in such an action, the court may order injunctive relief and/or impose civil penalties payable to the United States Treasury. § 1365(a).
The Commonwealth of Virginia established a federally approved state NPDES program administered by the Virginia State Water Control Board (Board). Va. Code § 62.1-44.2 et seq. (1950). In 1974, the Board issued a NPDES permit to ITT-Gwaltney authorizing the discharge of seven pollutants from the company’s meatpacking plant on the Pagan River in Smithfield, Virginia. The permit, which was reissued in 1979 and modified in 1980, established effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions of discharge. In 1981, petitioner Gwaltney of Smithfield acquired the assets of ITT-Gwaltney and assumed obligations under the permit.
Between 1981 and 1984, petitioner repeatedly violated the conditions of the permit by exceeding effluent limitations on five of the seven pollutants covered. These violations are chronicled in the Discharge Monitoring Reports that the permit required petitioner to maintain. See 9 Record, Exh. 10. The most substantial of the violations concerned the pollutants fecal coliform, chlorine, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TEN). Between October 27, 1981, and August 30, 1984, petitioner violated its TKN limitation 87 times, its chlorine limitation 34 times, and its fecal coliform limitation 31 times. 9 Record, Stipulation, p. 3. Petitioner installed new equipment to improve its chlorination system in March 1982, and its last reported chlorine violation occurred in October 1982. Id., at 7-8. The new chlorination system also helped to control the discharge of fecal coliform, and the last recorded fecal coliform violation occurred in February 1984. 9 Record, Exh. 10-A. Petitioner installed an upgraded wastewater treatment system in October 1983, and its last reported TKN violation occurred on May 15, 1984. 9 Record, Stipulation, p. 10.
Respondents Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Natural Resources Defense Council, two nonprofit corporations dedicated to the protection of natural resources, sent notice in February 1984 to Gwaltney, the Administrator of EPA, and the Virginia State Water Control Board, indicating respondents’ intention to commence a citizen suit under the Act based on petitioner’s violations of its permit conditions. Respondents proceeded to file this suit in June 1984, alleging that petitioner “has violated . . . [and] will continue to violate its NPDES permit.” 1 Record, Doc. No. 1, p. 5. Respondents requested that the District Court provide declaratory and injunctive relief, impose civil penalties, and award attorney’s fees and costs. The District Court granted partial summary judgment for respondents in August 1984, declaring Gwaltney “to have violated and to be in violation” of the Act. No. 84-0366-R (ED Va. Aug. 30,1984). The District Court then held a trial to determine the appropriate remedy.
Before the District Court reached a decision, Gwaltney moved in May 1985 for dismissal of the action for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Act. Gwaltney argued that the language of § 505(a), which permits private citizens to bring suit against any person “alleged to be in violation” of the Act, requires that a defendant be violating the Act at the time of suit. Gwaltney urged the District Court to adopt the analysis of the Fifth Circuit in Hamker v. Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 756 F. 2d 392 (1985), which held that “a complaint brought under [§ 505] must allege a violation occurring at the time the complaint is filed.” Id., at 395. Gwaltney contended that because its last recorded violation occurred several weeks before respondents filed their complaint, the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over respondents’ action. See 4 Record, Doc. No. 44.
The District Court rejected Gwaltney’s argument, concluding that § 505 authorizes citizens to bring enforcement actions on the basis of wholly past violations. The District Court found that “[t]he words ‘to be in violation’ may reasonably be read as comprehending unlawful conduct that occurred solely prior to the filing of the lawsuit as well as unlawful conduct that continues into the present.” 611 F. Supp. 1542, 1547 (ED Va. 1985). In the District Court’s view, this construction of the statutory language was supported by the legislative history and the underlying policy goals of the Act. Id., at 1550. The District Court held in the alternative that respondents satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of §505 because their complaint alleged in good faith that Gwaltney was continuing tú violate its permit at the time the suit was filed. Id., at 1549, n. 8.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, expressly rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s approach in Hawker and holding that §505 “can be read to comprehend unlawful conduct that occurred only prior to the filing of a lawsuit as well as unlawful conduct that continues into the present.” 791 F. 2d 804, 309 (CA4 1986). The Court of Appeals concluded that its reading of §505 was consistent with the Act’s structure, legislative history, and purpose. Although it observed that “[a] very sound argument can be made that [respondents’] allegations of continuing violations were made in good faith,” the Court of Appeals declined to rule on the District Court’s alternative holding, finding it unnecessary to the disposition of the case. Id., at 308, n. 9.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, the First Circuit also had occasion to construe § 505. It took a position different from that of either the Fourth or the Fifth Circuit, holding that jurisdiction lies under § 505 when “the citizen-plaintiff fairly alleges a continuing likelihood that the defendant, if not enjoined, will again proceed to violate the Act.” Pawtuxet Cove Marina, Inc. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 807 F. 2d 1089, 1094 (1986). The First Circuit’s approach precludes suit based on wholly past violations, but permits suit when there is a pattern of intermittent violations, even if there is no violation at the moment suit is filed. We granted certiorari to resolve this three-way conflict in the Circuits. 479 U. S. 1029 (1987). We now vacate the Fourth Circuit’s opinion and remand the case.
I — I 1 — I
A
It is well settled that “the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself.” Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). The Court of Appeals concluded that the “to be in violation” language of § 505 is ambiguous, whereas petitioner asserts that it plainly precludes the construction adopted below. We must agree with the Court of Appeals that § 505 is not a provision in which Congress’ limpid prose puts an end to all dispute. But to acknowledge ambiguity is not to conclude that all interpretations are equally plausible. The most natural reading of “to be in violation” is a requirement that citizen-plaintiffs allege a state of either continuous or intermittent violation — that is, a reasonable likelihood that a past polluter will continue to pollute in the future. Congress could have phrased its requirement in language that looked to the past (“to have violated”), but it did not choose this readily available option.
Respondents urge that the choice of the phrase “to be in violation,” rather than phrasing more clearly directed to the past, is a “careless accident,” the result of a “debatable lapse of syntactical precision.” Brief for Respondents 8. But the prospective orientation of that phrase could not have escaped Congress’ attention. Congress used identical language in the citizen suit provisions of several other environmental statutes that authorize only prospective relief. See, e. g., Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. §7604; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U. S. C. § 6972 (1982 ed. and Supp. III); Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U. S. C. § 2619 (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). Moreover, Congress has demonstrated in yet other statutory provisions that it knows how to avoid this prospective implication by using language that explicitly targets wholly past violations.
Respondents seek to counter this reasoning by observing that Congress also used the phrase “is in violation” in § 309(a) of the Act, which authorizes the Administrator of EPA to issue compliance orders. 33 U. S. C. § 1319(a). That language is incorporated by reference in § 309(b), which authorizes the Administrator to bring civil enforcement actions. § 1319(b). Because it is little questioned that the Administrator may bring enforcement actions to recover civil penalties for wholly past violations, respondents contend, the parallel language of § 309(a) and § 505(a) must mean that citizens, too, may maintain such actions.
Although this argument has some initial plausibility, it cannot withstand close scrutiny and comparison of the two statutory provisions. The Administrator’s ability to seek civil penalties is not discussed in either § 309(a) or § 309(b); civil penalties are not mentioned until § 309(d), which does not contain the “is in violation” language. 33 U. S. C. § 1319(d). This Court recently has recognized that § 309(d) constitutes a separate grant of enforcement authority:
“Section 1319 [§ 309] does not intertwine equitable relief with the imposition of civil penalties. Instead each kind of relief is separably authorized in a separate and distinct statutory provision. Subsection (b), providing injunctive relief, is independent of subsection (d), which provides only for civil penalties.” Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 425 (1987).
In contrast, § 505 of the Act does not authorize civil penalties separately from injunctive relief; rather, the two forms of relief are referred to in the same subsection, even in the same sentence. 33 U. S. C. § 1365(a). The citizen suit provision suggests a connection between injunctive relief and civil penalties that is noticeably absent from the provision authorizing agency enforcement. A comparison of § 309 and § 505 thus supports rather than refutes our conclusion that citizens, unlike the Administrator, may seek civil penalties only in a suit brought to enjoin or otherwise abate an ongoing violation.
B
Our reading of the “to be in violation” language of § 505(a) is bolstered by the language and structure of the rest of the citizen suit provisions in § 505 of the Act. These provisions together make plain that the interest of the citizen-plaintiff is primarily forward-looking.
One of the most striking indicia of the prospective orientation of the citizen suit is the pervasive use of the present tense throughout § 505. A citizen suit may be brought only for violation of a permit limitation “which is in effect” under the Act. 33 U. S. C. § 1365(f). Citizen-plaintiffs must give notice to the alleged violator, the Administrator of EPA, and the State in which the alleged violation “occurs.” § 1365(b)(1)(A). A Governor of a State may sue as a citizen when the Administrator fails to enforce an effluent limitation “the violation of which is occurring in another State and is causing an adverse effect on the public health or welfare in his State.” § 1365(h). The most telling use of the present tense is in the definition of “citizen” as “a person . . . having an interest which is or may be adversely affected” by the defendant’s violations of the Act. § 1365(g). This definition makes plain what the undeviating use of the present tense strongly suggests: the harm sought to be addressed by the citizen suit lies in the present or the future, not in the past.
Any other conclusion would render incomprehensible § 505’s notice provision, which requires citizens to give 60 days’ notice of their intent to sue to the alleged violator as well as to the Administrator and the State. § 1365(b)(1)(A). If the Administrator or the State commences enforcement action within that 60-day period, the citizen suit is barred, presumably because governmental action has rendered it unnecessary. § 1365(b)(1)(B). It follows logically that the purpose of notice to the alleged violator is to give it an opportunity to bring itself into complete compliance with the Act and thus likewise render unnecessary a citizen suit. If we assume, as respondents urge, that citizen suits may target wholly past violations, the requirement of notice to the alleged violator becomes gratuitous. Indeed, respondents, in propounding their interpretation of the Act, can think of no reason for Congress to require such notice other than that “it seemed right” to inform an alleged violator that it was about to be sued. Brief for Respondents 14.
Adopting respondents’ interpretation of §505’s jurisdictional grant would create a second and even more disturbing anomaly. The bar on citizen suits when governmental enforcement action is under way suggests that the citizen suit is meant to supplement rather than to supplant governmental action. The legislative history of the Act reinforces this view of the role of the citizen suit. The Senate Report noted that “[t]he Committee intends the great volume of enforcement actions [to] be brought by the State,” and that citizen suits are proper only “if the Federal, State, and local agencies fail to exercise their enforcement responsibility.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 64 (1971), reprinted in 2 A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, p. 1482 (1973) (hereinafter Leg. Hist.). Permitting citizen suits for wholly past violations of the Act could undermine the supplementary role envisioned for the citizen suit. This danger is best illustrated by an example. Suppose that the Administrator identified a violator of the Act and issued a compliance order under § 309(a). Suppose further that the Administrator agreed not to assess or otherwise seek civil penalties on the condition that the violator take some extreme corrective action, such as to install particularly effective but expensive machinery, that it otherwise would not be obliged to take. If citizens could file suit, months or years later, in order to seek the civil penalties that the Administrator chose to forgo, then the Administrator’s discretion to enforce the Act in the public interest would be curtailed considerably. The same might be said of the discretion of state enforcement authorities. Respondents’ interpretation of the scope of the citizen suit would change the nature of the citizens’ role from interstitial to potentially intrusive. We cannot agree that Congress intended such a result.
C
The legislative history of the Act provides additional support for our reading of §505. Members of Congress frequently characterized the citizen suit provisions as “abatement” provisions or as injunctive measures. See, e. g., Water Pollution Control Legislation, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 114 (1971) (staff analysis of S. 523) (“Any person may sue a polluter to abate a violation . . .”); id., pt. 2, at 707 (Sen. Eagleton) (“Citizen suits . . . are brought for the purpose of abating pollution”); H. R. Rep. No. 92-911, p. 407 (1972), 1 Leg. Hist. 876 (additional views of Reps. Abzug and Rangel) (“[C]itizens may institute suits against polluters for the purpose of halting that pollution”); 118 Cong. Rec. 33693 (1972), 1 Leg. Hist. 163 (Sen. Muskie) (“Citizen suits can be brought to enforce against both continuous and intermittent violations”); id., at 33717, 1 Leg. Hist. 221 (Sen. Bayh) (“These sorts of citizen suits — in which a citizen can obtain an injunction but cannot obtain money damages for himself — are a very useful additional tool in enforcing environmental protection laws”).
Moreover, both the Senate and House Reports explicitly connected § 505 to the citizen suit provisions authorized by the Clean Air Act, which are wholly injunctive in nature. See S. Rep. No. 92-414, supra, at 79, 2 Leg. Hist. 1497 (Citizen participation under the Clean Water Act is “modeled on the provision enacted in the Clean Air Amendments of 1970”); H. R. Rep. No. 92-911, supra, at 133, 1 Leg. Hist. 820 (“Section 505 closely follows the concepts utilized in section 304 of the Clean Air Act”). Congress’ acknowledgment of this connection suggests that the identity of the “alleged to be in violation” language of the citizen suit provisions of the two Acts is not accidental; rather, the two provisions share the common central purpose of permitting citizens to abate pollution when the government cannot or will not command compliance. This understanding of the “alleged to be in violation” language as a statutory term of art rather than a mere stylistic infelicity is reinforced by the consistent adherence in the Senate and House Reports to the precise statutory formulation. See, e. g., S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1236, p. 145 (1972), 1 Leg. Hist. 328; H. R. Rep. No. 92-911, supra, at 133, 1 Leg. Hist. 820; S. Rep. No. 92-414, supra, at 79, 2 Leg. Hist. 1497.
Respondents make much of the fact that Senator Muskie, one of the principal authors and sponsors of the bill, deviated from this formulation at one point, expressing the view that “a citizen has a right under section 505 to bring an action for an appropriate remedy in the case of any person who is alleged to be, or to have been, in violation.” 118 Cong. Rec. 33700 (1972), 1 Leg. Hist. 179 (emphasis added). When viewed in context, however, Senator Muskie’s statement does not support respondents’ contention that § 505 authorizes citizen suits for wholly past violations. The full context of the Senator’s remarks is as follows:
“This 60-day [notice] provision was not intended, however, to cut off the right of action a citizen may have [with respect] to violations that took place 60 days earlier but which may not have been continuous. As in the original Senate bill, a citizen has a right under section 505 to bring an action for an approprate remedy in the case of any person who is alleged to be, or to have been, in violation, whether the violation be a continuous one, or an occasional or sporadic one.” Ibid.
The surrounding text strongly suggests that Senator Muskie used the past tense in order to make clear that an intermittent polluter — -one who violates permit limitations one month out of every three — is just as much “in violation” of the Act as a continuous violator. His reference to “occasional or sporadic” violations cannot fairly be read to include “wholly past” violations, as respondents contend. Our understanding of Senator Muskie’s written remarks is supported by the Senator’s oral summary of his written views for his colleagues. In summarizing, Senator Muskie stated merely that “[c]itizen suits can be brought to enforce against both continuous and intermittent violations.” Id., at 33693, 1 Leg. Hist. 163. Noticeably lacking here, too, is any reference to wholly past violations. Senator Muskie’s remarks cannot bear the weight that respondents place on them.
I — I HH l — I
Our conclusion that § 505 does not permit citizen suits for wholly past violations does not necessarily dispose of this lawsuit, as both lower courts recognized. The District Court found persuasive the fact that “[respondents’] allegation in the complaint, that Gwaltney was continuing to violate its NPDES permit when plaintiffs filed suit[,] appears to have been made fully in good faith.” 611 F. Supp., at 1549, n. 8. On this basis, the District Court explicitly held, albeit in a footnote, that “even if Gwaltney were correct that a district court has no jurisdiction over citizen suits based entirely on unlawful conduct that occurred entirely in the past, the Court would still have jurisdiction here.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals acknowledged, also in a footnote, that “[a] very sound argument can be made that [respondents’] allegations of continuing violations were made in good faith,” 791 F. 2d, at 308, n. 9, but expressly declined to rule on this alternative holding. Because we agree that § 505 confers jurisdiction over citizen suits when the citizen-plaintiffs make a good-faith allegation of continuous or intermittent violation, we remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.
Petitioner argues that citizen-plaintiffs must prove their allegations of ongoing noncompliance before jurisdiction attaches under § 505. Brief for Petitioner 37-43. We cannot agree. The statute does not require that a defendant “be in violation” of the Act at the commencement of suit; rather, the statute requires that a defendant be “alleged to be in violation.” Petitioner’s construction of the Act reads the word “alleged” out of §505. As petitioner itself is quick to note in other contexts, there is no reason to believe that Congress’ drafting of §505 was sloppy or haphazard. We agree with the Solicitor General that “Congress’s use of the phrase ‘alleged to be in violation’ reflects a conscious sensitivity to the practical difficulties of detecting and proving chronic episodic violations of environmental standards.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18. Our acknowledgment that Congress intended a good-faith allegation to suffice for jurisdictional purposes, however, does not give litigants license to flood the courts with suits premised on baseless allegations. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires pleadings to be based on a good-faith belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, that they are “well grounded in fact,” adequately protects defendants from frivolous allegations.
Petitioner contends that failure to require proof of allegations under § 505 would permit plaintiffs whose allegations of ongoing violation are reasonable but untrue to maintain suit in federal court even though they lack constitutional standing. Petitioner reasons that if a defendant is in complete compliance with the Act at the time of suit, plaintiffs have suffered no injury remediable by the citizen suit provisions of the Act. Petitioner, however, fails to recognize that our standing cases uniformly recognize that allegations of injury are sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a court. In Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975), for example, we made clear that a suit will not be dismissed for lack of standing if there are sufficient “allegations of fact” — not proof — in the complaint or supporting affidavits. This is not to say, however, that such allegations may not be challenged. In United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 689 (1973), we noted that if the plaintiffs’ “allegations [of standing] were in fact untrue, then the [defendants] should have moved for summary judgment on the standing issue and demonstrated to the District Court that the allegations were sham and raised no genuine issue of fact.” If the defendant fails to make such a showing after the plaintiff offers evidence to support the allegation, the case proceeds to trial on the merits, where the plaintiff must prove the allegations in order to prevail. But the Constitution does not require that the plaintiff offer this proof as a threshold matter in order to invoke the District Court’s jurisdiction.
Petitioner also worries that our construction of § 505 would permit citizen-plaintiffs, if their allegations of ongoing noncompliance become false at some later point in the litigation because the defendant begins to comply with the Act, to continue nonetheless to press their suit to conclusion. According to petitioner, such a result would contravene both the prospective purpose of the citizen suit provisions and the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III. Longstanding principles of mootness, however, prevent the maintenance of suit when “ 'there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.’” United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 633 (1953) (quoting United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 448 (CA2 1945)). In seeking to have a case dismissed as moot, however, the defendant’s burden “is a heavy one.” 345 U. S., at 633. The defendant must demonstrate that it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968) (emphasis added). Mootness doctrine thus protects defendants from the maintenance of suit under the Clean Water Act based solely on violations wholly unconnected to any present or future wrongdoing, while it also protects plaintiffs from defendants who seek to evade sanction by predictable “protestations of repentance and reform.” United States v. Oregon State Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326, 333 (1952).
Because the court below erroneously concluded that respondents could maintain an action based on wholly past violations of the Act, it declined to decide whether respondents’ complaint contained a good-faith allegation of ongoing violation by petitioner. We therefore remand the case for consideration of this question. 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.
In its entirety, § 505(a), as codified, 33 U. S. C. § 1365(a), provides:
“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 ease may be, and to apply any appropriate civil penalties under section 1319(d) of this title.”
For example, the Solid Waste Disposal Act was amended in 1984 to authorize citizen suits against any “past or present” generator, transporter, owner, or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility “who has contributed or who is contributing” to the “past or present” handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of certain hazardous wastes. 42 U. S. C. § 6972(a)(1)(B) (1982 ed., Supp. III). Prior to 1984, the Solid Waste Disposal Act contained language identical to that of § 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, authorizing citizen suits against any person “alleged to be in violation” of waste disposal permits or standards. 42 U. S. C. § 6972(a)(1). Even more on point, the most recent Clean Water Act amendments permit EPA to assess administrative penalties without judicial process on any person who “has violated” the provisions of the Act. Water Quality Act of 1987, § 314, Pub. L. 100-4, 101 Stat. 46.
The notice provisions specifically provide that citizen suits are barred only if the Administrator or State has commenced an action “io require compliance.” 33 U. S. C. § 1365(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This language supports our conclusion that the precluded citizen suit is also an action for compliance, rather than an action solely for civil penalties for past, nonrecurring violations.
Respondents also seek to rely on the legislative history of the 1987 amendments to the Act, which, inter alia, gave the Administrator authority to assess civil penalties for past violations without judicial enforcement proceedings. Water Quality Act of 1987, § 314, Pub. L. 100-4, 101 Stat. 46. Respondents point to provisions in the 1987 Act and statements in its legislative history to the effect that an administrative penalty action for violation of one effluent limitation does not bar a citizen suit for a past violation of another effluent limitation, even if the two violations resulted from the same discharge. Brief for Respondents 17-18, and n. 11. Respondents contend that this evidence demonstrates that the 99th Congress viewed the Act as permitting citizen suits for wholly past violations. The conclusions of the 99th Congress, however, are hardly probative of the intent of the 92d Congress. See Rainwater v. United States, 356 U. S. 590, 593 (1958). Moreover, the provisions and legislative history of the 1987 Act support arguments that cut against respondents as well. The fact that Congress consciously chose the past tense to describe the Administrator’s new authority to assess civil penalties suggests that Congress knows how to target past violations when it wants to do so. See n. 2, swpra. The legislative history demonstrates that the Senate and House bills were in conflict on whether to adopt the present or past tense, compare H. R. Rep. No. 99-189, p. 89 (1985), with S. Rep. No. 99-50, pp. 26, 100 (1985), and the Act reflects that Congress chose to adopt the past tense from the Senate bill.
See also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S., at 501 (“Art. Ill’s requirement remains: the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and palpable injury to himself . . .”) (emphasis added); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 617 (1973) (“[W]e have steadfastly adhered to the requirement that. . . federal plaintiffs must allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal court may assume jurisdiction”) (footnotes omitted; emphasis added); Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962) (“Have the [plaintiffs] 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?”) (emphasis added).
Under the Act, plaintiffs are also protected from the suddenly repentant defendant by the authority of the district courts to award litigation costs “whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.” 33 U. S. C. § 1365(d). The legislative history of this provision states explicitly that the award of costs “should extend to plaintiffs in actions which result in successful abatement but do not reach a verdict. For instance, if as a result of a citizen proceeding and before a verdict is issued, a defendant abated a violation, the court may award litigation expenses borne by the plaintiffs in prosecuting such actions.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 81 (1971), 2 Leg. Hist. 1499.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case the trial court itself decided the issue of materiality in a perjury prosecution, rather than submitting it to the jury as our decision in United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506 (1995), now requires. No objection was made by the petitioner, Joyce B. Johnson, and we hold that the court’s action in this case was not “plain error” of the sort which an appellate court may notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).
In the late 1980’s, a federal investigation into the cocaine and marijuana trafficking of Earl James Fields revealed that he and his partner had amassed some $10 million from their illicit activities. Following the money trail, federal authorities subpoenaed Johnson, Fields’ long-time girlfriend, to testify before a federal grand jury. Johnson, who is the mother of a child by Fields, earned about $34,000 a year at the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. She testified before the grand jury that she owned five pieces of real property, including her house. That house was purchased by Johnson in 1991 for $75,600, and in the next two years she added sufficient improvements to it that in 1993 it was appraised at $344,800. When asked the source of her home improvement funds, Johnson stated that she had put $80,000 to $120,000 into her house, all of which had come from a box of cash given her late mother by one Gerald Tal-cott in 1985 or 1986.
On the basis of this testimony, Johnson was indicted for perjury under 18 U. S. C. § 1623. At trial, it was revealed that Fields had negotiated the original purchase of Johnson’s home and that Johnson had paid for the property with eight different cashier’s checks, including two from a corporation in which Fields had an interest. It was also established that Gerald Talcott had died in April 1982, several years before the time Johnson claimed he had given her mother the box full of cash.
At the close of Johnson’s trial, and in accordance with then-extant Circuit precedent, see, e. g., United States v. Molinares, 700 F. 2d 647, 653 (CA11 1983), the District Judge instructed the jury that the element of materiality was a question for the judge to decide, and that he had determined that her statements were material.. App. 72. Johnson did not object to this instruction. Indeed, when the prosecution had presented evidence concerning materiality during the trial, she had then objected, on- the ground that materiality was a matter for the judge, and not the jury, to decide. Id., at 61. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and Johnson was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and a $30,000 fine.
After Johnson was convicted, but before her appeal to the Court of Appeals, we decided United States v. Gaudin, supra, which held that the materiality of a false statement must be submitted to the jury rather than decided by the trial judge. On her appeal, Johnson argued that the trial judge’s failure to submit materiality to the jury rendered her conviction invalid under Gaudin.
Because Johnson had failed to object to the trial judge’s deciding materiality, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for plain error. Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
“Plain Error. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”
Following our analysis in United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725 (1993), the Court of Appeals assumed, arguendo, that the District Court’s failure to submit materiality to the jury constituted “error” that was “clear or obvious,” but concluded nonetheless that any such error did not affect the “substantial rights” of the defendant. That conclusion was based on the court’s independent review of the record and determination that there was “overwhelming” evidence of materiality and that “[n]o reasonable juror could conclude that Johnson’s false statements about the source of the money . . . were not material to the grand jury’s investigation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 9a (judgt. order reported at 82 F. 3d 429 (CA11 1996)). Due to the conflict between this decision and the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Keys, 95 F. 3d 874 (1996), we granted, certiorari. 519 U. S. 989 (1996). We now affirm.
I
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1623 proscribes “knowingly mak[ing] any false material declaration” under oath before a grand jury. Although we merely assumed in Gaudin that materiality is an element of making a false statement under 18 U. S. C. § 1001, and although we recently held that materiality is not an element of making a false statement to a federally insured bank under 18 U. S. C. § 1014, United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482 (1997), there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623. The statutory text expressly requires that the false declaration be “material.” Gaudin therefore dictates that materiality be decided by the jury, not the court.
Petitioner, however, did not object to the trial court’s treatment of materiality. Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “No party may assign as error any portion of the [jury] charge or omission therefrom unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection.” This Rule is simply the embodiment of the “familiar” principle that a right “ ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’” Olano, supra, at 731 (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 444 (1944)). The Rule is mitigated, however, by Rule 52(b), which allows plain errors affecting substantial rights to be noticed even though there was no objection.
Petitioner argues that she need not fall within the “limited” and “circumscribed” strictures of Olano, because the error she complains of here is “structural,” and so is outside Rule 52(b) altogether. But the seriousness of the error claimed does not remove consideration of it from the ambit of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. None of the cases discussing “structural error,” upon which petitioner relies, were direct appeals from judgments of conviction in the federal system. Several came from state courts which had considered the claimed error under their own rules. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275 (1993). Others came here by way of federal habeas challenges to state convictions. See Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254 (1986); McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U. S. 168 (1984). None of them were subject to the provisions of Rule 52.
But it is that Rule which by its terms governs direct appeals from judgments of conviction in the federal system, and therefore governs this case. We cautioned against any unwarranted expansion of Rule 52(b) in United States v. Young, 470 U. S. 1 (1985), because it “would skew the Rule’s ‘careful balancing of our need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around against our insistence that obvious injustice be promptly redressed,’” id., at 15 (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U. S. 152, 163 (1982)). Even less appropriate than an unwarranted expansion of the Rule would be the creation out of whole cloth of an exception to it, an exception which we have no authority to make. See Carlisle v. United States, 517 U. S. 416, 425-426 (1996).
II
We therefore turn to apply here Rule 52(b) as outlined in Olano. Under that test, before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) “error,” (2) that is “plain,” and (3) that “affect[s] substantial rights.” 507 U. S., at 732. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error “ ‘ “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”’” Ibid. (quoting United States v. Young, supra, at 15, in turn quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U. S. 157, 160 (1936)).
A
There is no doubt that if petitioner’s trial occurred today, the failure to submit materiality to the jury would be error under Gaudin. Under Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314 (1987), a “new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases . . . pending on direct review . . . , with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a ‘clear break’ with the past.” Id., at 328. Because petitioner is still on direct review, Griffith requires that we apply Gaudin retroactively. Accordingly, under Gaudin there was “error,” and the first prong of Olano is satisfied.
B
The second prong is more difficult. Olano explained that the word “plain” is “synonymous with ‘clear’ or, equivalently, ‘obvious.’ ” 507 U. S., at 734. But Olano refrained from deciding when an error must be plain to be reviewable. “At a minimum,” Olano concluded, the error must be plain “under current law.” Ibid. In the case with which we are faced today, the error is certainly clear under “current law,” but it was by no means clear at the time of trial.
The Government contends that for an error to be “plain,” it must have been so both at the time of trial and at the time of appellate consideration. In this case, it says, petitioner should have objected to the court’s deciding the issue of materiality, even though near-uniform precedent both from this Court and from the Courts of Appeals held that course proper. Petitioner, on the other hand, urges that such a rule would result in counsel’s inevitably making a long and virtually useless laundry list of objections to rulings that were plainly supported by existing precedent. We agree with petitioner on this point, , and hold that in a case such as this — where the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal — it is enough that an error be “plain” at the time of appellate consideration. Here, at the time of trial it was settled that the issue of materiality was to be decided by the court, not the jury; by the time of appellate consideration, the law had changed, and it is now settled that materiality is an issue for the jury. The second part of the Olano test is therefore satisfied.
C
But even though the error be “plain,” it must also “affecft] substantial rights.” It is at this point that petitioner’s argument that the failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is “structural error” becomes relevant. She contends in effect that if an error is so serious as to defy harmless-error analysis, it must also “affec[t] substantial rights.” A “structural” error, we explained in Arizona v. Fulminante, is a “defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself,” 499 U. S., at 310. We have found structural errors only in a very limited class of cases: See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963) (a total deprivation of the right to counsel); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927) (lack of an impartial trial judge); Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254 (1986) (unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of defendant’s race); McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U. S. 168 (1984) (the right to self-representation at trial); Waller v. Georgia, 467 U. S. 39 (1984) (the right to a public trial); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275 (1993) (erroneous reasonable-doubt instruction to jury).
It is by no means clear that the error here fits within this limited class of cases. Sullivan v. Louisiana, the case most closely on point, held that the erroneous definition of “reasonable doubt” vitiated all of the jury’s findings because one could only speculate what a properly charged jury might have done. Id., at 280. The failure to submit materiality to the jury, as in this case, can just as easily be analogized to improperly instructing the jury on an element of the offense, e. g., Yates v. Evatt, 500 U. S. 391 (1991); Carella v. California, 491 U. S. 263 (1989) (per curiam); Pope v. Illinois, 481 U. S. 497 (1987); Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570 (1986), an error which is subject to harmless-error analysis, as it can be to failing to give a proper reasonable-doubt instruction altogether. Cf. California v. Roy, 519 U. S. 2, 5 (1996) (per curiam) (“The specific error at issue here — an error in the instruction that defined the crime — is ... as easily characterized as a ‘misdescription of an element’ of the crime, as it is characterized as an error of ‘omission’ ”).
D
But we need not decide that question because, even .assuming that the failure to submit materiality to the jury “affected] substantial rights,” it does not meet the final requirement of Olano. When the first three parts of Olano are satisfied, an appellate court must then determine whether the forfeited error “ ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings’ ” before it may exercise its discretion to correct the error. Olano, 507 U. S., at 736 (quoting Atkinson, 297 U. S., at 160).
In this case that question must be answered in the negative. As the Court of Appeals noted, the evidence supporting materiality was “overwhelming.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 9a. Materiality was essentially uncontroverted at trial and has remained so on appeal. The grand jury here was investigating petitioner’s long-time boyfriend’s alleged cocaine and marijuana trafficking and the “disposition of money which was proceeds of this cocaine and [marijuana] distribution activity, including the possible concealment of such proceeds as investments in real estate.” App. 5-6. Before the Eleventh Circuit and in her briefing before this Court, petitioner has presented no plausible argument that the false statement under oath for which she was convicted — lying about the source of the tens of thousands of dollars she used to improve her home — was somehow not material to the grand jury investigation.
On this record there is no basis for concluding that the error “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Indeed, it would be the reversal of a conviction such as this which would have that effect. “Reversal for error, regardless of its effect on the judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it.” R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 50 (1970). No “miscarriage of justice” will result here if we do not notice the error, Olano, supra, at 736, and we decline to do so. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Justice Scalia joins all but Parts II-B and II-C of this opinion.
See United States v. Corsino, 812 F. 2d 26, 31, n. 3 (CA1 1987); United States v. Bernard, 384 F. 2d 915, 916 (CA2 1967); United States v. Greber, 760 F. 2d 68, 73 (CA3 1985); Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F. 2d 362, 367 (CA4 1985); United States v. Hausmann, 711 F. 2d 615, 616-617 (CA5 1983); United States v. Chandler, 752 F. 2d 1148, 1150-1151 (CA6 1985); United States v. Brantley, 786 F. 2d 1322, 1327, and n. 2 (CA7 1986); United States v. Hicks, 619 F. 2d 752, 758 (CA8 1980); United States v. Daily, 921 F. 2d 994, 1004 (CA10 1990); United States v. Lopez, 728 F. 2d 1359, 1362, n. 4 (CA11 1984); United States v. Hansen, 772 F. 2d 940, 950 (CADC 1985).
The Government represents — and petitioner has not disputed — that the sum total of petitioner’s argument at trial concerning materiality consisted of the following conclusory sentence: “ ‘I would argue that the element of materiality has been insufficiently proven and that the Court ought to grant a judgment of acquittal.’ ” Brief for United States 5 (quoting trial transcript); see also Reply Brief for Petitioner 4, n. 5.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant here, Jack H. Breard, a regional representative of Keystone Readers Service, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, was arrested while going from door to door in the City of Alexandria, Louisiana, soliciting subscriptions for nationally known magazines. The arrest was solely on the ground that he had violated an ordinance because he had not obtained the prior consent of the owners of the residences solicited. Breard, a resident of Texas, was in charge of a crew of solicitors who go from house to house in the various cities and towns in the area under Breard’s management and solicit subscriptions for nationally known magazines and periodicals, including among others the Saturday Evening Post, Ladies’ Home Journal, Country Gentleman, Holiday, Newsweek, American Home, Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Pic, Parents, Today’s Woman and True. These solicitors spend only a few days in each city, depending upon its size. Keystone sends a card from its home office to the new subscribers acknowledging receipt of the subscription and thereafter the periodical is forwarded to the subscriber by the publisher in interstate commerce through the mails.
The ordinance under which the arrest was made, so far as is here pertinent, reads as follows:
“Section 1. Be it Ordained by the Council of the City of Alexandria, Louisiana, in legal session convened that the practice of going in and upon private residences in the City of Alexandria, Louisiana by solicitors, peddlers, hawkers, itinerant merchants or transient vendors of merchandise not having been requested or invited so to do by the owner or owners, occupant or occupants of said private residences for the purpose of soliciting orders for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise and/or disposing of and/or peddling or hawking the same is declared to be a nuisance and punishable as such nuisance as a misdemeanor.”
It, or one of similar import, has been on the statute books of Alexandria for many years. It is stipulated that:
“Such ordinance was enacted by the City Council, among other reasons, because some householders complained to those in authority that in some instances, for one reason or another, solicitors were undesirable or discourteous, and some householders complained that, whether a solicitor was courteous or not, they did not desire any uninvited intrusion into the privacy of their home.”
The protective purposes of the ordinance were underscored by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in its opinion. 217 La. 820, at 825-828, 47 So. 2d 553, at 555.
At appellant’s trial for violation of the ordinance, there was a motion to quash on the ground that the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution; that it violates the Federal Commerce Clause; and that it violates the guarantees of the First Amendment of freedom of speech and of the press, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Appellant’s motion to quash was overruled by the trial court and he was found guilty and sentenced to pay a $25 fine or serve 30 days in jail. The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed appellant’s conviction and expressly rejected the federal constitutional objections. 217 La. 820, 47 So. 2d 553. The case is here on appeal, 28 U. S. C. § 1257; Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413.
All declare for liberty and proceed to disagree among themselves as to its true meaning. There is equal unanimity that opportunists, for private gain, cannot be permitted to arm themselves with an acceptable principle, such as that of a right to work, a privilege to engage in interstate commerce, or a free press, and proceed to use it as an iron standard to smooth their path by crushing the living rights of others to privacy and repose. This case calls for an adjustment of constitutional rights in the light of the particular living conditions of the time and place. Everyone cannot have his own way and each must yield something to the reasonable satisfaction of the needs of all.
It is true that the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers for all kinds of salable articles. When such visitors are barred from premises by notice or order, however, subsequent trespasses have been punished. Door-to-door canvassing has flourished increasingly in recent years with the ready market furnished by the rapid concentration of housing. The infrequent and still welcome solicitor to the rural home became to some a recurring nuisance in towns when the visits were multiplied. Unwanted knocks on the door by day or night are a nuisance, or worse, to peace and quiet. The local retail merchant, too, has not been unmindful of the effective competition furnished by house-to-house selling in many lines. As a matter of business fairness, it may be thought not really sporting to corner the quarry in his home and through his open door put pressure on the prospect to purchase. As the exigencies of trade are not ordinarily expected to have a higher rating constitutionally than the tranquillity of the fireside, responsible municipal officers have sought a way to curb the annoyances while preserving complete freedom for desirable visitors to the homes. The idea of barring classified salesmen from homes by means of notices posted by individual householders was rejected early as less practical than an ordinance regulating solicitors.
The Town of Green River, Wyoming, undertook in 1931 to remedy by ordinance the irritating incidents of house-to-house canvassing for sales. The substance of that ordinance, so far as here material, is the same as that of Alexandria, Louisiana. The Green River ordinance was sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit in 1933 against an attack by a nonresident corporation, a solicitor of orders, through a bill for an injunction to prohibit its enforcement, on the federal constitutional grounds of interference with interstate commerce, deprivation of property without due process of law, and denial of the equal protection of the laws. Town of Green River v. Fuller Brush Co., 65 F. 2d 112. No review of that decision was sought. An employee of the Brush Company challenged the same ordinance again in the courts of Wyoming in 1936 on a prosecution by the town for the misdemeanor of violating its terms. On this attack certain purely state grounds were relied upon, which we need not notice, and the charges of violation of the Federal Constitution were repeated. The ordinance was held valid by the Supreme Court of Wyoming. Town of Green River v. Bunger, 50 Wyo. 52, 58 P. 2d 456.
Due Process. — On appeal to this Court, appellant urged particularly the unconstitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause of such unreasonable restraints as the Green River ordinance placed on “the right to engage in one of the common occupations of life,” citing, inter alia, New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 278, and Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590. He also relied upon the alleged prohibition of interstate commerce under the guise of a police regulation.
Here this Court dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. 300 U. S. 638. For an answer to the argument that the ordinance denied due process because of its unreasonable restraint on the right to engage in a legitimate occupation, this Court cited three cases: Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183 ; Western Turf Association v. Greenberg, 204 U. S. 359 ; and Williams v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 79.
The opinions of this Court since this Green River case have not given any ground to argue that the police power of a state over soliciting has constitutional infirmities under the due process principle embodied in the concept of freedom to carry on an inoffensive trade or business. Decisions such as Liebmann and Tanner, supra, invalidating legislative action, are hardly in point here. The former required a certificate of convenience and necessity to manufacture ice, and the latter prohibited employment agencies from receiving remuneration for their services. The Green River ordinance can be characterized as prohibitory of appellant’s legitimate business of obtaining subscriptions to periodicals only in the limited sense of forbidding solicitation of subscriptions by house-to-house canvass without invitation. All regulatory legislation is prohibitory in that sense. The usual methods of solicitation — radio, periodicals, mail, local agencies — are open. Furthermore, neither case is in as strong a position today as it was when Bunger appealed. See Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236, 243 et seq., and Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co., 335 U. S. 525, 535.
The Constitution’s protection of property rights does not make a state or a city impotent to guard its citizens against the annoyances of life because the regulation may restrict the manner of doing a legitimate business. The question of a man’s right to carry on with propriety a standard method of selling is presented here in its most appealing form — an assertion by a door-to-door solicitor that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit a state or its subdivisions to deprive a specialist in door-to-door selling of his means of livelihood. But putting aside the argument that after all it is the commerce, i. e., sales of periodicals, and not the methods, that is petitioner’s business, we think that even a legitimate occupation may be restricted or prohibited in the public interest. See the dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 280, 303. The problem is legislative where there are reasonable bases for legislative action. We hold that this ordinance is not invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Commerce Clause. — Nor did this Court in Bunger consider the Green River ordinance invalid under the Commerce Clause as an unreasonable burden upon or an interference with interstate commerce. As against the cases cited in Bunger’s behalf, this Court relied upon Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 254, 255 (allowing Kansas to have its own inspection for cattle imported, into the state, except for immediate slaughter); Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 525 (allowing a state to regulate the sale and require a formula for stock feeds); Hartford Indemnity Co. v. Illinois, 298 U. S. 155, 158 (upholding an Illinois statute requiring commission merchants to keep record of out-of-state consignments and obtain a license and give a bond).
Appellant does not, of course, argue that the Commerce Clause forbids all local regulation of solicitation for interstate business.
“Under our constitutional system, there necessarily remains to the States, until Congress acts, a wide range for the permissible exercise of power appropriate to their territorial jurisdiction although interstate commerce may be affected.... States are thus enabled to deal with local exigencies and to exert in the absence of conflict with federal legislation an essential protective power.”
Such state power has long been recognized. Appellant argues that the ordinance violates the Commerce Clause “because the practical operation of the ordinance, as applied to appellant and others similarly situated, imposes an undue and discriminatory burden upon interstate commerce and in effect is tantamount to a prohibition of such commerce.” The attempt to secure the householder’s consent is said to be too costly and the results negligible. The extent of this interstate business, as stipulated, is large. Appellant asserts that Green River v. Bunger, supra, is inapplicable to the commerce issue, although the point was made and met, because the effect of the ordinance at that date, 1936, upon commerce was “incidental” and because it was decided “before the widespread enactment of Green River Ordinances and before their actual and cumulative effect upon interstate commerce could possibly be forecast.” It is urged that our recent cases of Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, and Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U. S. 349, demonstrate that this Court will not permit local interests to protect themselves against out-of-state competition by curtailing interstate business.
It was partly because the regulation in Dean Milk Co. discriminated against interstate commerce that it was struck down.
“In thus erecting an economic barrier protecting a major local industry against competition from without the State, Madison plainly discriminates against interstate commerce. This it cannot do, even in the exercise of its unquestioned power to protect the health and safety of its people, if reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, adequate to conserve legitimate local interests, are available.” Id. at 354.
Nor does the clause as to alternatives apply to the Alexandria ordinance. Interstate commerce itself knocks on the local door. It is only by regulating that knock that the interests of the home may be protected by public as distinct from private action. Likewise in Hood & Sons v. Du Mond it was the discrimination against out-of-state dealers that invalidated the order refusing a license to buy milk to an out-of-state distributor. Where no discrimination existed, in a somewhat similar situation, we upheld the state regulation as a permissible burden on commerce. See in accord, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 341 U. S. 329, 336.
We recognize the importance to publishers of our many periodicals of the house-to-house method of selling by solicitation. As a matter of constitutional law, however, they in their business operations are in no different position so far as the Commerce Clause is concerned than the sellers of other wares. Appellant, as their representative or in his own right as a door-to-door canvasser, is no more free to violate local regulations to protect privacy than are other solicitors. As we said above, the usual methods of seeking business are left open by the ordinance. That such methods do not produce as much business as house-to-house canvassing is, constitutionally, immaterial and a matter for adjustment at the local level in the absence of federal legislation. Cf. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408. Taxation that threatens interstate commerce with prohibition or discrimination is bad, Nippert v. Richmond, 327 U. S. 416, 434, but regulation that leaves out-of-state sellers on the same basis as local sellers cannot be invalid for that reason.
While taxation and licensing of hawking or peddling, defined as selling and delivering in the state, has long been thought to show no violation of the Commerce Clause, solicitation of orders with subsequent interstate shipment has been immune from such an exaction. These decisions have been explained by this Court as embodying a protection of commerce against discrimination made most apparent by fixed-sum licenses regardless of sales. Where the legislation is not an added financial burden upon sales in commerce or an exaction for the privilege of doing interstate commerce but a regulation of local matters, different considerations apply.
We think Alexandria’s ordinance falls in the classification of regulation. The economic effects on interstate commerce in door-to-door soliciting cannot be gainsaid. To solicitors so engaged, ordinances such as this compel the development of a new technique of approach to prospects. Their local retail competitors gain advantages from the location of their stores and investments in their stock but the solicitor retains his flexibility of movement and freedom from heavy investment.
The general use of the Green River type of ordinance shows its adaptation to the needs of the many communities that have enacted it. We are not willing even to appraise the suggestion, unsupported in the record, that such wide use springs predominantly from the selfish influence of local merchants.
Even before this Court’s decision in Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, holding invalid, when applied to a person distributing leaflets advertising a religious meeting, an ordinance of the City of Struthers, Ohio, forbidding the summoning of the occupants of a residence to the door, our less extreme cases had created comment. See Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1941), 406.
To the city council falls the duty of protecting its citizens against the practices deemed subversive of privacy and of quiet. A householder depends for protection on his city board rather than churlishly guarding his entrances with orders forbidding the entrance of solicitors. A sign would have to be a small billboard to make the differentiations between the welcome and unwelcome that can be written in an ordinance once cheaply for all homes.
“The police power of a state extends beyond health, morals and safety, and comprehends the duty, within constitutional limitations, to protect the well-being and tranquility of a community.”
When there is a reasonable basis for legislation to protect the social, as distinguished from the economic, welfare of a community, it is not for this Court because of the Commerce Clause to deny the exercise locally of the sovereign power of Louisiana. Changing living conditions or variations in the experiences or habits of different communities may well call for different legislative regulations as to methods and manners of doing business. Powers of municipalities are subject to control by the states. Their judgment of local needs is made from a more intimate knowledge of local conditions than that of any other legislative body. We cannot say that this ordinance of Alexandria so burdens or impede's interstate commerce as to exceed the regulatory powers of that city.
First Amendment. — Finally we come to a point not heretofore urged in this Court as a ground for the invalidation of a Green River ordinance. This is that such an ordinance is an abridgment of freedom of speech and the press. Only the press or oral advocates of ideas could urge this point. It was not open to the solicitors for gadgets or brushes. The point is not that the press is free of the ordinary restraints and regulations of the modern state, such as taxation or labor regulation, referred to above at n. 24, but, as stated in appellant’s brief, “because the ordinance places an arbitrary, unreasonable and undue burden upon a well established and essential method of distribution and circulation of lawful magazines and periodicals and, in effect, is tantamount to a prohibition of the utilization of such method.” Regulation necessarily has elements of prohibition. Thus the argument is not that the moneymaking activities of the solicitor entitle him to go “in or upon private residences” at will, but that the distribution of periodicals through door-to-door canvassing is entitled to First Amendment protection. This kind of distribution is said to be protected because the mere fact that money is made out of the distribution does not bar the publications from First Amendment protection. We agree that the fact that periodicals are sold does not put them beyond the protection of the First Amendment. The selling, however, brings into the transaction a commercial feature.
The First and Fourteenth Amendments have never been treated as absolutes. Freedom of speech or press does not mean that one can talk or distribute where, when and how one chooses. Rights other than those of the advocates are involved. By adjustment of rights, we can have both full liberty of expression and an orderly life.
The case that comes nearest to supporting appellant’s contention is Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141. There a municipal ordinance forbidding anyone summoning the occupants of a residence to the door to receive advertisements was held invalid as applied to the free distribution of dodgers “advertising a religious meeting.” Attention was directed in n. 1 of that case to the fact that the ordinance was not aimed “solely at commercial advertising.” It was said:
“The ordinance does not control anything but the distribution of literature, and in that respect it substitutes the judgment of the community for the judgment of the individual householder.” Pp. 143-144.
The decision to release the distributor was because:
“Freedom to distribute information to every citizen wherever he desires to receive it is so clearly vital to the preservation of a free society that, putting aside reasonable police and health regulations of time and manner of distribution, it must be fully preserved.” Pp. 146-147.
There was dissent even to this carefully phrased application of the principles of the First Amendment. As no element of the commercial entered into this free solicitation and the opinion was narrowly limited to the precise fact of the free distribution of an invitation to religious services, we feel that it is not necessarily inconsistent with the conclusion reached in this case.
In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501, and Tucker v. Texas, 326 U. S. 517, a state was held by this Court unable to punish for trespass, after notice under a state criminal statute, certain distributors of printed matter, more religious than commercial. The statute was held invalid under the principles of the First Amendment. In the Marsh case it was a private corporation, in the Tucker case the United States, that owned the property used as permissive passways in company and government-owned towns. In neither case was there dedication to public use but it seems fair to say that the permissive use of the ways was considered equal to such dedication. Such protection was not extended to colporteurs offending against similar state trespass laws by distributing, after notice to desist, like publications to the tenants in a private apartment house. Hall v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 72, 49 S. E. 2d 369, appeal, after conviction, on the ground of denial of First Amendment rights, dismissed on motion of ap-pellee to dismiss because of lack of substance in the question, 335 U. S. 875, 912; see n. 2, supra.
Since it is not private individuals but the local and federal governments that are prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments from abridging free speech or press, Hall v. Virginia does not rule a conviction for trespass after notice by ordinance. However, if as we have shown above, p. 640, a city council may speak for the citizens on matters subject to the police power, we would have in the present prosecution the time-honored offense of trespass on private grounds after notice. Thus the Marsh and Tucker cases are not applicable here.
This makes the constitutionality of Alexandria’s ordinance turn upon a balancing of the conveniences between some householders’ desire for privacy and the publisher’s right to distribute publications in the precise way that those soliciting for him think brings the best results. The issue brings into collision the rights of the hospitable housewife, peering on Monday morning around her chained door, with those of Mr. Breard’s courteous, well-trained but possibly persistent solicitor, offering a bargain on culture and information through a joint subscription to the Saturday Evening Post, Pic and Today’s Woman. Behind the housewife are many housewives and home-owners in the towns where Green River ordinances offer their aid. Behind Mr. Breard are “Keystone” with an annual business of $5,000,000 in subscriptions and the periodicals with their use of house-to-house canvassing to secure subscribers for their valuable publications, together with other housewives who desire solicitors to offer them the opportunity and remind and help them, at their doors, to subscribe for publications.
Subscriptions may be made by anyone interested in receiving the magazines without the annoyances of house-to-house canvassing. We think those communities that have found these methods of sale obnoxious may control them by ordinance. It would be, it seems to us, a misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press to use those guarantees to force a community to admit the solicitors of publications to the home premises of its residents. We see no abridgment of the principles of the First Amendment in this ordinance.
Affirmed.
Restatement, Torts, §167; Cooley on Torts (4th ed.) §248.
Hall v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 72, 49 S. E. 2d 369, appeal dismissed, 335 U. S. 875; statutes collected, Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 147, n. 10.
“We must assume that the practice existed in the town as the first section states, and that it had become annoying and disturbing and objectionable to at least some of the citizens. We think like practices have become so general and common as to be of judicial knowledge, and that the frequent ringing of doorbells of private residences by itinerant vendors and solicitors is in fact a nuisance to the occupants of homes. It is not appellee and its solicitors and their methods alone that must be considered in determining the reasonableness of the ordinance, but many others as well who seek in the same way to dispose of their wares. One follows another until the ringing doorbells disturb the quietude of the home and become a constant annoyance.” Town of Green River v. Fuller Brush Co., 65 F. 2d 112, 114.
Town of Green River v. Bunger, 50 Wyo. 52, 70, 58 P. 2d 456, 462; cf. Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. City of Richmond, 298 F. 126.
The ordinance now under consideration, § 3, does not apply to “the sale, or soliciting of orders for the sale, of milk, dairy products, vegetables, poultry, eggs and other farm and garden produce Appellant makes no point against the present ordinance on the ground of invalid classification. Cf. Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S. 141; Williams v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 79, 90.
The validity of Green River ordinances has also been considered in a number of state courts. Five states — Colorado, Louisiana (in cases previous to the instant one), New Mexico, New York, and Wyoming— have upheld the ordinance, against objections that it was beyond the scope of the police power, deprived vendors of property rights without due process of law, deprived them of the equal protection of the laws, and infringed upon the Commerce Clause and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. McCormick v. City of Montrose, 105 Colo. 493, 99 P. 2d 969; Shreveport v. Cunningham, 190 La. 481, 182 So. 649; Alexandria v. Jones, 216 La. 923, 45 So. 2d 79; Green v. Gallup, 46 N. M. 71, 120 P. 2d 619; People v. Bohnke, 287 N. Y. 154, 38 N. E. 2d 478; Green River v. Bunger, 50 Wyo. 52, 58 P. 2d 456.
Eleven states, on the other hand, have held such ordinances invalid. All of these states acted in part at least on nonfederal grounds, and the only federal constitutional argument, which was considered by three states, was that based on the Due Process Clause. No state court, in voiding the ordinance, has reached the Commerce Clause or the First Amendment issues urged here. The principal grounds relied on have been that the prohibited conduct amounted at most only to a private nuisance and not a public one; that there was no showing of injury to public health or safety by the prohibited conduct; that there was a vested right in a lawful occupation, so that it was subject only to regulation but not to prohibition; and that the ordinance was beyond the delegated powers of the municipality. Prior v. White, 132 Fla. 1, 180 So. 347 (not more than a private nuisance); Clay v. Mathews, 185 Ga. 279, 194 S. E. 172 (affirming without opinion by an evenly divided court); DeBerry v. LaGrange, 62 Ga. App. 74, 8 S. E. 2d 146 (not a nuisance; invades an inalienable right to the occupation of soliciting); Osceola v. Blair, 231 Iowa 770, 2 N. W. 2d 83 (not a nuisance, deprives persons of a property right in their occupation); Mt. Sterling v. Donaldson Baking Co., 287 Ky. 781, 155 S. W. 2d 237 (not a public nuisance, beyond the scope of the municipal police power); Jewel Tea Co. v. Bel Air, 172 Md. 536, 192 A. 417 (not a nuisance, not within delegated powers of municipality) ; Jewel Tea Co. v. Geneva, 137 Neb. 768, 291 N. W. 664 (not a public nuisance, arbitrary, violates Due Process Clause, citing Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U. S. 504); N. J. Good Humor, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, 124 N. J. L. 162, 11 A. 2d 113 (not a valid police regulation, beyond powers of municipality); McAlester v. Grand Union Tea Co., 186 Okla. 487, 98 P. 2d 924 (only a private nuisance); Orangeburg v. Farmer, 181 S. C. 143, 186 S. E. 783 (unreasonable, prohibits a lawful occupation, in violation of state and federal due process, enacted with improper motive); Ex parte Faulkner, 143 Tex. Cr. R. 272, 158 S. W. 2d 525 (beyond the powers of the municipality); White v. Culpeper, 172 Va. 630, 1 S. E. 2d 269 (not a public nuisance).
The ordinances in the Bel Air and Culpeper cases contained discriminatory provisions not involved in the instant case. It should be noted also that while New York upheld the ordinance in Bohnke, supra, as applied to distribution of religious tracts, that case was decided before this Court’s decision in Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141. Enforcement of Green River ordinances has subsequently been enjoined as against members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect, in Donley v. Colorado Springs, 40 F. Supp. 15, and Zimmerman v. London (Ohio), 38 F. Supp. 582.
He cited: Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland, 268 U. S. 325; Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U. S. 34; International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91; Rogers v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 401; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489; Baldwin v. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511; Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U. S. 665.
An ordinance forbidding the sale of cigarettes without a license was upheld.
“Regulations respecting the pursuit of a lawful trade or business are of very frequent occurrence in the various cities of the country, and what such regulations shall be and to what particular trade, business or occupation they shall apply, are questions for the State to determine, and their determination comes within the proper exercise of the police power by the State, and unless the regulations are so utterly unreasonable and extravagant in their nature and purpose that the property and personal rights of the citizen are unnecessarily, and in a manner wholly arbitrary, interfered with or destroyed without due process of law, they do not extend beyond the power of the State to pass, and they form no subject for Federal interference.” 177 U. S. at 188.
A statute making it unlawful to refuse a purchaser of a ticket admission to a place of public entertainment except in certain circumstances relating to drunkenness and vice, was upheld.
“Does the statute deprive the defendant of any property right without due process of law? We answer this question in the negative. Decisions of this court, familiar to all, and which need not be cited, recognize the possession, by each State, of powers never surrendered to the General Government; which powers the State, except as restrained by its own constitution or the Constitution of the United States, may exert not only for the public health, the public morals and the public safety, but for the general or common good, for the well-being, comfort and good order of the people.” 204 U. S. at 363. “Such a regulation, in itself just, is likewise promotive of peace and good order among those who attend places of public entertainment or amusement.” Id. at 364.
The following sections of a statute of Arkansas were upheld:
“ ‘Sec. 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, except as hereinafter provided in section 2 of this act, to drum or solicit business or patronage for any hotel, lodging house, eating house, bath house, physician, masseur, surgeon, or other medical practitioner, on the train, cars, or depots of any railroad or common carrier operating or running within the State of Arkansas.
“ ‘Sec. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any railroad or common carrier operating a line within the State of Arkansas knowingly to permit its trains, cars or depots within the State to be used by any person or persons for drumming or soliciting business or patronage for any hotel, lodging house, eating house, bath house, physician, masseur, surgeon, or other medical practitioner, or drumming or soliciting for any business or profession whatsoever;....’” 217 U. S. 86.
This Court quoted the Supreme Court of Arkansas as saying:
“ ‘Drummers who swarm through the trains soliciting for physicians, bath houses, hotels, etc., make existence a burden to those who are subjected to their repeated solicitations. It is true that the traveler may turn a deaf ear to these importunities, but this does not render it any the less unpleasant and annoying. The drummer may keep within the law against disorderly conduct, and still render himself a source of annoyance to travelers by his much beseeching to be allowed to lead the way to a doctor or a hotel.’ ” Id. 89.
But cf. Jensen, Burdening Interstate Direct Selling, 12 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 257, 275: “To disclaim this economic effect of upholding the ordinance and to suggest other methods of merchandising to direct-selling businesses short of local retailing, as was done by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals [65 F. 2d 112], shows a woeful lack of knowledge of the actual problems of direct-to-consumer merchandising.”
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, 523:
“Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.” Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U. S. 106; Daniel v. Family Security Life Ins. Co., 336 U. S. 220.
Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423, 454-455; Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U. S. 577, 586.
Constitution, Art. I, § 8.
The cases cited for Bunger may be easily distinguished. The cases of the Shelby County Taxing District, Rogers v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 401, and Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U. S. 665, relate to taxes upon or licenses to do an interstate business. The same is true of Real Silk Hosiery Mills v. Portland, 268 U. S. 325. There is, however, in this latter case a statement that should be noticed: “Nor can we accept the theory that an expressed purpose to prevent possible frauds is enough to justify legislation which really interferes with the free flow of legitimate interstate commerce. See Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189.” P. 336. 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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A preliminary consideration that is helpful to the solution of this litigation is whether, under 8 CFR § 175.57 (b), the Attorney General has authority to deny to a lawful permanent resident of the United States, who is an alien continuously residing and physically present therein, the opportunity to be heard in opposition to an order for his “permanent exclusion” and consequent deportation, provided the Attorney General determines that the order is based on information of a confidential nature, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest. Assuming, as seems to be clear, that the Attorney General does not have such authority, the critical issue then presented is whether he has that authority under the following additional circumstances: the resident alien is a seaman, he currently maintains his residence in the United States and usually is physically present there, however, he is returning from a voyage as a seaman on a vessel of American registry with its home port in the United States, that voyage has included scheduled calls at foreign ports in the Far East, and he is detained on board by order of the Attorney General. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that these additional circumstances do not change the result and that the Attorney General does not have the authority suggested.
Petitioner, Kwong Hai Chew, is a Chinese seaman last admitted to the United States in 1945. Thereafter, he married a native American and bought the home in which they reside in New York. Having proved his good moral character for the preceding five years, petitioner secured suspension of his deportation. In 1949, he was admitted to permanent residence in the United States as of January 10, 1945. In World War II, he served with credit in the United States Merchant Marine. He never has had any difficulty with governmental authorities. In April, 1950, he filed a petition for naturalization which is still pending. In November, 1950, he was screened and passed by the Coast Guard for employment as a seaman on a merchant vessel. In the same month he signed articles of employment as chief steward on the S. S. Sir John Franklin, a vessel of American registry with its home port in New York City. The voyage was to include calls at several foreign ports in the Far East. He remained aboard the vessel on this voyage but, at San Francisco, in March, 1951, the immigration inspector ordered him “temporarily excluded,” under 8 CFR § 175.57, as an alien whose entry was deemed prejudicial to the public interest.
On the vessel’s arrival in New York, March 29, petitioner’s “temporary exclusion” was continued and he was not permitted to land. March 30, he sought a writ of habeas corpus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charging that his detention was arbitrary and capricious and a denial of due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Purporting to act under 8 CFR § 175.57 (b), the Attorney General directed that petitioner be denied a hearing before a Board of Special Inquiry and that his “temporary exclusion be made permanent.” The Attorney General continues to deny petitioner all information as to the nature and cause of any accusations against him and all opportunity to be heard in opposition to the order for his “exclusion.” He is detained at Ellis Island “for safekeeping on behalf of the master of the S. S. ‘Sir John Franklin.’ ”
The writ was issued but, after a hearing, it was dismissed by the District Court. 97 F. Supp. 592. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 192 F. 2d 1009. Both courts relied upon Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537. We granted certiorari because of the doubtful applicability of that decision and the importance of the issue in the administration of the Nation’s immigration and naturalization program. 343 U. S. 933. Bail was denied by the District Court. 98 F. Supp. 717. It also was denied by the Court of Appeals, without prejudice to an application to this Court. Applications for bail are pending before the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and this Court.
The issue is petitioner’s detention, without notice of any charge against him and without opportunity to be heard in opposition thereto. Petitioner contends that such detention is not authorized by 8 CFR § 175.57 (b). He contends also that, if that regulation does purport to authorize such detention, the regulation is invalid as an attempt to deprive him of his liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Agreement with petitioner’s first contention makes it unnecessary to reach his second.
The case of Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, relied upon below, is not in point. It relates to the rights of an alien entrant and does not deal with the question of a resident alien’s right to be heard. For purposes of his constitutional right to due process, we assimilate petitioner’s status to that of an alien continuously residing and physically present in the United States. To simplify the issue, we consider first what would have been his constitutional right to a hearing had he not undertaken his voyage to foreign ports but had remained continuously within the territorial boundaries of the United States.
1. It is well established that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. He may not be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law. Although it later may be established, as respondents contend, that petitioner can be expelled and deported, yet before his expulsion, he is entitled to notice of the nature of the charge and a hearing at least before an executive or administrative tribunal. Although Congress may prescribe conditions for his expulsion and deportation, not even Congress may expel him without allowing him a fair opportunity to be heard. For example, he is entitled to a fair chance to prove mistaken identity. At the present stage of the instant case, the issue is not one of exclusion, expulsion or deportation. It is one of legislative construction and of procedural due process.
This being recognized, we interpret this regulation as making no attempt to question a resident alien’s constitutional right to due process. Section 175.57 (b) uses the term “excludable” in designating the aliens to which it applies. That term relates naturally to entrant aliens and to those assimilated to their status. The regulation nowhere refers to the expulsion of aliens, which is the term that would apply naturally to aliens who are lawful permanent residents physically present within the United States. Accordingly, we find no language in the regulation that would have required its application to petitioner had he remained continuously and physically within the United States. It thus seems clear that the Attorney General would not have had the authority to deny to petitioner a hearing in opposition to such an order as was here made, provided petitioner had remained within the United States.
The regulation before us was issued by the Secretary of State and concurred in by the Attorney General, pursuant to Presidential Proclamations No. 2523, 3 CFR, 1943 Cum. Supp., 270, and No. 2850, 3 CFR, 1949 Supp., 41. The latter proclamation issued August 17, 1949, also “ratified and confirmed” the regulation. Those proclamations, in turn, depend upon § 1 of the Act of May 22, 1918, 40 Stat. 559, as amended, June 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 252, 22 U. S. C. § 223. It is not questioned that the regulation, as above interpreted, comes within these authorizations, or that such authorizations have been extended to include the dates material in this case. 66 Stat. 163, 333. We find nothing in the statute or the proclamations which calls for, permits or sustains a broader interpretation of 8 CFR § 175.57 (b) than we have given to it. The wording also now reflects congressional intent because substantially the same language was inserted by Congress in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 1008. See note 1, supra.
2. Petitioner’s final contention is that if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and also is a seaman who has gone outside of the United States on a vessel of American registry, with its home port in the United States, and, upon completion of such voyage, has returned on such vessel to the United States and is still on board, he is still, from a constitutional point of view, a person entitled to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. We do not regard the constitutional status which petitioner indisputably enjoyed prior to his voyage as terminated by that voyage. From a constitutional point of view, he is entitled to due process without regard to whether or not, for immigration purposes, he is to be treated as an entrant alien, and we do not now reach the question whether he is to be so treated.
Section 175.57 (b)’s authorization of the denial of hearings raises no constitutional conflict if limited to “excludable” aliens who are not within the protection of the Fifth Amendment. The assimilation of petitioner, for constitutional purposes, to the status of a continuous resident physically present in the United States also accords with the Nation’s immigration and naturalization program. For example, for purposes of naturalization, such an assimilation was expressly prescribed in the Nationality Act of 1940:
“Sec. 307. (a) No person . . . shall be naturalized unless such petitioner, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing petition for naturalization has resided continuously within the United States for at least five years ....
“(d) The following shall be regarded as residence within the United States within the meaning of this chapter:
“(2) Continuous service by a seaman on a vessel or vessels whose home port is in the United States and which are of American registry or American owned, if rendered subsequent to the applicant’s lawful entry into the United States for permanent residence and immediately preceding the date of naturalization.” 54 Stat. 1142-1143, 8 U. S. C. § 707. See also, § 325, 54 Stat. 1150, as amended, 64 Stat. 1015, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 725.
While it may be that a resident alien’s ultimate right to remain in the United States is subject to alteration by statute or authorized regulation because of a voyage undertaken by him to foreign ports, it does not follow that he is thereby deprived of his constitutional right to procedural due process. His status as a person within the meaning and protection of the Fifth Amendment cannot be capriciously taken from him. Where neither Congress, the President, the Secretary of State nor the Attorney General has inescapably said so, we are not ready to assume that any of them has attempted to deprive such a person of a fair hearing.
This preservation of petitioner’s right to due process does not leave an unprotected spot in the Nation’s armor. Before petitioner’s admission to permanent residence, he was required to satisfy the Attorney General and Congress of his suitability for that status. Before receiving clearance for his foreign cruise, he was screened and approved by the Coast Guard. Before acceptance of his petition for naturalization, as well as before final action thereon, assurance is necessary that he is not a security risk. See 8 U. S. C., c. 11, Subchapter III — Nationality Through Naturalization, §§ 701-747, as amended.
We do not reach the issue as to what would be the constitutional status of 8 CFR § 175.57 (b) if it were interpreted as denying to petitioner all opportunity for a hearing. Also, we do not reach the issue as to what will be the authority of the Attorney General to order the deportation of petitioner after giving him reasonable notice of the charges against him and allowing him a hearing sufficient to meet the requirements of procedural due process.
For the reasons stated, we conclude that the detention of petitioner, without notice of the charges against him and without opportunity to be heard in opposition to them, is not authorized by 8 CFR § 175.57 (b). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court.
Mr. Justice Minton dissents.
Ҥ 175.57 Entry not permitted in special cases. . . .
“(b) In the case of an alien temporarily excluded by an official of the Department of Justice on the ground that he is, or may be excludable under one or more of the categories set forth in § 175.53, no hearing by a board of special inquiry shall be held until after the case is reported to the Attorney General and such a hearing is directed by the Attorney General or his representative. In any special case the alien may be denied a hearing before a board of special inquiry and an appeal from the decision of that board if the Attorney General determines that he is excludable under one of the categories set forth in § 175.53 on the basis of information of a confidential nature, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest.”
The categories set forth in § 175.53 as a basis for exclusion are those defined “to be prejudicial to the public interest.” They include, for example, membership in “a political organization associated with or carrying out policies of any foreign government opposed to the measures adopted by the Government of the United States in the public interest . . .” or being “engaged in organizing, teaching, advo-eating, or directing any rebellion, insurrection, or violent uprising against the United States.” 8 CFR.
For statutory language similar to that in 8 CFR § 175.57, see § 5 of the Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 1008, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 137-4, referring to aliens who are “excludable” under § 137. The Government, in the instant case, relies upon 8 CFR § 175.57, rather than upon 8 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 137-4.
“Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Congress favors the suspension of deportation in the case of each alien hereinafter named, in which case the Attorney General has suspended deportation for more than six months.
“A-6665545, Chew, Kwong Hai, or Harry Kwong (Hai Chew).
“Agreed to July 20, 1949.” 63 Stat. 1240, 1242.
For the effect of the above action, see § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended, 62 Stat. 1206, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. Y) §155 (c):
“(c) In the case of any alien . . . who is deportable under any law of the United States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years, the Attorney General may . . . suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization or if ineligible, such ineligibility is solely by reason of his race, if he finds (a) that such deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien; or (b) that such alien has resided continuously in the United States for seven years or more and is residing in the United States upon the effective date of this Act. If the deportation of any alien is suspended under the provisions of this subsection for more than six months, a complete and detailed statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law in the case shall be reported to the Congress with the reasons for such suspension. ... If during the session of the Congress at which a ease is reported, or prior to the close of the session of the Congress next following the session at which a case is reported, the Congress passes a concurrent resolution stating in substance that it favors the suspension of such deportation, the Attorney General shall cancel deportation proceedings. . . . Deportation proceedings shall not be canceled in the case of any alien who was not legally admitted for permanent residence at the time of his last entry into the United States, unless such alien pays ... a fee of $18 .... [In the instant case this was paid.] Upon the cancellation of such proceedings in any case in which fee has been paid the Commissioner shall record the alien’s admission for permanent residence as of the date of his last entry into the United States . . . .”
8 CFR § 175.41 (q) states that for the purposes of §§ 175.41 to 175.62 “The term ‘an alien who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States’ means an alien who has been lawfully admitted into the continental United States, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or Hawaii for permanent residence therein and who has since such admission maintained his domicile in the United States: . . . .”
For the nature and significance of such clearance, see Executive Order No. 10173, of October 18, 1950, especially §§ 6.10-1 to 6.10-9, now published, as amended, in 33 CFR, 1951 Cum. Pocket Supp. That order was issued pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1917, as amended by the Magnuson Act of August 9, 1950, 64 Stat. 427-428, 50 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 191. It has now been implemented by regulations effective December 27, 1950, published, as amended, in 33 CFR, 1951 Cum. Pocket Supp., §§ 121.01-125.37. See also, Parker v. Lester, 98 F. Supp. 300, 191 F. 2d 1020.
Section 6.10-1, as it existed at the date of petitioner’s clearance, provided:
“Issuance of documents and employment of persons aboard vessels. No person shall be issued a document required for employment on a merchant vessel of the United States nor shall any licensed officer or certificated man be employed on a merchant vessel of the United States if the Commandant is satisfied that the character and habits of life of such person are such as to authorize the belief that the presence of the individual on board would be inimical to the security of the United States: . . . .” 15 Fed. Reg. 7007.
Later regulations have published detailed security provisions as to who may be employed on merchant vessels of the United States of 100 gross tons and upward, whether engaged in foreign or other trade. 33 CFR, 1951 Cum. Pocket Supp., §§ 121.13-121.16.
In this opinion “exclusion” means preventing someone from entering the United States who is actually outside of the United States or is treated as being so. “Expulsion” means forcing someone out of the United States who is actually within the United States or is treated as being so. “Deportation” means the moving of someone away from the United States, after his exclusion or expulsion.
“. . . The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all 'persons’ and guard against any encroachiiient on those rights by federal or state authority.” Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 161 (concurring opinion).
“The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society. Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization. During his probationary residence, this Court has steadily enlarged his right against Executive deportation except upon full and fair hearing. . . . And, at least since 1886, we have extended to the person and property of resident aliens important constitutional guaranties — such as the due process of law of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763, 770-771.
The latter case also comments that “in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien’s presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act.” Id., at 771. That ease related to nonresident enemy aliens who had never been in the United States, rather than to a lawful permanent resident in the position of petitioner. There is no lack of physical presence for jurisdictional purposes in the instant case.
“. . . But this court has never held, nor must we now be understood as holding, that administrative officers, when executing the provisions of a statute involving the liberty of persons, may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in ‘due process of law’ as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. One of these principles is that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without opportunity, at some time, to be heard, before such officers, in respect of the matters upon which that liberty depends — not necessarily an opportunity upon a regular, set occasion, and according to the forms of judicial procedure, but one that will secure the prompt, vigorous action contemplated by Congress, and at the same time be appropriate to the nature of the case upon which such officers are required to act. Therefore, it is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer, at any time within the year limited by the statute, arbitrarily to cause an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States. No such arbitrary power can exist where the principles involved in due process of law are recognized.” The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101.
“. . . It was under compulsion of the Constitution that this Court long ago held that an antecedent deportation statute must provide a hearing at least for aliens who had not entered clandestinely and who had been here some time even if illegally.” Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49-50. See also Johnson v. Eisentrager, supra, at 770-771; Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524, 538.
See Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, recognizing the right to expel and deport resident aliens. “When the Constitution requires a hearing, it requires a fair one, one before a tribunal which meets at least currently prevailing standards of impartiality.” Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, supra, at 50; Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 454, 457-458, 464.
It is to be noted that the cases generally cited in this field in relation to the exclusion, expulsion or deportability of resident aliens deal only with that ultimate issue, and not with the right of the resident alien to a hearing sufficient to satisfy procedural due process. The reports show that there were hearings and that in some cases the Court considered whether the hearings had been fair. E. g., United States v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422, 424; United States v. Corsi, 287 U. S. 129, 131; United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U. S. 398, 400; Quon Quon Poy v. Johnson, 273 U. S. 352, 358; Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291, 293; Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78, 83; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 729.
The preceding subsection, 175.57 (a), uses the additional word “deported” but only to supplement “excluded”: “Any alien so temporarily excluded by an official of the Department of Justice shall not be admitted and shall be excluded and deported unless the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is satisfied that the admission of the alien would not be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.” 8 CFR.
This provision survives in a modified form in § 330 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 251. Section 330 (b) includes a savings clause affecting those who applied for naturalization before September 23, 1950. Section 405 (a) also contains a general savings clause. 66 Stat. 280.
Existing statutory and administrative provisions for “Exclusion Without Hearing” are discussed in the Report of the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization entitled “Whom We Shall Welcome” dated January 1, 1953, at pages 228-231. The discussion treats the provisions as applicable to entrant and reentrant aliens but does not even suggest that they are applicable to aliens lawfully admitted to permanent residence and physically present within the United States. The report discusses the harshness of the “reentry doctrine” and recommends its modification at pages 199— 200. It does not, however, even suggest that the reentry doctrine attempts to limit the constitutional right to a hearing which resident aliens, in the status of petitioner, may have under the Fifth Amendment. The instances of hardship which the report cites appear to have been disclosed at hearings held on the issue of the alien’s right to reenter.
See note 2, supra.
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:
|
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution protect an assistant public defender who is satisfactorily performing his job from discharge solely because of his political beliefs.
Respondents, Aaron Finkel and Alan Tabakman, commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in order to preserve their positions as assistant public defenders in Rockland County, New York. On January 4,1978, on the basis of a showing that the petitioner public defender was about to discharge them solely because they were Republicans, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order preserving the status quo. After hearing evidence for eight days, the District Court entered detailed findings of fact and permanently enjoined petitioner from terminating or attempting to terminate respondents’ employment “upon the sole grounds of their political beliefs.” 457 F. Supp. 1284, 1285 (1978). The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum opinion, judgment order reported at 598 F. 2d 609 (CA2 1979) (table).
The critical facts can be summarized briefly. The Rockland County Public Defender is appointed by the County Legislature for a term of six years. He in turn appoints nine assistants who serve at his pleasure. The two respondents have served as assistants since their respective appointments in March 1971 and September 1975; they are both Republicans.
Petitioner Branti’s predecessor, a Republican, was appointed in 1972 by a Republican-dominated County Legislature. By 1977, control of the legislature had shifted to the Democrats and petitioner, also a Democrat, was appointed to replace the incumbent when his term expired. As soon as petitioner was formally appointed on January 3, 1978, he began executing termination notices for six of the nine assistants then in office. Respondents were among those who were to be terminated. With one possible exception, the nine who were to be appointed or retained were all Democrats and were all selected by Democratic legislators or Democratic town chairmen on a basis that had been determined by the Democratic caucus.
The District Court found that Finkel and Tabakman had been selected for termination solely because they were Republicans and thus did not have the necessary Democratic sponsors:
“The sole grounds for the attempted removal of plaintiffs were the facts that plaintiffs’ political beliefs differed from those of the ruling Democratic majority in the County Legislature and that the Democratic majority had determined that Assistant Public Defender appointments were to be made on political bases.” 457 F. Supp., at 1293.
The court rejected petitioner’s belated attempt to justify the dismissals on nonpolitical grounds. Noting that both Branti and his predecessor had described respondents as “competent attorneys,” the District Court expressly found that both had been “satisfactorily performing their duties as Assistant Public Defenders.” Id., at 1292.
Having concluded that respondents had been discharged solely because of their political beliefs, the District Court held that those discharges would be permissible under this Court’s decision in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, only if assistant public defenders are the type of policymaking, confidential employees who may be discharged solely bn the basis of their political affiliations. The court concluded that respondents clearly did not fall within that category. Although recognizing that they had broad responsibilities with respect to particular cases that were assigned to them, the court found that respondents had “very limited, if any, responsibility” with respect to the overall operation of the public defender’s office. They did not “act as advisors or formulate plans for the implementation of the broad goals of the office” and, although they made decisions in the context of specific cases, “they do not make decisions about the orientation and operation of the office in which they work.” 457 F. Supp., at 1291.
The District Court also rejected the argument that the confidential character of respondents’ work justified conditioning their employment on political grounds. The court found that they did not occupy any confidential relationship to the policy-making process, and did not have access to confidential documents that influenced policymaking deliberations. Rather, the only confidential information to which they had access was the product of their attorney-client relationship with the office’s clients; to the extent that such information was shared with the public defender, it did not relate to the formulation of office policy.
In light of these factual findings, the District Court concluded that petitioner could not terminate respondents’ employment as assistant public defenders consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments. On appeal, a panel of the Second Circuit affirmed, specifically holding that the District Court’s findings of fact were adequately supported by the record. That court also expressed “no doubt” that the District Court “was correct in concluding that an assistant public defender was neither a policymaker nor a confidential employee.” We granted certiorari, 443 U. S. 904, and now affirm.
Petitioner advances two principal arguments for reversal: First, that the holding in Elrod v. Burns is limited to situations in which government employees are coerced into pledging allegiance to a political party that they would not voluntarily support and does not apply to a simple requirement that an employee be sponsored by the party in power; and, second, that, even if party sponsorship is an unconstitutional condition of continued public employment for clerks, deputies, and janitors, it is an acceptable requirement for an assistant public defender.
I
In Elrod v. Burns the Court held that the newly elected Democratic Sheriff of Cook County, Ill., had violated the constitutional rights of certain non-civil-service employees by discharging them “because they did not support and were not members of the Democratic Party and had failed to obtain the sponsorship of one of its leaders.” 427 U. S., at 351. That holding was supported by two separate opinions.
Writing for the plurality, Mr. Justice Brennan identified two separate but interrelated reasons supporting the conclusion that the discharges were prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. First, he analyzed the impact of a political patronage system on freedom of belief and association. Noting that in order to retain their jobs, the Sheriff’s employees were required to pledge their allegiance to the Democratic Party, work for or contribute to the party’s candidates, or obtain a Democratic sponsor, he concluded that the inevitable tendency of such a system was to coerce employees into compromising their true beliefs. That conclusion, in his opinion, brought the practice within the rule of cases like Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, condemning the use of governmental power to prescribe what the citizenry-must accept as orthodox opinion.
Second, apart from the potential impact of patronage dismissals on the formation and expression of opinion, Me. Justice Brennan- also stated that the practice had the effect of imposing an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of a public benefit and therefore came within the rule of cases like Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593. In support of the holding in Perry that even an employee with no contractual right to retain his job cannot be dismissed for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, the Court had stated:
“For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to ‘produce a result which [it] could not command directly.’ Speiser v. Randall, 357 U, S. 513, 526. Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible.
“Thus, the respondent’s lack of a contractual or tenure ‘right’ to re-employment for the 1969-1970 academic year is immaterial to his free speech claim. Indeed, twice before, this Court has specifically held that the non-renewal of a nontenured public school teacher’s one-year contract may not be predicated on his exercise of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Shelton v. Tucker, [364 U. S. 479]; Keyishian v. Board of Regents, [385 U. S. 589]. We reaffirm those holdings here.” Id., at 597-598.
If the First Amendment protects a public employee from discharge based on what he has said, it must also protect him from discharge based on what he believes. Under this line of analysis, unless the government can demonstrate “an overriding interest,” 427 U. S., at 368, "of vital importance,” id., at 362, requiring that a person’s private beliefs conform to those of the hiring authority, his beliefs cannot be the sole basis for depriving him of continued public employment.
Jurisdiction was based on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3).
Pursuant to Rule 65 (a) (2) of tbe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plenary trial was consolidated with the hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction.
The District Court explained that its ruling required petitioner to retain respondents in their prior positions, with full privileges as employees: “ [Compliance with the judgment to be entered herein will require defendant both to permit plaintiffs to work as Assistants and to pay them the normal Assistant’s salary. Mere payment of plaintiffs’ salary will not constitute full compliance with the judgment entered herein; for plaintiffs’ constitutional right, which is upheld herein, is the right not to be dismissed from public employment upon the sole ground of their political beliefs. Defendant cannot infringe that right of plaintiffs with impunity by the mere expedient of paying plaintiffs a sum of money.” 457 F. Supp. 1284, 1285-1286, n. 4 (1978).
The District Court noted that Finkel had changed his party registration from Republican to Democrat in 1977 in the apparent hope that such action would enhance his chances of being reappointed as an assistant when a new, Democratic public defender was appointed. The court concluded that, despite Finkel’s formal change of party registration, the parties had regarded him as a Republican at all relevant times. Id., at 1285, n. 2.
“An examination of the selection process that was employed in arriving at the name of each of the nine 1978 appointees shows that the hiring decisions were, for all practical purposes, made by Democratic legislators or chairpersons in accordance with the procedures that had been decided upon by the Democratic caucus, and, with respect to every selection save that of Sanchez, those procedures excluded from consideration candidates who were affiliated with a party other than the Democratic Party. Moreover, the evidence shows that the only reason for which Branti sought to terminate plaintiffs as Assistants was that they were not recommended or sponsored pursuant to the procedures that had been decided upon by the Democratic caucus.” Id., at 1288.
Petitioner also makes two other arguments. First, he contends that the action should have been dismissed because the evidence showed that he would have discharged respondents in any event due to their lack of competence as public defenders. See Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274. The Court of Appeals correctly held this contention foreclosed by the District Court’s findings of fact, which it found to be adequately supported by the record. In view of our settled practice of accepting, absent the most exceptional circumstances, factual determinations in which the district court and the court of appeals have concurred, we decline to review these and other findings of fact petitioner argues were clearly erroneous. See Graver Mfg. Co. v. Linde Co., 336 U. S. 271, 275; United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268, 273.
Second, relying on testimony that an assistant’s term in office automatically expires when the public defender’s term expires, petitioner argues that we should treat this case as involving a “failure to reappoint” rather than a dismissal and, as a result, should apply a less stringent standard. I’etitioner argues that because respondents knew the system was a patronage system when they were hired, they did not have a reasonable expectation of being rehired when control of the office shifted to the Democratic Party. A similar waiver argument was rejected in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 360, n. 13; see also id., at 380 (Powell, J., dissenting). After Elrod, it is clear that the lack of a reasonable expectation of continued employment is not sufficient to justify a dismissal based solely on an employee’s private political beliefs.
Unlike Me. Justice Powell in dissent, post, at 526-532, petitioner does not ask us to reconsider the holding in Elrod.
Mr. Justice Brennan noted that many other practices are included within the definition of a patronage system, including placing supporters in government jobs not made available by political discharges, granting supporters lucrative government contracts, and giving favored wards improved public services. In that case, as in this, however, the only practice at issue was the dismissal of public employees for partisan reasons. 427 U. S., at 353; id, at 374 (opinion of Stewart, J.). In light of the limited nature of the question presented, we have no occasion to address petitioner’s argument that there is a compelling governmental interest in maintaining a political sponsorship system for filling vacancies in the public defender’s office.
“An individual who is a member of the out-party maintains affiliation with his own party at the risk of losing his job. He works for the election of his party’s candidates and espouses its policies at the same risk. The financial and campaign assistance that he is induced to provide to another party furthers the advancement of that party’s policies to the detriment of his party’s views and ultimately his own beliefs, and any assessment of his salary is tantamount to coerced belief. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976). Even a pledge of allegiance to another party, however ostensible, only serves to compromise the individual’s true beliefs. Since the average public employee is hardly in the financial position to support his party and another, or to lend his time to two parties, the individual’s ability to act according to his beliefs and to associate with others of his political persuasion is constrained, and support for his party is diminished.” Id., at 355-356.
Mr. Justice BrenNAN also indicated that a patronage system may affect freedom of belief more indirectly, by distorting the electoral process. Given the increasingly pervasive character of government employment, he concluded that the power to starve political opposition by commanding partisan support, financial and otherwise, may have a significant impact on the formation and expression of political beliefs.
“Regardless of the nature of the inducement, whether it be by the denial of public employment or, as in Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), by the influence of a teacher over students, ‘[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.’ Id., at 642.” Id., at 356.
“The Court recognized in United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 100 (1947), that ‘Congress may not “enact a regulation providing that no Republican, Jew or Negro shall be appointed to federal office. . . This principle was reaffirmed in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 (1952), which held that a State could not require its employees to establish their loyalty by extracting an oath denying past affiliation with Communists. And in Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 898 (1961), the Court recognized again that the government could not deny employment because of previous membership in a particular party.” Id., at 357-358.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The Court of Appeals has based its remand in part on the absence of “proof of likely source,” which it regards as an “indispensable” element of the net worth method, citing Holland v. United States, 348 U. S. 121, in support of its conclusion. In Holland we held that proof of a likely source was “sufficient” to convict in a net worth case where the Government did not negative all the possible nontaxable sources of the alleged net worth increase. This was not intended to imply that proof of a likely source was necessary in every case. On the contrary, should all possible sources of nontaxable income be negatived, there would be no necessity for proof of a likely source. The above explanation must be taken into consideration in applying the Holland doctrine to this case. A new trial being permissible under the terms of the order of the Court of Appeals, we affirm its judgment.
Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the judgment below on the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 241 F. 2d 895, 900-901.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question of the adequacy of a “freedom-of-choice” plan as compliance with Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (Brown II), a question also considered today in No. 695, Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, ante, p. 430. The factual setting is very similar to that in Green.
This action was brought in September 1965 in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Injunctive relief was sought against the continued maintenance by respondent Board of Education of an alleged racially segregated school system. The school district has an area of 80 square miles and a population of some 3,000, of whom 1,800 are Negroes and 1,200 are whites. Persons of both races reside throughout the county; there is no residential segregation. The school system consists of two combination elementary and high schools located about 10 blocks apart in Gould, the district’s only major town. One combination, the Gould Schools, is almost all white and the other, the Field Schools, is all-Negro. In the 1964-1965 school year the schools were totally segregated; 580 Negro children attended the Field Schools and 300 white children attended the Gould Schools. Faculties and staffs were and are segregated. There are no attendance zones, each school complex providing any necessary bus transportation for its respective pupils.
The state-imposed segregated system existed at the time of the decisions in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 349 U. S. 294. Thereafter racial separation was required by School Board policy. As in Green, respondent first took steps in 1965 to abandon that policy to remain eligible for federal financial aid. The Board adopted a “freedom-of-choice” plan embodying the essentials of the plan considered in Green. It was made immediately applicable to all grades. Pupils are required to choose annually between the Gould Schools and the Field Schools and those not exercising a choice are assigned to the school previously attended.
The experience after three years of operation with “freedom of choice” has mirrored that in Green. Not a single white child has sought to enroll in the all-Negro Field Schools, and although some 80 to 85 Negro children were enrolled in the Gould Schools in 1967, over 85% of the Negro children in the system still attend the all-Negro Field Schools.
This litigation resulted from a problem that arose in the operation of the plan in its first year. The number of children applying for enrollment in the fifth, tenth, and eleventh grades at Gould exceeded the number of places available and applications of 28 Negroes for those grades were refused. This action was thereupon filed on behalf of 16 of these children and others similarly situated. Their complaint sought injunctive relief, among other things, against their being required to attend the Field Schools, against the provision by respondent of public school facilities for Negro pupils inferior to those provided for white pupils, and against respondent’s “otherwise operating a racially segregated school system.” While the case was pending in the District Court, respondent made plans to replace the high school building at Field Schools. Petitioners sought unsuccessfully to enjoin construction at that site, contending that the new high school should be built at the Gould site to avoid perpetuation of the segregated system. Thereafter the District Court, in an unreported opinion, denied all relief and dismissed the complaint. In the District Court’s view the fact that respondent had adopted “freedom of choice” without the compulsion of a court order, that the plan was approved by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and that some Negro pupils had enrolled in the Gould Schools “seems to indicate that this plan is more than a pretense or sham to meet the minimum requirements of the law.” In light of this conclusion the District Court held that petitioners were not entitled to the other relief requested, including an injunction against building the new high school at the Field site. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. 381 F. 2d 252. We granted certiorari, 389 U. S. 1034, and set the case for argument following No. 740, Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Jackson, post, p. 450.
The Court of Appeals suggested that “no issue on the adequacy of the plan adopted by the Board or its implementation was raised in the District Court. Issues not fairly raised in the District Court cannot ordinarily be considered upon appeal.” 381 F. 2d, at 257. Insofar as this refers to the “freedom-of-choice” plan the suggestion is refuted by the record. Not only was the issue embraced by the prayer in petitioners’ complaint for an injunction against respondent “otherwise operating a racially segregated school system” but the adequacy of the plan was tried and argued by the parties and decided by the District Court. Moreover, the Court of Appeals went on to consider the merits, holding, in agreement with the District Court, that “we find no substantial evidence to support a finding that the Board was not proceeding to carry out the plan in good faith.” Ibid. In the circumstances the question of the adequacy of “freedom of choice” is properly before us. On the merits, our decision in Green v. County School Board, supra, establishes that the plan is inadequate to convert to a unitary, nonracial school system. As in Green, “the school system remains a dual system. Rather than further the dismantling of the dual system, the plan has operated simply to burden children and their parents with a responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board. The Board must be required to formulate a new plan and, in light of other courses which appear open to the Board, such as zoning, fashion steps which promise realistically to convert promptly to a system without a 'white’ school and a ‘Negro’ school, but just schools.” Id., at 441-442.
The petitioners did not press in the Court of Appeals their appeal from the denial of their prayer to have the new high school facilities constructed at the Gould Schools site rather than at the Field Schools site. Due to the illness of the court reporter there was delay in the filing of the transcript of the proceedings in the District Court and meanwhile the construction at the Field Schools site was substantially completed. Petitioners therefore modified their position and urged in the Court of Appeals that respondent be required to convert the Gould Schools to a completely desegregated high school and the Field site to a completely desegregated primary school. The Court of Appeals rejected the proposition on the ground that it “was not presented to the trial court and no opportunity was afforded the parties to offer evidence on the feasibility of such a plan, nor was the trial court given any opportunity to pass thereon.” 381 F. 2d, at 254. Since there must be a remand, petitioners are not foreclosed from making their proposal an issue in the further proceedings.
Finally, we hold that in the circumstances of this case, the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint was an improper exercise of discretion. Dismissal will ordinarily be inconsistent with the responsibility imposed on the district courts by Brown II. 349 U. S., at 299-301. In light of the complexities inhering in the disestablishment of state-established segregated school systems, Brovm II contemplated that the better course would be to retain jurisdiction until it is clear that disestablishment has been achieved. We agree with the observation of another panel of judges of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in another case that the district courts “should retain jurisdiction in school segregation cases to insure (1) that a constitutionally acceptable plan is adopted, and (2) that it is operated in a constitutionally permissible fashion so that the goal of a desegregated, non-racially operated school system is rapidly and finally achieved.” Kelley v. Altheimer, 378 F. 2d 483, 489. See also Kemp v. Beasley, 389 F. 2d 178.
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 and with our opinion in Green v. County School Board, supra.
It is so ordered.
Compare the developing views of the feasibility of “freedom-of-choice” plans expressed by various panels of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Kemp v. Beasley, 352 F. 2d 14; Clark v. Board of Education, 374 F. 2d 569; Kelley v. Altheimer, 378 F. 2d 483; Kemp v. Beasley, 389 F. 2d 178; and Jackson v. Marvell School District No. 22, 389 F. 2d 740.
The Court of Appeals, while denying petitioners’ request for relief on appeal, did observe that
“there is no showing that the Field facilities with the new construction added could not be converted at a reasonable cost into a completely integrated grade school or into a completely integrated high school when the appropriate time for such course arrives. We note that the building now occupied by the predominantly white Gould grade school had originally been built to house the Gould High School.” 381 F. 2d, at 255.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York charged appellee, Fabrizio, with knowingly carrying “in interstate commerce from Keene, State of New Hampshire to Elmira, State of New York, . . . records, papers and writings, to wit: 75 acknowledgements of purchase for a sweepstakes race of the State of New Hampshire, to be used, and adapted, devised and designed for use, in a wagering pool with respect to a sporting event, that is: a sweepstake race of the State of New Hampshire, as he then well knew; all in violation of Section 1953 of Title 18, U. S. C.” That section provides in pertinent part:
“(a) Whoever, except a common carrier in the usual course of its business, knowingly carries or sends in interstate or foreign commerce any record, paraphernalia, ticket, certificate, bills, slip, token, paper, writing, or other device used, or to be used, or adapted, devised, or designed for use in (a) bookmaking; or (b) wagering pools with respect to a sporting event; or (c) in a numbers, policy, bolita, or similar game shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years or both.
“(b) This section shall not apply to (1) parimutuel betting equipment, parimutuel tickets where legally acquired, or parimutuel materials used or designed for use at racetracks or other sporting events in connection with which betting is legal under applicable State law, or (2) the transportation of betting materials to be used in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event into a State in which such betting is legal under the statutes of that State, or (3) the carriage or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce of any newspaper or similar publication.”
In response to a limited demand for a bill of particulars the Government stated that the only records, papers, and writings in issue were the specified 75 acknowledgments, and that no violation of state law was charged. Appellee then moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it did “not set forth facts sufficient to charge the Defendant with the violation of” this statute. In a supporting affidavit three specific shortcomings were claimed. Appellee first contended that § 1953 was intended to reach only the activities of organized crime or those participating in an illegal gambling or lottery enterprise. Absent an allegation that he was of this class no crime under the statute was charged. Appellee also contended that the indictment was deficient under the statute for failure to name an “illegal” wagering pool, the New Hampshire lottery being a state enterprise. Finally, it was urged that the allegation in the indictment that the acknowledgments were “to be used, and adapted, devised and designed for use” in the New Hampshire Sweepstakes was impossible in fact or rested on a misinterpretation of “use” since the acknowledgments were valueless, and need not have been retained in order to collect on the sweepstakes.
The District Court thereupon dismissed the indictment holding that “[t]he charge in the indictment does not come within the purpose of Section 1953 ... as disclosed in the legislative history of the Act.” The Government brought the case directly here under the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731. We noted probable jurisdiction, 383 U. S. 904. Our function under that Act is limited to the construction of the statute and “this Court is not at liberty to go beyond the question of the correctness of that construction and consider other objections to the indictment. The Government’s appeal does not open the whole case.” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 193. See also United States v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370. For reasons to follow, we reverse.
We turn to the specific deficiencies alleged by appellee, noting first that the indictment tracks the language of § 1953 and thus makes it incumbent upon appellee to demonstrate that the additional allegations he claims to be necessary are required to fulfill the statutory purpose. We may dispose quickly of appellee’s first contention. The language of § 1953 makes it applicable to “Whoever, except a common carrier . . .” engages in the forbidden conduct. The need to exempt common carriers makes it clear that Congress painted with a broad brush, and did not limit the applicability of § 1953 in the respects urged by appellee. In companion legislation where Congress wished to restrict the applicability of a provision to a given set of individuals, it did so with clear language. A statute limited without a clear definition of the covered group, as would be the case with § 1953 under appellee’s view of it, might raise serious constitutional problems. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451. And the asserted restriction would defeat one of the purposes of the section which is aimed not only at the paraphernalia of existing gambling activities but also at materials essential to the creation of such activities. As the legislative hearings made clear, such materials are often legally fabricated and transported by persons engaged in legitimate businesses. Since the purpose of Congress was to thwart the interstate movement of such paraphernalia, the accomplishment of that goal required reaching “whoever” knowingly carried such materials in interstate commerce.
Appellee’s next contention, earnestly supported by the State of New Hampshire as amicus, is based on a similar reading of the legislative intent. Appellee emphasizes the congressional desire to attack organized crime, a purpose not served by restrictions on the distribution of New Hampshire Sweepstakes materials. Appellee argues that the specific exemption in § 1953 (b) of certain legal gambling enterprises from the provisions of § 1953 (a) ánd the limitation of § 1953 (a) itself to three types of gambling favored by organized crime reflect a congressional policy of respecting the individual gambling policies of the States and that these exemptions and limitations are merely indicative of that general policy. The New Hampshire Sweepstakes not being in existence when § 1953 was passed is necessarily exempted, so it is said, by policy rather than wording. The Government, on the other hand, contends that the specific exceptions point up the breadth of § 1953 (a) and the congressional desire to apply it except where Congress itself had carefully examined and approved exemption.
We find the Government’s contention more in keeping with the language and purposes of the Act. Although at least one State had legalized gambling activities at the time the bill was passed, and the Congress was certainly aware of legal sweepstakes run by governments in other countries, Congress did not limit the coverage of the statute to “unlawful” or “illegal” activities. The sponsors of the bill made it clear that the measure as drafted was not so limited. In passing 18 U. S. C. § 1084 and 18 U. S. C. § 1952 as companion provisions to § 1953 Congress exempted transmission of legal gambling information from the former and limited the latter to those engaged in “unlawful activity.” Thus it is reasonable to assume that Congress would have given a specific indication of exemption for state-run wagering pools if it had desired to exempt them.
Exemption would also defeat one of the principal purposes of § 1953, aiding the States in the suppression of gambling where such gambling is contrary to state policy. For example, New York prohibits the sale of lottery tickets and the transfer of any paper purporting to represent an interest in a lottery “to be drawn within or without” that State regardless of the legality of the lottery in the place of drawing. N. Y. Const., Art. I, § 9, N. Y. Penal Law §§ 1373, 1382. To allow the paraphernalia of a lottery, state-operated or not, to flow freely into New York might significantly endanger that policy. It is clear that the lottery statutes apply to state-operated as well as illegal lotteries, and that § 1953 was introduced to strengthen those statutes by closing the loopholes placed in them by the narrow interpretation of included materials by this Court in France v. United States, 164 U. S. 676, and Francis v. United States, 188 U. S. 375. It would be anomalous to hold that where Congress meant to bar the lottery tickets themselves from interstate commerce it would allow the free circulation of other paraphernalia of the lottery.
Appellee’s final contention raises a more troublesome problem under the Criminal Appeals Act under which this case is here. The indictment alleges the knowing interstate carriage of “records, papers and writings” and that these are “to be used, and adapted, devised and designed for use” in a forbidden activity. The Government contends that the question whether an acknowledgment can be, and was, so used is one of fact for the trial and not presently before this Court. In United States v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co., 376 U. S. 86, 91-92, the Court dealt with a defendant’s clainTthat a statute was not applicable to him because of his peculiar situation by stating:
“Whatever the truth of this claim, it involves factual proof to be raised defensively at a trial on the merits. We are here concerned only with the construction of the statute as it relates to the sufficiency of the information, and not with the scope and reach of the statute as applied to such facts as may be developed by evidence adduced at a trial.”
Here, also, we might justifiably refuse to consider ap-pellee’s contention. However, the operation of the New Hampshire Sweepstakes, while a matter of fact, is not a disputed issue and a valid question is raised as to the construction of the use requirement in § 1,953. Thus this case may be considered similar to United States v. Hvass, 355 U. S. 570, where in an appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act this Court determined the question whether a district court rule was a “law of the United States” for the purposes of the perjury statute. Thus we may inquire whether an acknowledgment of purchase can, after issuance, have a use in the New Hampshire Sweepstakes.
New Hampshire Sweepstakes tickets are sold by a special machine. The customer writes a name and address on each ticket and is not restricted to purchasing for himself. The owner of a ticket may be an individual who has not come to New Hampshire to make the purchase. The completed ticket is held in storage in the machine and eventually used in the drawing. The acknowledgment, practically a carbon copy of the ticket, is ejected from the machine. It need not be retained to collect a prize since all prizes are paid directly to the person named on the ticket, and thus appellee claims it has no use in the sweepstakes. But common sense and ordinary experience negative such a formalistic conclusion. The acknowledgment serves a significant psychological purpose by receipting the purchase and assuring the owner that his ticket is properly registered. Before this function is fulfilled by delivery of the acknowledgment to the owner of the ticket the acknowledgment remains a record, paper or writing “to be used” in the sweepstakes. The Government contends that it will prove that the acknowledgments specified in this indictment were in fact being delivered to out-of-state ticket owners who had not themselves purchased their tickets in New Hampshire but had done so through Fabrizio and were thus assured of the proper completion of their purchases. We think it sufficient to hold that such a state of facts is comprehended by this indictment and within the terms of 18 U. S. C. § 1953. The constitutional power of Congress to enact the statute as we have construed it is not questioned by appellee.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York is reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. R ü SQ orderedi
Thus the sufficiency of the indictment as a pleading is not at issue, United States v. Gilliland, 312 U. S. 86, nor are questions relating to the bill of particulars presently before us. See United States v. Comyns, 248 U. S. 349, 353. Of course on remand these questions will remain unaffected by anything decided today.
Thus 18 U. S. C. § 1084 is limited to persons “being engaged in the business of betting or wagering.'’
See Hearings on H. R. 468 before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 261 (testimony of Mr. Stinson for American Totalisator Co.); Hearings on S. 1653 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 20 (testimony of Mr. Jacobs for Jennings & Co.), 25 (testimony of Mr. Nelson for Bally Manufacturing Co.).
See, e. g., Hearings on H. R. 468, supra, n. 3, at 26, where the Attorney General made clear that the primary purpose of the bill was to assist local enforcement of laws pertaining to gambling and like offenses; S. Rep. No. 589, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2, specified that the prohibition of the bill was “on the transportation of wagering paraphernalia” and would, without amendment, have comprehended the shipment of parimutuel equipment by legitimate business concerns.
During the Senate Hearings Assistant Attorney General Miller, representing the Department of Justice, was specifically asked whether the bill was intended only to apply to “illegal" activities under state law. He unequivocally replied: “No sir. That proviso is not in here. It was the position of the Department that these types of paraphernalia, records, and other devices should be barred from interstate commerce.” Hearings on S. 1653, supra, note 3, p. 294. Before the House Committee studying the bill Mr. Miller was equally explicit. He noted that the Irish Sweepstakes would be covered by the bill and soon after declared that Congress might consider a special exemption for parimutuel materials since these arose in activities legal under state law. Hearings on H. R. 468, supra, n. 3, p. 352.
See H. R. Rep. No. 968, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2-3; 107 Cong. Rec. 13902 (remarks of Senator Eastland)..
New Hampshire Sweepstakes Commission, New Hampshire Sweepstakes Program 5-8.
See the colloquy between Assistant Attorney General Miller and Senators Keating and Kefauver reported at 293-294 of Senate Hearings on S. 1653, supra, n. 3. There Mr. Miller distinguished between paraphernalia which had served and exhausted its use, e. g., losing tickets on a horse race, and paraphernalia whose function was not yet exhausted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether Congress, consistently with the requirements of due process, may provide that hearings on disputed claims for certain Medicare payments be held by private insurance carriers, without a further right of appeal.
I-H
Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 291, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1395 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), commonly known as the Medicare program, is administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It consists of two parts. Part A, which is not at issue in this case, provides insurance against the cost of institutional health services, such as hospital and nursing home fees. §§ 1395c-1395i-2 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). Part B is entitled “Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits for the Aged and Disabled.” It covers a portion (typically 80%) of the cost of certain physician services, outpatient physical therapy, X-rays, laboratory tests, and other medical and health care. See §§ 1395k, 1395l, and 1395x(s) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). Only persons 65 or older or disabled may enroll, and eligibility does not depend on financial need. Part B is financed by the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. See § 1395t (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). This Trust Fund in turn is funded by appropriations from the Treasury, together with monthly premiums paid by the individuals who choose voluntarily to enroll in the Part B program. See §§ 1395j, 1395r, and 1395w (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). Part B consequently resembles a private medical insurance program that is subsidized in major part by the Federal Government.
Part B is a social program of substantial dimensions. More than 27 million individuals presently participate, and the Secretary pays out more than $10 billion in benefits annually. Brief for Appellant 9. In 1980, 158 million Part B claims were processed. Ibid. In order to make the administration of this sweeping program more efficient, Congress authorized the Secretary to contract with private insurance carriers to administer on his behalf the payment of qualifying Part B claims. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395u (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). (In this case, for instance, the private carriers that performed these tasks in California for the Secretary were Blue Shield of California and the Occidental Insurance Co.) The congressional design was to take advantage of such insurance carriers’ “great experience in reimbursing physicians.” H. R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 46 (1965). See also 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(a); S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 53 (1965).
The Secretary pays the participating carriers’ costs of claims administration. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(c). In return, the carriers act as the Secretary’s agents. See 42 CFR § 421.5(b) (1980). They review and pay Part B claims for the Secretary according to a precisely specified process. See 42 CFR part 405, subpart H (1980). Once the carrier has been billed for a particular service, it decides initially whether the services were medically necessary, whether the charges are reasonable, and whether the claim is otherwise covered by Part B. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395y(a) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV); 42 CFR §405.803(b) (1980). If it determines that the claim meets all these criteria, the carrier pays the claim out of the Government’s Trust Fund—not out of its own pocket. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1395u(a)(1), 1395u(b)(3), and 1395u(c) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).
Should the carrier refuse on behalf of the Secretary to pay a portion of the claim, the claimant has one or more opportunities to appeal. First, all claimants are entitled to a “review determination,” in which they may submit written evidence and arguments of fact and law. A carrier employee, other than the initial decisionmaker, will review the written record de novo and affirm or adjust the original determination. 42 CFR §§ 405.807-405.812 (1980); McClure v. Harris, 503 F. Supp. 409, 411 (ND Cal. 1980). If the amount in dispute is $100 or more, a still-dissatisfied claimant then has a right to an oral hearing. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395u(b)(3)(C); 42 CFR §§ 405.820-405.860 (1980). An officer chosen by the carrier presides over this hearing. § 405.823. The hearing officers “do not participate personally, prior to the hearing [stage], in any case [that] they adjudicate.” 503 F. Supp., at 414. See 42 CFR § 405.824 (1980).
Hearing officers receive evidence and hear arguments pertinent to the matters at issue. § 405.830. As soon as practicable thereafter, they must render written decisions based on the record. § 405.834. Neither the statute nor the regulations make provision for further review of the hearing officer’s decision. See United States v. Erika, Inc., post, p. 201.
II
This case arose as a result of decisions by hearing officers against three claimants. The claimants, here appellees, sued to challenge the constitutional adequacy of the hearings afforded them. The District Court for the Northern District of California certified appellees as representatives of a nationwide class of individuals whose claims had been denied by carrier-appointed hearing officers. 503 F. Supp., at 412-414. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court concluded that the Part B hearing procedures violated appel-lees’ right to due process “insofar as the final, unappealable decision regarding claims disputes is made by carrier appointees . . . .” Id., at 418.
The court reached its conclusion of unconstitutionality by alternative lines of argument. The first rested upon the principle that tribunals must be impartial. The court thought that the impartiality of the carrier’s hearing officers was compromised by their “prior involvement and pecuniary interest.” Id., at 414. “Pecuniary interest” was shown, the District Court said, by the fact that “their incomes as hearing officers are entirely dependent upon the carrier’s decisions regarding whether, and how often, to call upon their services.” Id., at 415. Respecting “prior involvement,” the court acknowledged that hearing officers personally had not been previously involved in the cases they decided. But it noted that hearing officers “are appointed by, and serve at the will of, the carrier [that] has not only participated in the prior stages of each case, but has twice denied the claims [that] are the subject of the hearing,” and that five out of seven of Blue Shield’s past and present hearing officers “are former or current Blue Shield employees.” Id., at 414. (Emphasis in original.) See also 42 CFR § 405.824 (1980). The District Court thought these links between the carriers and their hearing officers sufficient to create a constitutionally intolerable risk of hearing officer bias against claimants.
The District Court’s alternative reasoning assessed the costs and benefits of affording claimants a hearing before one of the Secretary’s adminstrative law judges, “either subsequent to or substituting for the hearing conducted by a carrier appointee.” 503 F. Supp., at 415. The court noted that Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976), makes three factors relevant to such an inquiry:
“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
Considering the first Mathews factor, the court listed three considerations tending to show that the private interest at stake was not overwhelming. The court then stated, however, that “it cannot be gainsaid” that denial of a Medicare beneficiary’s claim to reimbursement may impose “considerable hardship.” 503 F. Supp., at 416.
As to the second Mathews factor of risk of erroneous deprivation and the probable value of added process, the District Court found the record “inconclusive.” 503 F. Supp., at 416. The court cited statistics showing that the two available Part B appeal procedures frequently result in reversal of the carriers’ original disposition. But it criticized these statistics for failing to distinguish between partial and total reversals. The court stated that hearing officers were required neither to receive training nor to satisfy “threshold criteria such as having a law degree.” Ibid. On this basis it held that “it must be assumed that additional safeguards would reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of Part B benefits.” Ibid.
On the final Mathews factor involving the Government’s interest, the District Court noted that carriers processed 124 million Part B claims in 1978. 503 F. Supp., at 416. The court stated that “[o]nly a fraction of those claimants pursue their currently-available appeal remedies,” and that “there is no indication that anything but an even smaller group of claimants will actually pursue [an] additional remedy” of appeal to the Secretary. Ibid. Moreover, the court said, the Secretary already maintained an appeal procedure using administrative law judges for appeals by Part A claimants. Increasing the number of claimants who could use this Part A administrative appeal “would not be a cost-free change from the status quo, but neither should it be a costly one.” Ibid.
Weighing the three Mathews factors, the court concluded that due process required additional procedural protection over that presently found in the Part B hearing procedure. The court ordered that the appellees were entitled to a de novo hearing of record conducted by an administrative law judge of the Social Security Administration. App. to Juris. Statement 36a. We noted probable jurisdiction, 454 U. S. 890 (1981), and now reverse.
HH tí
v í>
The hearing officers involved in this case serve in a quasi-judicial capacity, similar in many respects to that of administrative law judges. As this Court repeatedly has recognized, due process demands impartiality on the part of those who function in judicial or quasi-judicial capacities. E. g., Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U. S. 238, 242-243, and n. 2 (1980). We must start, however, from the presumption that the hearing officers who decide Part B claims are unbiased. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47 (1975); United States v. Morgan, 313 U. S. 409, 421 (1941). This presumption can be rebutted by a showing of conflict of interest or some other specific reason for disqualification. See Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 578-579 (1973); Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57, 60 (1972). See also In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955) (“to perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice’”) (quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 14 (1954)). But the burden of establishing a disqualifying interest rests on the party making the assertion.
Fairly interpreted, the factual findings made in this case do not reveal any disqualifying interest under the standard of our cases. The District Court relied almost exclusively on generalized assumptions of possible interest, placing special weight on the various connections of the hearing officers with the private insurance carriers. The difficulty with this reasoning is that these connections would be relevant only if the carriers themselves are biased or interested. We find no basis in the record for reaching such a conclusion. As previously noted, the carriers pay all Part B claims from federal, and not their own, funds. Similarly, the salaries of the hearing officers are paid by the Federal Government. Cf. Mar shall v. Jerrico, Inc., supra, at 245, 251. Further, the carriers operate under contracts that require compliance with standards prescribed by the statute and the Secretary. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 1395u(a)(1)(A)-(B), 1395u(b)(3), and 1395u(b) (4) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV); 42 CFR §§ 421.200, 421.202, and 421.205(a) (1980). In the absence of proof of financial interest on the part of the carriers, there is no basis for assuming a derivative bias among their hearing officers.
B
Appellees further argued, and the District Court agreed, that due process requires an additional administrative or judicial review by a Government rather than a carrier-appointed hearing officer. Specifically, the District Court ruled that “[ejxisting Part B procedures might remain intact so long as aggrieved beneficiaries would be entitled to appeal carrier appointees’ decisions to Part A administrative law judges.” 503 F. Supp., at 417. In reaching this conclusion, the District Court applied the familiar test prescribed in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 335. See supra, at 193-195. We may assume that the District Court was correct in viewing the private interest in Part B payments as “considerable,” though “not quite as precious as the right to receive welfare or social security benefits.” 503 F. Supp., at 416. We likewise may assume, in considering the third Mathews factor, that the additional cost and inconvenience of providing administrative law judges would not be unduly burdensome.
We focus narrowly on the second Mathews factor that considers^the risk of erroneous decision and the probable value, if any, of the additional procedure. The District Court’s reasoning on this point consisted only of this sentence:
“In light of [appellees’] undisputed showing that carrier-appointed hearing officers receive little or no formal training and are not required to satisfy any threshold criteria such as having a law degree, it must be assumed that additional safeguards would reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of Part B benefits.” 503 F. Supp., at 416 (footnote omitted).
Again, the record does not support these conclusions. The Secretary has directed carriers to select as a hearing officer
“ ‘an attorney or other qualified individual with the ability to conduct formal hearings and with a general understanding of medical matters and terminology. The [hearing officer] must have a thorough knowledge of the Medicare program and the statutory authority and regulations upon which it is based, as well as rulings, policy statements, and general instructions pertinent to the Medicare Bureau.’” App. 22, quoting Dept. of HEW, Medicare Part B Carriers Manual, ch. VII, p. 12-21 (1980) (emphasis added).
The District Court did not identify any specific deficiencies in the Secretary’s selection criteria. By definition, a “qualified” individual already possessing “ability” and “thorough knowledge” would not require further training. The court’s further general concern that hearing officers “are not required to satisfy any threshold criteria” overlooks the Secretary’s quoted regulation. Moreover, the District Court apparently gave no weight to the qualifications of hearing officers about whom there is information in the record. Their qualifications tend to undermine rather than to support the contention that accuracy of Part B decisionmaking may suffer by reason of carrier appointment of unqualified hearing officers.
“[D]ue Process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972). We have considered appellees’ claims in light of the strong presumption in favor of the validity of congressional action and consistently with this Court’s recognition of “congressional solicitude for fair procedure . . . .” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 693 (1979). Appellees simply have not shown that the procedures prescribed by Congress and the Secretary are not fair or that different or additional procedures would reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of Part B benefits.
> h — I
The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for judgment to be entered for the Secretary.
ordered. o CO -
Hearing officers may decide to reopen proceedings under certain circumstances. See 42 CFR §§ 405.841-405.850 (1980).
Appellee William McClure was denied partial reimbursement for the cost of an air ambulance to a specially equipped hospital. The hearing officer determined that the air ambulance was necessary, but that McClure could have been taken to a hospital closer to home. Appellee Charles Shields was allowed reimbursement for a cholecystectomy but was denied reimbursement for an accompanying appendectomy. The hearing officer reasoned that the appendectomy was merely incidental to the cholecystec-tomy. Appellee “Ann Doe” was denied reimbursement for the entire cost of a sex-change operation. The hearing officer ruled that the operation was not medically necessary.
The District Court recognized that hearing officer salaries are paid from a federal fund and not the carrier’s resources. McClure v. Harris, 503 F. Supp. 409, 415 (1980).
In this connection, the court referred to the judicial canon requiring a judge to disqualify himself from cases where a “ ‘lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter. ’ ” 503 F. Supp., at 414—415, quoting Judicial Conference of the United States, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C(l)(b). The court found that application to hearing officers of standards more lax than those applicable to the judiciary posed “a constitutionally-unacceptable risk of decisions tainted by bias.” 503 F. Supp., at 415.
Additionally, the court thought it significant that “no meaningful, specific selection criteria governed] the appointment of hearing officers” and that hearing officers were trained largely by the carriers whose decisions they were called upon to review. Ibid.
“Eligibility for Part B Medicare benefits is not based on financial need. Part B covers supplementary rather than primary services. Denial of a particular claim in a particular case does not deprive the claimant of reimbursement for other, covered, medical expenses.” Id., at 416.
“[Appellant] establishes] that between 1975 and 1978, carriers wholly or partially reversed, upon ‘review determination,’ their initial determinations in 51-57 percent of the cases considered. Of the adverse determination decisions brought before hearing officers, 42-51 percent of the carriers’ decisions were reversed in whole or in part.” Ibid.
The court added that appellees “are not entitled to further appeal or review of the Adminstrative Law Judge’s decision.” App. to Juris. Statement 36a.
The Secretary’s regulations provide for the disqualification of hearing officers for prejudice and other reasons. See 42 CFR § 405.824 (1980); App. 23-25. Appellees neither sought to disqualify their hearing officers nor presently make claims of actual bias. Tr. of Oral Arg. 34 (argument of counsel for appellees).
Before this Court, appellees urge that the Secretary himself is biased in favor of inadequate Part B awards. They attempt to document this assertion — not mentioned by the District Court — by relying on the fact that the Secretary both has helped carriers identify medical providers who allegedly bill for more services than are medically necessary and has warned carriers to control overutilization of medical services. See Brief for Appellees 17-18.
This action by the Secretary is irrelevant. It simply shows that he takes seriously his statutory duty to ensure that only qualifying Part B claims are paid. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395y(a) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV); 42 CFR § 405.803(b) (1980). It does not establish that the Secretary has sought to discourage payment of Part B claims that do meet Part B requirements. Such an effort would violate Congress’ direction. Absent evidence, it cannot be presumed.
Similarly, appellees adduced no evidence to support their assertion that, for reasons of psychology, institutional loyalty, or carrier coercion, hearing officers would be reluctant to differ with carrier determinations. Such assertions require substantiation before they can provide a foundation for invalidating an Act of Congress.
The District Court’s analogy to judicial canons, see n. 4, supra, is not apt. The fact that a hearing officer is or was a carrier employee does not create a risk of partiality analogous to that possibly arising from the professional relationship between a judge and a former partner or associate.
We simply have no reason to doubt that hearing officers will do their best to obey the Secretary’s instruction manual:
“ ‘The individual selected to act in the capacity of [hearing officer] must not have been involved in any way with the determination in question and neither have advised nor given consultation on any request for payment which is a basis for the hearing. Since the hearings are of a nonadversary nature, be particularly responsive to the needs of unrepresented parties and protect the claimant’s rights, even if the claimant is represented by counsel. The parties’ interests must be safeguarded to the full extent of their rights; in like manner, the government’s interest must be protected. “ ‘The [hearing officer] should conduct the hearing with dignity and exercise necessary control and order. . . . The [hearing officer] must make independent and impartial decisions, write clear and concise statements of facts and law, secure facts from individuals without causing unnecessary friction, and be objective and free of any influence which might affect impartial judgment as to the facts, while being particularly patient with older persons and those with physical or mental impairments.
“ ‘The [hearing officer] must be cognizant of the informal nature of a Part B hearing .... The hearing is nonadversary in nature in that neither the carrier nor the Medicare Bureau is in opposition to the party but is interested only in seeing that a proper decision is made.’” App. 22, 31-32, quoting Dept. of HEW, Medicare Part B Carriers Manual, ch. XII, pp. 12-21, 12-29 (1980). Cf. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U. S. 389, 403 (1971) (“congressional plan” is that social security administrative system will operate essentially “as an adjudicator and not as an advocate or adversary”).
The claim determination and appeal process available for Part A claims differs from the Part B procedure. See generally 42 CFR part 405, sub-part G (1980), as amended, 45 Fed. Reg. 73932-73933 (1980). See also United States v. Erika, Inc., post, at 206-207, and nn. 8 and 9.
No authoritative factual findings were made, and perhaps this conclusion would have been difficult to prove. It is known that in 1980 about 158 million Part B claims — up from 124 million in 1978 — were filed. Even though the additional review would be available only for disputes in excess of $100, a small percentage of the number of claims would be large in terms of number of cases.
The District Court’s opinion may be read as requiring that hearing officers always be attorneys. Our cases, however, make clear that due process does not make such a uniform requirement. See Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 499 (1980) (Powell, J., concurring in part); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 607 (1979); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 486, 489 (1972). Cf. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 271 (1970). Neither the District Court in its opinion nor the appellees before us make a particularized showing of the additional value of a law degree in the Part B context.
The record contains information on nine hearing officers. Two were retired administrative law judges with 15 to 18 years of judging experience, five had extensive experience in medicine or medical insurance, one had been a practicing attorney for 20 years, and one was an attorney with 42 years’ experience in the insurance industry who was self-employed as an insurance adjuster. Record, App. to Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 626, 661-662, 682-685.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to add the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company et al., as parties appellee, is granted. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases form a sequel to our decision in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976). That case held that (1) the McCarran Amendment, 66 Stat. 560, 43 U. S. C. § 666, which waived the sovereign immunity of the United States as to comprehensive state water rights adjudications, provides state courts with jurisdiction to adjudicate Indian water rights held in trust by the United States, and (2), in light of the clear federal policies underlying the McCarran Amendment, a water rights suit brought by the United States in federal court was properly dismissed in favor of a concurrent comprehensive adjudication reaching the same issues in Colorado state court. The questions in these cases are parallel: (1) What is the effect of the McCarran Amendment in those States which, unlike Colorado, were admitted to the Union subject to federal legislation that reserved “absolute jurisdiction and control” over Indian lands in the Congress of the United States? (2) If the courts of such States do have jurisdiction to adjudicate Indian water rights, should concurrent federal suits brought by Indian tribes, rather than by the United States, and raising only Indian claims, also be subject to dismissal under the doctrine of Colorado River?
r-H
Colorado River arose out of a suit brought by the Federal Government in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking a declaration of its rights, and the rights of a number of Indian Tribes, to waters in certain rivers and their tributaries located in one of the drainage basins of the State of Colorado. In the suit, the Government asserted reserved rights, governed by federal law, as well as rights based on state law. Shortly after the federal suit was commenced, the United States was joined, pursuant to the McCarran Amendment, as a party in the ongoing state-court comprehensive water adjudication being conducted for the same drainage basin. The Federal District Court, on motion of certain of the defendants and intervenors, dismissed the federal suit, stating that the doctrine of abstention required deference to the state proceedings. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, and we in turn reversed the Court of Appeals.
We began our analysis in Colorado River by conceding that the District Court had jurisdiction over the federal suit under 28 U. S. C. § 1345, the general provision conferring district court jurisdiction over most civil actions brought by the Federal Government. We then examined whether the federal suit was nevertheless properly dismissed in view of the concurrent state-court proceedings. This part of the analysis began by considering “whether the McCarran Amendment provided consent to determine federal reserved rights held on behalf of Indians in state court,” 424 U. S., at 809, since “given the claims for Indian water rights in [the federal suit], dismissal clearly would have been inappropriate if the state court had no jurisdiction to decide those claims.” Ibid. We concluded:
“Not only the Amendment’s language, but also its underlying policy, dictates a construction including Indian rights in its provisions. [United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U. S. 520 (1971),] rejected the conclusion that federal reserved rights in general were not reached by the Amendment for the reason that the Amendment ‘[deals] with an all-inclusive statute concerning “the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system.”’ Id., at 524. This consideration applies as well to federal water rights reserved for Indian reservations.” Id., at 810.
In sum, considering the important federal interest in allowing all water rights on a river system to be adjudicated in a single comprehensive state proceeding, and “bearing in mind the ubiquitous nature of Indian water rights in the Southwest,” it was clear to us “that a construction of the Amendment excluding those rights from its coverage would enervate the Amendment’s objective.” Id., at 811.
We buttressed this conclusion with an examination of the legislative history of the McCarran Amendment. We also noted:
“Mere subjection of Indian rights to legal challenge in state court... would no more imperil those rights than would a suit brought by the Government in district court for their declaration.... The Government has not abdicated any responsibility fully to defend Indian rights in state court, and Indian interests may be satisfactorily protected under regimes of state law. The Amendment in no way abridges any substantive claim on behalf of Indians under the doctrine of reserved rights. Moreover, as Eagle County said, ‘questions [arising from the collision of private rights and reserved rights of the United States], including the volume and scope of particular reserved rights, are federal questions which, if preserved, can be reviewed [by the Supreme Court] after final judgment by the Colorado court.’ 401 U. S., at 526.” Id., at 812-813 (citations omitted).
We then considered the dismissal itself. We found that the dismissal could not be supported under the doctrine of abstention in any of its forms, but that it was justified as an application of traditional principles of “ ‘[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” Id., at 817, quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U. S. 180, 183 (1952). We stated that, although the federal courts had a “virtually unflagging obligation... to exercise the jurisdiction given them,” 424 U. S., at 817, there were certain very limited circumstances outside the abstention context in which dismissal was warranted in deference to a concurrent state-court suit. See generally id., at 817-819; Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 13-19 (1983). In the case at hand, we noted the comprehensive nature of the state proceedings and the considerable expertise and technical resources available in those proceedings, 424 U. S., at 819-820. We concluded:
“[A] number of factors clearly counsel against concurrent federal proceedings. The most important of these is the McCarran Amendment itself. The clear federal policy evinced by that legislation is the avoidance of piecemeal adjudication of water rights in a river system. This policy is akin to that underlying the rule requiring that jurisdiction be yielded to the court first acquiring control of property, for the concern in such instances is with avoiding the generation of additional litigation through permitting inconsistent dispositions of property. This concern is heightened with respect to water rights, the relationships among which are highly interdependent. Indeed, we have recognized that actions seeking the allocation of water essentially involve the disposition of property and are best conducted in unified proceedings. The consent to jurisdiction given by the McCarran Amendment bespeaks a policy that recognizes the availability of comprehensive state systems for adjudication of water rights as the means for achieving these goals.” Id., at 819 (citations omitted).
For these reasons, and others, we affirmed the judgment of the District Court dismissing the federal complaint.
HH I — I
The two petitions considered here arise out of three separate consolidated appeals that were decided within three days of each other by the same panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In each of the underlying cases, either the United States as trustee or certain Indian Tribes on their own behalf, or both, asserted the right to have certain Indian water rights in Arizona or Montana adjudicated in federal court.
The Montana Cases (No. 81-2188)
In January 1975, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Montana seeking an adjudication of its rights in certain streams in that State. Shortly thereafter, the United States brought two suits in the same court, seeking a determination of water rights both on its own behalf and on behalf of a number of Indian Tribes, including the Northern Cheyenne, in the same streams. Each of the federal actions was a general adjudication which sought to determine the rights inter sese of all users of the stream, and not merely the rights of the plaintiffs. On motion of the Northern Cheyenne, its action was consolidated with one of the Government actions. The other concerned Tribes intervened as appropriate.
At about the time that all this activity was taking place in federal court, the State of Montana was preparing to begin a process of comprehensive water adjudication under a recently passed state statute. In July 1975, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation filed petitions in state court commencing comprehensive proceedings to adjudicate water rights in the same streams at issue in the federal cases.
Both sets of contestants having positioned themselves, nothing much happened for a number of years. The federal proceedings were stayed for a time pending our decision in Colorado River. When that decision came down, the State of Montana, one of the defendants in the federal suits, brought a motion to dismiss, which was argued in 1976, but not decided until 1979. Meanwhile, process was completed in the various suits, answers were submitted, and discovery commenced. Over in the state courts, events moved even more slowly, and no appreciable progress seems to have been made by 1979.
In April 1979, the United States brought four more suits in federal court, seeking to adjudicate its rights and the rights of various Indian Tribes in other Montana streams. One month later, the Montana Legislature amended its water adjudication procedures “to expedite and facilitate the adjudication of existing water rights.” Act to Adjudicate Claims of Existing Water Rights in Montana, Ch. 697, § 1(1), 1979 Mont. Laws 1901. The legislation provided for the initiation of comprehensive proceedings by order of the Montana Supreme Court, the appointment of water judges throughout the State, and the consolidation of all existing actions within each water division. It also provided, among other things, that the Montana Supreme Court should issue an order requiring all claimants not already involved in the state proceedings, including the United States on its own behalf or as trustee for the Indians, to file a statement of claim with the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation by a date set by the court or be deemed to have abandoned any water rights claim. § 16, 1979 Mont. Laws 1906-1907, codi-fled at Mont. Code Ann. §85-2-212 (1981). The Montana court issued the required order, and the United States was served with formal notice thereof.
In November 1979, the two judges for the District of Montana jointly considered the motions to dismiss in each of the federal actions, and granted each of them. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation v. Tongue River Water Users Assn., 484 F. Supp. 31. The court relied strongly on the new Montana legislation, stating: The District Court also noted, among other things, that the federal proceedings “are all in their infancy; service of process has been but recently completed,” id., at 36, that the state forums were geographically more convenient to the parties, that “[t]he amount of time contemplated for completion of the state adjudication is significantly less than would be necessary for federal adjudication, insofar as the state has provided a special court system solely devoted to water rights adjudication,” ibid., and that “[t]he possibility of conflicting adjudications by the concurrent forums... looms large and could be partially avoided only by staying the pending state adjudication, an action Colorado River has intimated is distinctly repugnant to a clear state policy and purpose.” Ibid.
“The above-cited sections reflect both the policy and the essential mechanism for adjudication of state water rights. Adjudication by adversary proceeding initiated by one claimant against all others in his drainage has been forsaken in favor of blanket adjudication of all claims, including federal and federal trust claims.... It is clear that the adjudication contemplated by the [1979 legislation] is both comprehensive and efficient. As the general adjudication has been initiated by recent order of the Montana Supreme Court, it would seem that the greater wisdom lies in following Colorado River, and, on the basis of wise judicial administration, deferring to the comprehensive state proceedings.” Id., at 35-36.
On appeal, a divided Court of Appeals reversed. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation v. Adsit, 668 F. 2d 1080 (CA9 1982). First, it held that Montana, unlike Colorado, might well lack jurisdiction to adjudicate Indian claims in state court. The court reached this conclusion on the basis of two closely linked documents: the Enabling Act under which Montana was admitted to statehood, and the Montana Constitution promulgated in response to that Enabling Act, both of which provide, in identical terms, that the people inhabiting Montana
“agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to... all lands... owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States....” Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, §4, 25 Stat. 677 (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington); Mont. Const., Ordinance No. I (1895).
The Court of Appeals concluded that, by their terms, the Enabling Act and constitutional disclaimer prohibit Montana
from exercising even adjudicatory jurisdiction over Indian water rights, and that the McCarran Amendment effected no change in that disability. It also held, however, that the State might have acquired such jurisdiction under Pub. L. 280, 67 Stat. 588, which, from 1953 until its amendment in 1968, allowed any State that wished to do so to acquire certain aspects of civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian affairs, and authorized States with constitutional or statutory disclaimers to “amend, where necessary, their State constitution or existing statutes, as the case may be, to remove any legal impediment” to the assumption of such jurisdiction. § 6, 67 Stat. 590. See generally Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S. 463 (1979). The court did not decide whether Montana had amended its Constitution in accordance with the requirements of Pub. L. 280, cf. Yakima Indian Nation, supra, at 478-493, but it criticized the District Court for not undertaking such an analysis.
The second, and dispositive, ground of decision in the Court of Appeals, however, was its conclusion that “[e]ven if we were to find that Montana had validly repealed the disclaimer language in its constitution,... [t]he limited factual circumstances of [Colorado River] prevent its application to the Montana litigation.” 668 F. 2d, at 1087. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied in part on the infancy of both the federal and state proceedings in the Montana litigation, the possible inadequacy of the state proceedings (which it did not discuss in great detail), and the fact that the Indians (who could not be joined involuntarily in the state proceedings) might not be adequately represented by the United States in state court in light of conflicts of interest between the Federal Government’s responsibilities as trustee and its own claims to water.
The Arizona Cases (No. 81-2147)
In the mid-1970’s, various water rights claimants in Arizona filed petitions in state court to initiate general adjudications to determine conflicting rights in a number of river systems. In early 1979, process was served in one of the proceedings on approximately 12,000 known potential water claimants, including the United States. In July 1981, process was served in another proceeding on approximately 58,000 known water claimants, again including the United States. In each case, the United States was joined both in its independent capacity and as trustee for various Indian Tribes.
In March and April 1979, a number of Indian Tribes whose rights were implicated by the state water proceedings filed a series of suits in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, asking variously for removal of the state adjudications to federal court, declaratory and injunctive relief preventing any further adjudication of their rights in state court, and independent federal determinations of their water rights. A number of defendants in the federal proceedings filed motions seeking remand or dismissal. The District Court, relying on Colorado River, remanded the removed actions, and dismissed most of the independent federal actions without prejudice. In re Determination of Conflicting Rights to Use of Water from Salt River Above Granite Reef Dam, 484 F. Supp. 778 (1980). It stayed one of the remaining actions pending the completion of state proceedings. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 81-2147, p. D-1.
The Tribes appealed from these decisions, with the exception of the remand orders. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Enabling Act under which Arizona was admitted to statehood, 36 Stat. 557, and the Arizona Constitution, Art. 20, ¶4, both of which contain wording substantially identical to the Montana Enabling Act and Constitution, disabled Arizona from adjudicating Indian water claims. San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Arizona, 668 F. 2d 1093 (CA9 1982); Navajo Nation v. United States, 668 F. 2d 1100 (CA9 1982). The court remanded to the District Court to determine whether Arizona nevertheless “properly asserted jurisdiction pursuant to Public Law 280.” 668 F. 2d, at 1098; see 668 F. 2d, at 1102. The court did not decide whether, if the State had properly asserted jurisdiction, dismissal would have been proper under Colorado River, except to note that “the district judge did not make findings on this issue and the record indicates significant differences between these cases and [Colorado River].” 668 F. 2d, at 1098; see 668 F. 2d, at 1102.
We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 821 (1982), in order to resolve a conflict among the Circuits regarding the role of federal and state courts in adjudicating Indian water rights. We now reverse.
Ill
A
At the outset of our analysis, a number of propositions are clear. First, the federal courts had jurisdiction here to hear the suits brought both by the United States and the Indian Tribes. Second, it is also clear in these cases, as it was in Colorado River, that a dismissal or stay of the federal suits would have been improper if there was no jurisdiction in the concurrent state actions to adjudicate the claims at issue in the federal suits. 424 U. S., at 800. Third, the parties here agree that the Court of Appeals erred in believing that, in the absence of state jurisdiction otherwise, Pub. L. 280 would have authorized the States to assume jurisdiction over the adjudication of Indian water rights. To the contrary, Pub. L. 280 specifically withheld from state courts jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership or right to possession “of any real or personal property, including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1360(b) (emphasis added). Thus, the presence or absence of jurisdiction must rise or fall without reference to whether the States have assumed jurisdiction under Pub. L. 280.
Finally, it should be obvious that, to the extent that a claimed bar to state jurisdiction in these cases is premised on the respective State Constitutions, that is a question of state law over which the state courts have binding authority. Because, in each of these cases, the state courts have taken jurisdiction over the Indian water rights at issue here, we must assume, until informed otherwise, that — at least insofar as state law is concerned — such jurisdiction exists. We must therefore look, for our purposes, to the federal Enabling Acts and other federal legislation, in order to determine whether there is a federal bar to the assertion of state jurisdiction in these cases.
B
That we were not required in Colorado River to interpret the McCarran Amendment in light of any statehood Enabling Act was largely a matter of fortuity, for Colorado is one of the few Western States that were not admitted to the Union pursuant to an Enabling Act containing substantially the same language as is found in the Arizona and Montana Enabling Acts. Indeed, a substantial majority of Indian land — including most of the largest Indian reservations — lies in States subject to such Enabling Acts. Moreover, the reason that Colorado was not subject to such an Enabling Act, and Arizona and Montana were, has more to do with historical timing than with deliberate congressional selection. Colorado was admitted to the Union in 1876. In 1882, this Court held in United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621, that the federal courts in Colorado had no criminal jurisdiction in a murder committed by one non-Indian against another on an Indian reservation, pointing out that the case did not concern “the punishment of crimes committed by or against Indians, the protection of the Indians in their improvements, or the regulation by Congress of the alienation and descent of property and the government and internal police of the Indians.” Id., at 624. We also suggested, however, that the result might have been different if Congress had expressly reserved all criminal jurisdiction on Indian reservations when Colorado was admitted to the Union, pointing to a similar disclaimer contained in the legislation by which Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861. Id., at 623-624; see The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 (1867). Probably in response to the McBmtney decision, Congress resumed the practice of including reservations in Enabling Acts, and did so in the case of virtually every State admitted after 1882. See n. 12, supra.
Despite McBratney and The Kansas Indians, the presence or absence of specific jurisdictional disclaimers has rarely been dispositive in our consideration of state jurisdiction over Indian affairs or activities on Indian lands. In Draper v. United States, 164 U. S. 240 (1896), for example, this Court held that, despite the jurisdictional reservation in the Montana Enabling Act, a federal court still did not have jurisdiction over a crime committed on an Indian reservation by one non-Indian against another. We stated:
“As equality of statehood is the rule, the words relied on here to create an exception cannot be construed as doing so, if, by any reasonable meaning, they can be otherwise treated. The mere reservation of jurisdiction and control by the United States of ‘Indian lands’ does not of necessity signify a retention of jurisdiction in the United States to punish all offences committed on such lands by others than Indians or against Indians.” Id., at 244-245.
Similarly, in Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 60 (1962), we held that a reservation in the Alaska Enabling Act did not deprive the State of the right to regulate Indian fishing licensed by the Department of the Interior, finding that the state regulation neither interfered with Indian self-government nor impaired any right granted or reserved by federal law. Conversely, Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (1832), perhaps the most expansive declaration of Indian independence from state regulation ever uttered by this Court, pertained to one of the original 13 States, unbound by any Enabling Act whatsoever. See also, e. g., The New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761, 769-770 (1867) (reaching same conclusion as The Kansas Indians, supra, but without benefit of disclaimer). And our many recent decisions recognizing crucial limits on the power of the States to regulate Indian affairs have rarely either invoked reservations of jurisdiction contained in statehood Enabling Acts by anything more than a passing mention or distinguished between disclaimer States and nondisclaimer States. See, e. g., New Mexico v. Mescolero Apache Tribe, 462 U. S. 324 (1983); Ramah Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue, 458 U. S. 832 (1982); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U. S. 136 (1980); Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U. S. 373 (1976); Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 (1959).
In light of this history, the parties in these cases have engaged in a vigorous debate as to the exact meaning and significance of the Arizona and Montana Enabling Acts. We need not resolve that debate, however, nor need we resort to the more general doctrines that have developed to chart the limits of state authority over Indians, because we are convinced that, whatever limitation the Enabling Acts or federal policy may have originally placed on state-court jurisdiction over Indian water rights, those limitations were removed by the McCarran Amendment. Cf. Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S., at 484-493. Congress clearly would have had the right to distinguish between disclaimer and nondisclaimer States in passing the McCarran Amendment. But the Amendment was designed to deal with a general problem arising out of the limitations that federal sovereign immunity placed on the ability of the States to adjudicate water rights, and nowhere in its text or legislative history do we find any indication that Congress intended the efficacy of the remedy to differ from one State to another. Moreover, we stated in Colorado River that “bearing in mind the ubiquitous nature of Indian water rights in the Southwest, it is clear that a construction of the Amendment excluding those rights from its coverage would enervate the Amendment’s objective.” 424 U. S., at 811. The “ubiquitous nature of Indian water rights” is most apparent in the very States to which Congress attached jurisdictional reservations. See swpra, at 561. To declare now that our holding in Colorado River applies only to that minority of Indian water claims located in States without jurisdictional reservations would constitute a curious and unwarranted retreat from the rationale behind our previous holding, and would work the very mischief that our decision in Colorado River sought to avoid. We need not rely on the possibly overbroad statement in Draper v. United States that “equality of statehood is the rule,” 164 U. S., at 244, in order to conclude that, in this context at least, “equality of statehood” is sensible, necessary, and, most important, consistent with the will of Congress.
> I — 1
The second crucial issue m these cases is whether our analysis in Colorado River applies with full force to federal suits brought by Indian tribes, rather than by the United States, and seeking adjudication only of Indian water rights. This question is not directly answered by Colorado River, because we specifically reserved in that case “[w]hether similar considerations would permit dismissal of a water suit brought by a private party in federal district court.” 424 U. S., at 820, n. 26. On reflection, however, we must agree with Justice Stevens, who, in dissenting from our decision, wrote: “[T]he Federal Government surely has no lesser right of access to the federal forum than does a private [party], such as an Indian asserting his own claim. If this be so, today’s holding will necessarily restrict the access to federal court of private plaintiffs asserting water rights claims in Colorado.” Id., at 827.
The United States and the various Indian respondents raise a series of arguments why dismissal or stay of the federal suit is not appropriate when it is brought by an Indian tribe and only seeks to adjudicate Indian rights. (1) Indian rights have traditionally been left free of interference from the States. (2) State courts may be inhospitable to Indian rights. (3) The McCarran Amendment, although it waived United States sovereign immunity in state comprehensive water adjudications, did not waive Indian sovereign immunity. It is therefore unfair to force Indian claimants to choose between waiving their sovereign immunity by intervening in the state proceedings and relying on the United States to represent their interests in state court, particularly in light of the frequent conflict of interest between Indian claims and other federal interests and the right of the Indians under 28 U. S. C. § 1362 to bring suit on their own behalf in federal court. (4) Indian water rights claims are generally based on federal rather than state law. (5) Because Indian water claims are based on the doctrine of “reserved rights,” and take priority over most water rights created by state law, they need not as a practical matter be adjudicated inter sese with other water rights, and could simply be incorporated into the comprehensive state decree at the conclusion of the state proceedings.
Each of these arguments has a good deal of force. We note, though, that very similar arguments were raised and rejected in United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U. S. 520 (1971), and Colorado River. More important, all of these arguments founder on one crucial fact: If the state proceedings have jurisdiction over the Indian water rights at issue here, as appears to be the case, then concurrent federal proceedings are likely to be duplicative and wasteful, generating “additional litigation through permitting inconsistent dispositions of property.” Colorado River, 424 U. S., at 819. Moreover, since a judgment by either court would ordinarily be res judicata in the other, the existence of such concurrent proceedings creates the serious potential for spawning an unseemly and destructive race to see which forum can resolve the same issues first — a race contrary to the entire spirit of the McCarran Amendment and prejudicial, to say the least, to the possibility of reasoned decision-making by either forum. The United States and many of the Indian Tribes recognize these concerns, but in responding to them they cast aside the sort of sound argument generally apparent in the rest of their submissions and rely instead on vague statements of faith and hope. The United States, for example, states that adjudicating Indian water rights in federal court, despite the existence of a comprehensive state proceeding, would not
“entail any duplication or potential for inconsistent judgments. The federal court will quantify the Indian rights only if it is asked to do so before the State court has embarked on the task. And, of course, once the United States district court has indicated its determination to perform that limited role, we assume the State tribunal will turn its attention to the typically more complex business of adjudicating all other claims on the stream. In the usual case, the federal court will have completed its function earlier and its quantification of Indian water rights will simply be incorporated in the comprehensive State court decree.” Brief for United States 30 (emphasis added).
Similarly, the Navajo Nation states:
“There is no reasonably foreseeable danger that [the] federal action [brought by the Navajo] will duplicate or delay state proceedings or waste judicial resources. While the Navajo claim proceeds in federal court, the state court can move forward to assess, quantify, and rank the 58,000 state claims. The Navajo federal action will be concluded long before the state court has finished its task.” Brief for Respondent Navajo Nation in No. 81-2147, p. 22 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).
The problem with these scenarios, however, is that they assume a cooperative attitude on the part of state courts, state legislatures, and state parties which is neither legally required nor realistically always to be expected. The state courts need not “turn their attention” to other matters if they are prompted by state parties to adjudicate the Indian claims first. Moreover, considering the specialized resources and experience of the state courts, it is not at all obvious that the federal actions “will be concluded long before” the state courts have issued at least preliminary judgments on the question of Indian water rights. Cf. 484 F. Supp., at 36.
The McCarran Amendment, as interpreted in Colorado River, allows and encourages state courts to undertake the task of quantifying Indian water rights in the course of comprehensive water adjudications. Although adjudication of those rights in federal court instead might in the abstract be practical, and even wise, it will be neither practical nor wise as long as it creates the possibility of duplicative litigation, tension and controversy between the federal and state forums, hurried and pressured decisionmaking, and confusion over the disposition of property rights.
Colorado River, of course, does not require that a federal water suit must always be dismissed or stayed in deference to a concurrent and adequate comprehensive state adjudication. Certainly, the federal courts need not defer to the state proceedings if the state courts expressly agree to stay their own consideration of the issues raised in the federal action pending disposition of that action. Moreover, it may be in a particular case that, at the time a motion to dismiss is filed, the federal suit at issue is well enough along that its dismissal would itself constitute a waste of judicial resources and an invitation to duplicative effort. See Colorado River, supra, at 820; Moses H. Cone Hospital, 460 U. S., at 21-22. Finally, we do not deny that, in a case in which the arguments for and against deference to the state adjudication were otherwise closely matched, the fact that a federal suit was brought by Indians on their own behalf and sought only to adjudicate Indian rights should be figured into the balance. But the most important consideration in Colorado River, and the most important consideration in any federal water suit concurrent to a comprehensive state proceeding, must be the “policy underlying the McCarran Amendment,” 424 U. S., at 820; see Moses H. Cone Hospital, supra, at 16, and, despite the strong arguments raised by the respondents, we cannot conclude that water rights suits brought by Indians and seeking adjudication only of Indian rights should be excepted from the application of that policy or from the general principles set out in Colorado River. In the cases before us, assuming that the state adjudications are adequate to quantify the rights at issue in the federal suits, and taking into account the McCarran Amendment policies we have just discussed, the expertise and administrative machinery available to the state courts, the infancy of the federal suits, the general judicial bias against piecemeal litigation, and the convenience to the parties, we must conclude that the District Courts were correct in deferring to the state proceedings.
V
Nothing we say today should be understood to represent even the slightest retreat from the general proposition we expressed so recently in New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U. S., at 332: “Because of their sovereign status, [Indian] tribes and their reservation lands are insulated in some respects by a ‘historic immunity from state and local control,’ Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, [411 U. S. 145, 152 (1973)], and tribes retain any aspect of their historical sovereignty not ‘inconsistent with the overriding interests of the National Government.’ Washington v. Confederated Tribes, [447 U.S 134, 153 (1980)].” Nor should we be understood to retreat from the general proposition, expressed in Colorado River, that federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation... to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” 424 U. S., at 817. See generally Moses H. Cone Hospital, supra, at 13-16. But water rights adjudication is a virtually unique type of proceeding, and the McCarran Amendment is a virtually unique federal statute, and we cannot in this context be guided by general propositions.
We also emphasize, as we did in Colorado River, that our decision in no way changes the substantive law by which Indian rights in state water adjudications must be judged. State courts, as much as federal courts, have a solemn obligation to follow federal law. Moreover, any state-court decision alleged to abridge Indian water rights protected by federal law can expect to receive, if brought for review before this Court, a particularized and exacting scrutiny commensurate with the powerful federal interest in safeguarding those rights from state encroachment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is reversed, and the cases are
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Board found that the petitioner unions, during the course of a strike, coerced employees of the Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company in the exercise of their right to refrain from or discontinue participation therein, in violation of § 8 (b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. It entered an order requiring the unions to cease and desist “from in any manner restraining or coercing employees of Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company or any other employer in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals enforced the order after deleting the words “in any manner.” 266 F. 2d 823. Because of an asserted conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Labor Board v. Local 926, Int. Union of Operating Engrs., 267 F. 2d 418, we brought the case here. 361 U. S. 893. The only challenge here to the order as so amended is to its validity as extended to “any other employer,” as well as the telephone company.
Petitioners were not found to have engaged in violations against the employees of any employer other than Ohio Consolidated and we find neither justification.nor necessity for extending the coverage of the order generally by the inclusion therein of the phrase “any other employer.” “It would seem . . . clear that the authority conferred on the Board to restrain the practice which it has found . . . to have [been] committed is not an authority to restrain generally all other unlawful practices which it has neither found to have been pursued nor persuasively to be related to the proven unlawful conduct.” Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U. S. 426, 433 (1941). See also May Stores Co. v. Labor Board, 326 U. S. 376 (1946). That loaned employees of other affiliated companies were included within the ambit of petitioners’ coercive acts plainly does not evidence such a generalized scheme against all telephone employers, for it was only the employment of such employees at the struck plant that brought them within the scope of the unions’ activities. We therefore conclude that the inclusion in the order of the words “or any other employer” was unwarranted and the order is modified by striking the same therefrom. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
That section reads in pertinent part:
Sec. 8 (b). “It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents—
“(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 61 Stat. 141.
Section 7 provides:
“Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8 (a) (3).” 61 Stat. 140.
In the Court of Appeals, the Board sought to justify the breadth of its order by relying on two compromise settlement agreements involving activities of the International and other locals against other employers.- Neither the opinion of the Board nor that of the Court of Appeals in this case indicates that any reliance was placed on such agreements, and in this Court the Board disclaims any such reliance.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Alvina Wagner, a resident of California, died in 1942, leaving real and personal property situate there. By a will dated December 23, 1941, and admitted to probate in a California court in 1942, she bequeathed her entire estate to four relatives who are nationals and residents of Germany. Six heirs-at-law, residents of California, filed a petition for determination of heirship in the probate proceedings claiming that the German nationals were ineligible as legatees under California law.
There has never been a hearing on that petition. For in 1943 the Alien Property Custodian, to whose functions the Attorney General has recently succeeded, vested in himself all right, title and interest of the German nationals in the estate of this decedent. He thereupon instituted this action in the District Court against the executor under the will and the California heirs-at-law for a determination that they had no interest in the estate and that he was entitled to the entire net estate, after payment of administration and other expenses. The District Court granted judgment for the Custodian on the pleadings. 52 F. Supp. 850. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter. 147 F. 2d 136. The case came here on certiorari. We held that the District Court had jurisdiction of the suit and remanded the cause to the Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration of the merits. 326 U. S. 490. The Circuit Court of Appeals thereupon held for respondents. 156 F. 2d 653. The case is here again on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because the issues raised are of national importance.
First. Our problem starts with the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Germany, signed December 8, 1923, and proclaimed October 14, 1925. 44 Stat. 2132. It has different provisions governing the testamentary disposition of realty and personalty, which we will treat separately. The one pertaining to realty, contained in Article IY, reads as follows:
“Where, on the death of any person holding real or other immovable property or interests therein within the territories of one High Contracting Party, such property or interests therein would, by the laws of the country or by a testamentary disposition, descend or pass to a national of the other High Contracting Party, whether resident or non-resident, were he not disqualified by the laws of the country where such property or interests therein is or are situated, such national shall be allowed a term of three years in which to sell the same, this term to be reasonably prolonged if circumstances render it necessary, and withdraw the proceeds thereof, without restraint or interference, and exempt from any succession, probate or administrative duties or charges other than those which may be imposed in like cases upon the nationals of the country from which such proceeds may be drawn.”
The rights secured are in terms a right to sell within a specified time plus a right to withdraw the proceeds and an exemption from discriminatory taxation. It is plain that those rights extend to the German heirs of “any person” holding realty in the United States. And though they are not expressed in terms of ownership or the right to inherit, that is their import and meaning. Techt v. Hughes, 229 N. Y. 222, 240, 128 N. E. 185, 191; Ahrens v. Ahrens, 144 Iowa 486, 489, 123 N. W. 164, 166. And see People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381; Scharpf v. Schmidt, 172 Ill. 255, 50 N. E. 182; Colson v. Carlson, 116 Kan. 593, 227 P. 360; Goos v. Brocks, 117 Neb. 750, 223 N. W. 13.
If, therefore, the provisions of the treaty have not been superseded or abrogated, they prevail over any requirements of California law which conflict with them. Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483, 488-490.
Second. The Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that these provisions of the treaty had been abrogated. It relied for that conclusion on the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1 et seq., as amended by the First War Powers Act, 55 Stat. 839, 50 U. S. C. App. (Supp. I, 1941) § 5, and the Treaty of Berlin, 42 Stat. 1939.
We start from the premise that the outbreak of war does not necessarily suspend or abrogate treaty provisions. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464, 494-495. There may of course be such an incompatibility between a particular treaty provision and the maintenance of a state of war as to make clear that it should not be enforced. Karnuth v. United States, 279 U. S. 231. Or the Chief Executive or the Congress may have formulated a national policy quite inconsistent with the enforcement of a treaty in whole or in part. This was the view stated in Techt v. Hughes, supra, and we believe it to be the correct one. That case concerned the right of a resident alien enemy to inherit real property in New York. Under New York law, as it then stood, an alien enemy had no such right. The question was whether the right was granted by a reciprocal inheritance provision in a treaty with Austria which was couched in terms practically identical with those we have here. The court found nothing incompatible with national policy in permitting the resident alien enemy to have the right of inheritance granted by the treaty. Cardozo, J., speaking for the court, stated the applicable principles as follows:
“The question is not what states may do after war has supervened, and this without breach of their duty as members of the society of nations. The question is what courts are to presume that they have done. . . . President and senate may denounce the treaty, and thus terminate its life. Congress may enact an inconsistent rule, which will control the action of the courts (Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S. 698). The treaty of peace itself may set up new relations, and terminate earlier compacts either tacitly or expressly. . . . But until some one of these things is done, until some one of these events occurs, while war is still flagrant, and the will of the political departments of the government unrevealed, the courts, as I view their function, play a humbler and more cautious part. It is not for them to denounce treaties generally, en bloc. Their part it is, as one provision or another is involved in some actual controversy before them, to determine whether, alone, or by force of connection with an inseparable scheme, the provision is inconsistent with the policy or safety of the nation in the emergency of war, and hence presumably intended to be limited to times of peace. The mere fact that other portions of the treaty are suspended or even abrogated is not conclusive. The treaty does not fall in its entirety unless it has the character of an indivisible act.” 229 N. Y. pp. 242-243, 128 N. E. p. 192.
To the same effect see Goos v. Brocks, supra; State v. Reardon, 120 Kan. 614, 245 P. 158.
We do not think that the national policy expressed in the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, is incompatible with the right of inheritance granted German aliens under Article IY of the treaty. It is true that since the declaration of war on December 11, 1941 (55 Stat. 796), the Act and the Executive Orders issued thereunder have prohibited the entry of German nationals into this country, have outlawed communications or transactions of a commercial character with them, and have precluded the removal of money or property from this country for their use or account. We assume that these provisions abrogate the parts of Article IV of the treaty dealing with the liquidation of the inheritance and the withdrawal of the proceeds, even though the Act provides that the prohibited activities and transactions may be licensed. But the Act and 'the Executive Orders do not evince such hostility to ownership of property by alien enemies as to imply that its acquisition conflicts with the national policy. There is, indeed, tacit recognition that acquisition of property by inheritance is compatible with the scheme of the Act. For the custodian is expressly empowered to represent the alien enemy heir in all legal proceedings; including those incident to succession. Much reliance for the contrary view is placed on the power to vest alien property in an agency of the United States. But the power to vest, i. e., to take away, what may be owned or acquired does not reveal a policy at odds with the reciprocal right to inherit granted by Article IV of the treaty. For the power to vest is discretionary not mandatory. The loss of the inheritance by vesting is, therefore, not inevitable. But more important, vesting does not necessarily deprive the alien enemy of all the benefits of his inheritance. If he owes money to American creditors, the property will be applied to the payment of his debts. •
To give the power to vest the effect which respondents urge would, indeed, prove too much. That power is not restricted to property of alien enemies. It extends to the property of nationals of any foreign country, friend or enemy. Provisions comparable to that contained in Article IV of the present treaty are found in existing treaties with friendly nations. We will not readily assume that when Congress enacted § 5 (b) and authorized the vesting of property, it had a purpose to abrogate all such treaty clauses. Cf. Cook v. United States, 288 U. S. 102, 120. Yet if the power to vest is inconsistent with the right of inheritance of an alien enemy, it is difficult to see why it is any less so when other aliens are involved. Finally, there is a distinction between the acquisition of property and the use thereof which § 5 (b) itself recognizes. That section not only grants the President the power to vest; it likewise grants him authority under the same circumstances to “prevent or prohibit, any acquisition . . . of . . . any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest . . . .” §5(b) (1) (B). No action has been taken to prevent or prohibit the acquisition of property by inheritance on the part of enemy aliens. The grant of express power to cut off, inter alia, the right of inheritance and the non-exercise of the power lend support to the view that the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, did not without more suspend or abrogate Article IV of the present treaty. This conclusion squares with the general rule stated in Karnuth v. United States, supra, p. 237, that treaty provisions “giving the right to citizens or subjects of one of the high contracting powers to continue to hold and transmit land in the territory of the other” survive the outbreak of war.
The argument based on the Treaty of Berlin is inconclusive. The Joint Resolution of July 2, 1921, 42 Stat. 105, 106, declared that property of German nationals held by the United States should be retained and no disposition made of it, except as specifically provided by law, until the German government made suitable provision for the satisfaction of claims of American nationals against it. Thus absolute title to the property in question became vested in the United States. Cummings v. Deutsche Bank, 300 U. S. 115. The Treaty of Berlin accorded the United States all rights and advantages specified in the resolution. But the Treaty of 1828 with Prussia contained a provision substantially similar to Article IV of the present treaty. 8 Stat. 378, 384, Art. XIV. Hence it is argued that if the Treaty of 1828 survived the outbreak of war and thus guaranteed property rights in German nationals by way of inheritance during that war, it would not have been necessary to have negotiated a new convention covering the same ground in 1923. And it is also argued that if the provision in the earlier treaty did not survive the war, it is unlikely that the same parties would intend like provisions in the later treaty to have a different effect.
The attitude of the State Department has varied. In 1918 Secretary Lansing expressed the view that such treaty provisions were not in force during the war with Germany and Austria. Today the Department apparently takes the other view. We have no reliable evidence of the intention of the high contracting parties outside the words of the present treaty. The attitude and conduct under earlier treaties, reflecting as they did numerous contingencies and conditions, leave no sure guide to the construction of the present treaty. Where the relevant historical sources and the instrument itself give no plain indication that it is to become inoperative in whole or in part on the outbreak of war, we are left to determine, as Techt v. Hughes, supra, indicates, whether the provision under which rights are asserted is incompatible with national policy in time of war. So far as the right of inheritance of realty under Article IV of the present treaty is concerned, we find no incompatibility with national policy, for reasons already given.
It is argued, however, that the Treaty of 1923 with Germany must be held to have failed to survive the war, since Germany, as a result of its defeat and the occupation by the Allies, has ceased to exist as an independent national or international community. But the question whether a state is in a position to perform its treaty obligations is essentially a political question. Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 288. We find no evidence that the political departments have considered the collapse and surrender of Germany as putting an end to such provisions of the treaty as survived the outbreak of the war or the obligation of either party in respect to them. The Allied Control Council has, indeed, assumed control of Germany’s foreign affairs and treaty obligations — a policy and course of conduct by the political departments wholly consistent with the maintenance and enforcement, rather than the repudiation, of pre-existing treaties.
Third. The problem of the personalty raises distinct questions. Article IV of the treaty contains the following provision pertaining to it:
“Nationals of either High Contracting Party may have full power to dispose of their personal property of every kind within the territories of the other, by testament, donation, or otherwise, and their heirs, legatees and donees, of whatsoever nationality, whether resident or non-resident, shall succeed to such personal property, and may take possession thereof, either by themselves or by others acting for them, and retain or dispose of the same at their pleasure subject to the payment of such duties or charges only as the nationals of the High Contracting Party within whose territories such property may be or belong shall be liable to pay in like cases.”
A practically identical provision of the Treaty of 1844 with Wurttemburg, Art. Ill, 8 Stat. 588, was before the Court in Frederickson v. Louisiana, 23 How. 445. In that case the testator was a citizen of the United States, his legatees being citizens and residents of Württemberg. Louisiana, where the testator was domiciled, levied a succession tax of 10 per cent on legatees not domiciled in the United States. The Court held that the treaty did not cover the “case of a citizen or subject of the respective countries residing at home, and disposing of property there in favor of a citizen or subject of the other . . . .” pp. 447-448. That decision was made in 1860. In 1917 the Court followed it in cases involving three other treaties. Petersen v. Iowa, 245 U. S. 170; Duus v. Brown, 245 U. S. 176; Skarderud v. Tax Commission, 245 U. S. 633.
The construction adopted by those cases is, to say the least, permissible when the syntax of the sentences dealing with realty and personalty is considered. So far as realty is concerned, the testator includes “any person”; and the property covered is that within the territory of either of the high contracting parties. In case of personality, the provision governs the right of “nationals” of either contracting party to dispose of their property within the territory of the “other” contracting party; and it is “such personal property” that the “heirs, legatees and donees” are entitled to take.
Petitioner, however, presents a detailed account of the history of the clause which was not before the Court in Frederickson v. Louisiana, supra, and which bears out the construction that it grants the foreign heir the right to succeed to his inheritance or the proceeds thereof. But we do not stop to review that history. For the consistent judicial construction of the language since 1860 has given it a character which the treaty-making agencies have not seen fit to alter. And that construction is entirely consistent with the plain language of the treaty. We therefore do not deem it appropriate to change that construction at this late date, even though as an original matter the other view might have much to commend it.
We accordingly hold that Article IY of the treaty does not cover personalty located in this country and which an American citizen undertakes to leave to German nationals. We do not know from the present record the nationality of Alvina Wagner. But since the issue arises on the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, we proceed on the assumption less favorable to it, viz., that she was an American citizen.
Fourth. It is argued, however, that even though the provision of the treaty is inapplicable, the personalty may not be disposed of pursuant to the California statute because that statute is unconstitutional. Issues under the Fourteenth Amendment are not raised as in Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197. The challenge to the statute is that it is an extension of state power into the field of foreign affairs, which is exclusively reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government. That argument is based on the fact that under the statute the right of nonresident aliens to take by succession or testamentary disposition is dependent upon the existence of a reciprocal right on the part of citizens of the United States to take personalty on the same terms and conditions as residents and citizens of the other nation. The argument is that by this method California seeks to promote the right of American citizens to inherit abroad by offering to aliens reciprocal rights of inheritance in California. Such an offer of reciprocal arrangements is said to be a matter for settlement by the Federal Government on a nation-wide basis.
In Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 333, California had granted aliens an unqualified right to inherit property within its borders. The alien claimant was a citizen of Great Britain with whom the United States had no treaty providing for inheritance by aliens in this country. The argument was that a grant of rights to aliens by a State was, in absence of a treaty, a forbidden entry into foreign affairs. The Court rejected the argument as being an extraordinary one. The objection to the present statute is equally farfetched.
Rights of succession to property are determined by local law. See Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U. S. 188, 193; Irving Trust Co. v. Day, 314 U. S. 556, 562. Those rights may be affected by an overriding federal policy, as where a treaty makes different or conflicting arrangements. Hauenstein v. Lynham, supra. Then the state policy must give way. Cf. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52. But here there is no treaty governing the rights of succession to the personal property. Nor has California entered the forbidden domain of negotiating with a foreign country, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 316-17, or making a compact with it contrary to the prohibition of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. What California has done will have some incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries. But that is true of many state laws which none would claim cross the forbidden line.
In summary, we hold that disposition of the realty is governed by Article IV of the treaty. Disposition of the personalty, however, is not governed by the treaty unless it is determined that Alvina Wagner was a German national. If she was an American citizen, disposition of the personalty is governed by California law. Whether there are other requirements of the California statute which would bar the California heirs-at-law is a question on which we intimate no opinion.
The judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
So ordered.
Section 259, California Probate Code, in 1942 provided:
“The rights of aliens not residing within the United States or its territories to take either real or personal property or the proceeds thereof in this State by succession or testamentary disposition, upon the same terms and conditions as residents and citizens of the United States is dependent in each case upon the existence of a reciprocal right upon the part of citizens of the United States to take real and personal property and the proceeds thereof upon the same terms and conditions as residents and citizens of the respective countries of which such aliens are inhabitants and citizens and upon the rights of citizens of the United States to receive by payment to them within the United States or its territories money originating from the estates of persons dying within such foreign countries.”
Section 259.2 provided:
“If such reciprocal rights are not found to exist and if no heirs other than such aliens are found eligible to take such property, the property shall be disposed of as escheated property.”
The condition with respect to receipt of moneys in the United States was repealed in 1945, while this case was pending. Cal. Stats. 1945, c. 1160, § 1, effective September 15, 1945. Under the original act, the non-resident aliens had the burden of establishing the fact of existence of the reciprocal rights. § 259.1. By the 1945 amendment the burden of establishing the non-existence of such reciprocal right was placed on him who challenged the right of the non-resident aliens to take. Section 259.2 was repealed.
Exec. Order No. 9788, Oct. 15, 1946, 11 Fed. Reg. 11981.
Vesting Order No. 762, 8 Fed. Reg. 1252.
For a recent review of the authorities see Lenoir, The Effect of War on Bilateral Treaties, 34 Geo. L. J. 129.
§ 3 (b).
§ 3 (a).
§ 7 (c); § 5 (b), as amended; Exec. Order No. 8785, 3 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. 948.
§ 5 (a).
Exec. Order No. 9193, ¶ 5, 3 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. 1174, 1176.
Section 5 (b) (1), as amended, provides in part:
“During the time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President . . . any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes . . .
60 Stat. 925, adding § 34 to the Trading with the Enemy Act.
See note 10, supra.
Treaty with Great Britain, Arts. I, II, March 2, 1899, 31 Stat. 1939. Treaty with Norway, Art. IV, June 5, 1928, 47 Stat. 2135, 2138.
U. S. Foreign Rel., 1918 Supp. 2, p. 309 (Dept. State 1933); VI Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1943) p. 327.
Letter to the Attorney General from Acting Secretary of State, Joseph C. Grew, dated May 21, 1945, commenting on the Government’s position in the present litigation.
The Axis in Defeat, State Dept. Pub. No. 2423, pp. 71, 72, 77.
See note 1, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, IV-A, and V, an opinion with respect to Part III-C, in which Justice Marshall, Justice Black-mun, and Justice Stevens join, and an opinion with respect to Part IV-B, in which Justice White joins.
This case requires that we construe for the first time § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended June 29, 1982. 42 U. S. C. § 1973. The specific question to be decided is whether the three-judge District Court, convened in the Eastern District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284(a) and 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, correctly held that the use in a legislative redistricting plan of multimember districts in five North Carolina legislative districts violated §2 by impairing the opportunity of black voters “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” § 2(b), 96 Stat. 134.
I
BACKGROUND
In April 1982, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative redistricting plan for the State’s Senate and House of Representatives. Appellees, black citizens of North Carolina who are registered to vote, challenged seven districts, one single-member and six multimember districts, alleging that the redistricting scheme impaired black citizens’ ability to elect representatives of their choice in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and of §2 of the Voting Rights Act.
After appellees brought suit, but before trial, Congress amended § 2. The amendment was largely a response to this Court’s plurality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980), which had declared that, in order to establish a violation either of § 2 or of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, minority voters must prove that a contested electoral mechanism was intentionally adopted or maintained by state officials for a discriminatory purpose. Congress substantially revised §2 to make clear that a violation could be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone and to establish as the relevant legal standard the “results test,” applied by this Court in White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755 (1973), and by other federal courts before Bolden, supra. S. Rep. No. 97-417, p. 28 (1982) (hereinafter S. Rep.).
Section 2, as amended, 96 Stat. 134, reads as follows:
“(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), as provided in subsection (b).
“(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” Codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1973.
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority Report accompanying the bill that amended § 2 elaborates on the circumstances that might be probative of a § 2 violation, noting the following “typical factors”:
“1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process;
“2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized;
“3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group;
“4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process;
“5. the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;
“6. whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals;
“7. the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. “Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value as part of plaintiffs’ evidence to establish a violation are:
“whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group.
“whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision’s use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.” S. Rep., at 28-29.
The District Court applied the “totality of the circumstances” test set forth in § 2(b) to appellees’ statutory claim, and, relying principally on the factors outlined in the Senate Report, held that the redistricting scheme violated §2 because it resulted in the dilution of black citizens’ votes in all seven disputed districts. In light of this conclusion, the court did not reach appellees’ constitutional claims. Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F. Supp. 345 (EDNC 1984).
Preliminarily, the court found that black citizens constituted a distinct population and registered-voter minority in each challenged district. The court noted that at the time the multimember districts were created, there were concentrations of black citizens within the boundaries of each that were sufficiently large and contiguous to constitute effective voting majorities in single-member districts lying wholly within the boundaries of the multimember districts. With respect to the challenged single-member district, Senate District No. 2, the court also found that there existed a concentration of black citizens within its boundaries and within those of adjoining Senate District No. 6 that was sufficient in numbers and in contiguity to constitute an effective voting majority in a single-member district. The District Court then proceeded to find that the following circumstances combined with the multimember districting scheme to result in the dilution of black citizens’ votes.
First, the court found that North Carolina had officially discriminated against its black citizens with respect to their exercise of the voting franchise from approximately 1900 to 1970 by employing at different times a poll tax, a literacy test, a prohibition against bullet (single-shot) voting, and designated seat plans for multimember districts. The court observed that even after the removal of direct barriers to black voter registration, such as the poll tax and literacy-test, black voter registration remained relatively depressed; in 1982 only 52.7% of age-qualified blacks statewide were registered to vote, whereas 66.7% of whites were registered. The District Court found these statewide depressed levels of black voter registration to be present in all of the disputed districts and to be traceable, at least in part, to the historical pattern of statewide official discrimination.
“ ‘Consider [a] town of 600 whites and 400 blacks with an at-large election to choose four council members. Each voter is able to cast four votes. Suppose there are eight white candidates, with the votes of the whites split among them approximately equally, and one black candidate, with all the blacks voting for him and no one else. The result is that each white candidate receives about 300 votes and the black candidate receives 400 votes. The black has probably won a seat. This technique is called single-shot voting. Single-shot voting enables a minority group to win some at-large seats if it concentrates its vote behind a limited number of candidates and if the vote of the majority is divided among a number of candidates.’ ” City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 184, n. 19 (1980), quoting United States Commission on Civil Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years After, pp. 206-207 (1975).
Second, the court found that historic discrimination in education, housing, employment, and health services had resulted in a lower socioeconomic status for North Carolina blacks as a group than for whites. The court concluded that this lower status both gives rise to special group interests and hinders blacks’ ability to participate effectively in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.
Third, the court considered other voting procedures that may operate to lessen the opportunity of black voters to elect candidates of their choice. It noted that North Carolina has a majority vote requirement for primary elections and, while acknowledging that no black candidate for election to the State General Assembly had failed to win solely because of this requirement, the court concluded that it nonetheless presents a continuing practical impediment to the opportunity of black voting minorities to elect candidates of their choice. The court also remarked on the fact that North Carolina does not have a subdistrict residency requirement for members of the General Assembly elected from multimember districts, a requirement which the court found could offset to some extent the disadvantages minority voters often experience in multimember districts.
Fourth, the court found that white candidates in North Carolina have encouraged voting along color lines by appealing to racial prejudice. It noted that the record is replete with specific examples of racial appeals, ranging in style from overt and blatant to subtle and furtive, and in date from the 1890’s to the 1984 campaign for a seat in the United States Senate. The court determined that the use of racial appeals in political campaigns in North Carolina persists to the present day and that its current effect is to lessen to some degree the opportunity of black citizens to participate effectively in the political processes and to elect candidates of their choice.
Fifth, the court examined the extent to which blacks have been elected to office in‘North Carolina, both statewide and in the challenged districts. It found, among other things, that prior to World War II, only one black had been elected to public office in this century. While recognizing that “it has now become possible for black citizens to be elected to office at all levels of state government in North Carolina,” 590 F. Supp., at 367, the court found that, in comparison to white candidates running for the same office, black candidates are at a disadvantage in terms of relative probability of success.' It also found that the overall rate of black electoral success has been minimal in relation to the percentage of blacks in the total state population. For example, the court noted, from 1971 to 1982 there were at any given time only two-to-four blacks in the 120-member House of Representatives — that is, only 1.6% to 3.3% of House members were black. From 1975 to 1983 there were at any one time only one or two blacks in the 50-member State Senate — that is, only 2% to 4% of State Senators were black. By contrast, at the time of the District Court’s opinion, blacks constituted about 22.4% of the total state population.
With respect to the success in this century of black candidates in the contested districts, see also Appendix B to opinion, post, p. 82, the court found that only one black had been elected to House District 36 — after this lawsuit began. Similarly, only one black had served in the Senate from District 22, from 1975-1980. Before the 1982 election, a black was elected only twice to the House from District 39 (part of Forsyth County); in the 1982 contest two blacks were elected. Since 1973 a black citizen had been elected each 2-year term to the House from District 23 (Durham County), but no black had been elected to the Senate from Durham County. In House District 21 (Wake County), a black had been elected twice to the House, and another black served two terms in the State Senate. No black had ever been elected to the House or Senate from the area covered by House District No. 8, and no black person had ever been elected to the Senate from the area covered by Senate District No. 2.
The court did acknowledge the improved success of black candidates in the 1982 elections, in which 11 blacks were elected to the State House of Representatives, including 5 blacks from the multimember districts at issue here. However, the court pointed out that the 1982 election was conducted after the commencement of this litigation. The court found the circumstances of the 1982 election sufficiently aberrational and the success by black candidates too minimal and too recent in relation to the long history of complete denial of elective opportunities to support the conclusion that black voters’ opportunities to elect representatives of their choice were not impaired.
Finally, the court considered the extent to which voting in the challenged districts was racially polarized. Based on statistical evidence presented by expert witnesses, supplemented to some degree by the testimony of lay witnesses, the court found that all of the challenged districts exhibit severe and persistent racially polarized voting.
Based on these findings, the court declared the contested portions of the 1982 redistricting plan violative of § 2 and enjoined appellants from conducting elections pursuant to those portions of the plan. Appellants, the Attorney General of North Carolina and others, took a direct appeal to this Court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, with respect to five of the multimember districts — House Districts 21, 23, 36, and 39, and Senate District 22. Appellants argue, first, that the District Court utilized a legally incorrect standard in determining whether the contested districts exhibit racial bloc voting to an extent that is cognizable under §2. Second, they contend that the court used an incorrect definition of racially polarized voting and thus erroneously relied on statistical evidence that was not probative of polarized voting. Third, they maintain that the court assigned the wrong weight to evidence of some black candidates’ electoral success. Finally, they argue that the trial court erred in concluding that these multimember districts result in black citizens having less opportunity than their white counterparts to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. We noted probable jurisdiction, 471 U. S'. 1064 (1985), and now affirm with respect to all of the districts except House District 23. With regard to District 23, the judgment of the District Court is reversed.
I — I
SECTION 2 AND VOTE DILUTION THROUGH USE OF MULTIMEMBER DISTRICTS
An understanding both of § 2 and of the way in which multi-member districts can operate to impair blacks’ ability to elect representatives of their choice is prerequisite to an evaluation of appellants’ contentions. First, then, we review amended § 2 and its legislative history in some detail. Second, we explain the theoretical basis for appellees’ claim of vote dilution.
A
SECTION 2 AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Subsection 2(a) prohibits all States and political subdivisions from imposing any voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or any standards,' practices, or procedures which result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote of any citizen who is a member of a protected class of racial and language minorities. Subsection 2(b) establishes that § 2 has been violated where the “totality of circumstances” reveal that “the political processes leading to nomination or election... are not equally open to participation by members of a [protected class]... in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” While explaining that “[t]he extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered” in evaluating an alleged violation, § 2(b) cautions that “nothing in [§2] establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”
The Senate Report which accompanied the 1982 amendments elaborates on the nature of §2 violations and on the proof required to establish these violations. First and foremost, the Report dispositively rejects the position of the plurality in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980), which required proof that the contested electoral practice or mechanism was adopted or maintained with the intent to discriminate against minority voters. See, e. g., S. Rep., at 2, 15-16, 27. The intent test was repudiated for three principal reasons — it is “unnecessarily divisive because it involves charges of racism on the part of individual officials or entire communities,” it places an “inordinately difficult” burden of proof on plaintiffs, and it “asks the wrong question.” Id., at 36. The “right” question, as the Report emphasizes repeatedly, is whether “as a result of the challenged practice or structure plaintiffs do not have an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes and to elect candidates of their choice.” Id., at 28. See also id., at 2, 27, 29, n. 118, 36.
In order to answer this question, a court must assess the impact of the contested structure or practice on minority electoral opportunities “on the basis of objective factors.” Id., at 27. The Senate Report specifies factors which typically may be relevant to a §2 claim: the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision; the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized; the extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting; the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes; the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Id., at 28-29; see also supra, at 36-37. The Report notes also that evidence demonstrating that elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and that the policy underlying the State’s or the political subdivision’s use of the contested practice or structure is tenuous may have probative value. Id., at 29. The Report stresses, however, that this list of typical factors is neither comprehensive nor exclusive. While the enumerated factors will often be pertinent to certain types of §2 violations, particularly to vote dilution claims, other factors may also be relevant and may be considered. Id., at 29-30. Furthermore, the Senate Committee observed that “there is no requirement that any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.” Id., at 29. Rather, the Committee determined that “the question whether the political processes are ‘equally open’ depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the ‘past and present reality,’” id., at 30 (footnote omitted), and on a “functional” view of the political process. Id., at 30, n. 120.
Although the Senate Report espouses a flexible, fact-intensive test for §2 violations, it limits the circumstances under which §2 violations may be proved in three ways. First, electoral devices, such as at-large elections, may not be considered per se violative of § 2. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that, under the totality of the circumstances, the devices result in unequal access to the electoral process. Id., at 16. Second, the conjunction of an allegedly dilutive electoral mechanism and the lack of proportional representation alone does not establish a violation. Ibid. Third, the results test does not assume the existence of racial bloc voting; plaintiffs must prove it. Id., at 33.
B
VOTE DILUTION THROUGH THE USE OF MULTIMEMBER DISTRICTS
Appellees contend that the legislative decision to employ multimember, rather than single-member, districts in the contested jurisdictions dilutes their votes by submerging them in a white majority, thus impairing their ability to elect representatives of their choice.
The essence of a §2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives. This Court has long recognized that multimember districts and at-large voting schemes may “ ‘operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial [minorities in] the voting population.”’ Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 88 (1966) (quoting Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U. S. 433, 439 (1965)). See also Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 617 (1982); White v. Regester, 412 U. S., at 765; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 143 (1971). The theoretical basis for this type of impairment is that where minority and majority voters consistently prefer different candidates, the majority, by virtue of its numerical superiority, will regularly defeat the choices of minority voters. See, e. g., Grofman, Alternatives, in Representation and Redistricting Issues 113-114. Multimember districts and at-large election schemes, however, are not per se violative of minority voters’ rights. S. Rep., at 16. Cf. Rogers v. Lodge, supra, at 617; Regester, supra, at 765; Whitcomb, supra, at 142. Minority voters who contend that the multimember form of districting violates § 2 must prove that the use of a multimember electoral structure operates to minimize or cancel out their ability to elect their preferred candidates. See, e. g., S. Rep., at 16.
While many or all of the factors listed in the Senate Report may be relevant to a claim of vote dilution through submergence in multimember districts, unless there is a conjunction of the following circumstances, the use of multimember districts generally will not impede the ability of minority voters to elect representatives of their choice. Stated succinctly, a bloc voting majority must usually be able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group. Bonapfel 355; Blacksher & Menefee 34; Butler 903; Carpeneti 696-699; Davidson, Minority Vote Dilution: An Overview (hereinafter Davidson), in Minority Vote Dilution 4; Grofman, Alternatives 117. Cf. Bolden, 446 U. S., at 105, n. 3 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“It is obvious that the greater the degree to which the electoral minority is homogeneous and insular and the greater the degree that bloc voting occurs along majority-minority lines, the greater will be the extent to which the minority’s voting power is diluted by multimember districting”). These circumstances are necessary preconditions for multimember districts to operate to impair minority voters’ ability to elect representatives of their choice for the following reasons. First, the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multi-member form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters’ inability to elect its candidates. Cf. Rogers, 458 U. S., at 616. See also, Blacksher & Menefee 51-56, 58; Bonapfel 355; Carpeneti 696; Davidson 4; Jewell 130. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. If the minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. Blacksher & Menefee 51-55, 58-60, and n. 344; Carpeneti 696-697; Davidson 4. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it — in the absence of special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed, see, infra, at 57, and n. 26 — usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. See, e. g., Blacksher & Menefee 51, 53, 56-57, 60. Cf. Rogers, supra, at 616-617; Whitcomb, 403 U. S., at 158-159; McMillan v. Escambia County, Fla., 748 F. 2d 1037, 1043 (CA5 1984). In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives.
Finally, we observe that the usual predictability of the majority’s success distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election. Cf. Davis v. Bandemer, post, at 131-133, 139-140 (opinion of White, J.); Bolden, supra, at 111, n. 7 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Whitcomb, supra, at 153. See also Blacksher & Menefee 57, n. 333; Note, Geometry and Geography: Racial Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act, 94 Yale L. J. 189, 200, n. 66 (1984) (hereinafter Note, Geometry and Geography).
1 — 1 I — I
RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING
Having stated the general legal principles relevant to claims that §2 has been violated through the use of multi-member districts, we turn to the arguments of appellants and of the United States as amicus curiae addressing racially polarized voting. First, we describe the District Court’s treatment of racially polarized voting. Next, we consider appellants’ claim that the District Court used an incorrect legal standard to determine whether racial bloc voting in the contested districts was sufficiently severe to be cognizable as an element of a §2 claim. Finally, we consider appellants’ contention that the trial court employed an incorrect definition of racially polarized voting and thus erroneously relied on statistical evidence that was not probative of racial bloc voting.
A
THE DISTRICT COURT’S TREATMENT OF RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING
The investigation conducted by the District Court into the question of racial bloc voting credited some testimony of lay witnesses, but relied principally on statistical evidence presented by appellees’ expert witnesses, in particular that offered by Dr. Bernard Grofman. Dr. Grofman collected and evaluated data from 53 General Assembly primary and general elections involving black candidacies. These elections were held over a period of three different election years in the six originally challenged multimember districts. Dr. Grofman subjected the data to two complementary methods of analysis — extreme case analysis and bivariate ecological regression analysis — in order to determine whether blacks and whites in these districts differed in their voting behavior. These analytic techniques yielded data concerning the voting patterns of the two races, including estimates of the percentages of members of each race who voted for black candidates.
The court’s initial consideration of these data took the form of a three-part inquiry: did the data reveal any correlation between the race of the voter and the selection of certain candidates; was the revealed correlation statistically significant; and was the difference in black and white voting patterns “substantively significant”? The District Court found that blacks and whites generally preferred different candidates and, on that basis, found voting in the districts to be racially correlated. The court accepted Dr. Grofman’s expert opinion that the correlation between the race of the voter and the voter’s choice of certain candidates was statistically significant. Finally, adopting Dr. Grofman’s terminology, see Tr. 195, the court found that in all but 2 of the 53 elections the degree of racial bloc voting was “so marked as to be substantively significant, in the sense that the results of the individual election would have been different depending upon whether it had been held among only the white voters or only the black voters.” 590 F. Supp., at 368.
The court also reported its findings, both in tabulated numerical form and in written form, that a high percentage of black voters regularly supported black candidates and that most white voters were extremely reluctant to vote for black candidates. The court then considered the relevance to the existence of legally significant white bloc voting of the fact that black candidates have won some elections. It determined that in most instances, special circumstances, such as incumbency and lack of opposition, rather than a diminution in usually severe white bloc voting, accounted for these candidates’ success. The court also suggested that black voters’ reliance on bullet voting was a significant factor in their successful efforts to elect candidates of their choice. Based on all of the evidence before it, the trial court concluded that each of the districts experienced racially polarized voting “in a persistent and severe degree.” Id., at 367.
B
THE DEGREE OF BLOC VOTING THAT IS LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT UNDER §2
1
Appellants’ Arguments
North Carolina and the United States argue that the test used by the District Court to determine whether voting patterns in the disputed districts are racially polarized to an extent cognizable under §2 will lead to results that are inconsistent with congressional intent. North Carolina maintains that the court considered legally significant racially polarized voting to occur whenever “less than 50% of the white voters cast a ballot for the black candidate.” Brief for Appellants 36. Appellants also argue that racially polarized voting is legally significant only when it always results in the defeat of black candidates. Id., at 39-40.
The United States, on the other hand, isolates a single line in the court’s opinion and identifies it as the court’s complete test. According to the United States, the District Court adopted a standard under which legally significant racial bloc voting is deemed to exist whenever “ ‘the results of the individual election would have been different depending upon whether it had been held among only the white voters or only the black voters in the election.’ ” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29 (quoting 590 F. Supp., at 368). We read the District Court opinion differently.
2
The Standard for Legally Significant Racial Bloc Voting
The Senate Report states that the “extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized,” S. Rep., at 29, is relevant to a vote dilution claim. Further, courts and commentators agree that racial bloc voting is a key element of a vote dilution claim. See, e. g., Escambia County, Fla., 748 F. 2d, at 1043; United States v. Marengo County Comm’n, 731 F. 2d 1546, 1566 (CA11), appeal dism’d and cert. denied, 469 U. S. 976 (1984); Nevett v. Sides, 571 F. 2d 209, 223 (CA5 1978), cert. denied, 446 U. S. 951 (1980); Johnson v. Halifax County, 594 F. Supp. 161, 170 (EDNC 1984); Blacksher & Menefee; Engstrom & Wildgen, 465, 469; Parker 107; Note, Geometry and Geography 199. Because, as we explain below, the extent of bloc voting necessary to demonstrate that a minority’s ability to elect its preferred representatives is impaired varies according to several factual circumstances, the degree of bloc voting which constitutes the threshold of legal significance will vary from district to district. Nonetheless, it is possible to state some general principles and we proceed to do so.
The purpose of inquiring into the existence of racially polarized voting is twofold: to ascertain whether minority group members constitute a politically cohesive unit and to determine whether whites vote sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidates. See supra, at 48-51. Thus, the question whether a given district experiences legally significant racially polarized voting requires discrete inquiries into minority and white voting practices. A showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates is one way of proving the political cohesiveness necessary to a vote dilution claim, Blacksher & Menefee 59-60, and n. 344, and, consequently, establishes minority bloc voting within the context of § 2. And, in general, a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white “crossover” votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting. Id., at 60. The amount of white bloc voting that can generally “minimize or cancel,” S. Rep., at 28; Regester, 412 U. S., at 765, black voters’ ability to elect representatives of their choice, however, will vary from district to district according to a number of factors, including the nature of the allegedly dilutive electoral mechanism; the presence or absence of other potentially dilutive electoral devices, such as majority vote requirements, designated posts, and prohibitions against bullet voting; the percentage of registered voters in the district who are members of the minority group; the size of the district; and, in multimember districts, the number of seats open and the number of candidates in the field. See, e. g., Butler 874-876; Davidson 5; Jones, The Impact of Local Election Systems on Black Political Representation, 11 Urb. Aff. Q. 345 (1976); United States Commission on Civil Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Unfulfilled Goals 38-41 (1981).
Because loss of political power through vote dilution is distinct from the mere inability to win a particular election, Whitcomb, 403 U. S., at 153, a pattern of racial bloc voting that extends over a period of time is more probative of a claim that a district experiences legally significant polarization than are the results of a single election. Blacksher & Menefee 61; Note, Geometry and Geography 200, n. 66 (“Racial polarization should be seen as an attribute not of a single election, but rather of a polity viewed over time. The concern is necessarily temporal and the analysis historical because the evil to be avoided is the subordination of minority groups in American politics, not the defeat of individuals in particular electoral contests”). Also for this reason, in a district where elections are shown usually to be polarized, the fact that racially polarized voting is not present in one or a few individual elections does not necessarily negate the conclusion that the district experiences legally significant bloc voting. Furthermore, the success of a minority candidate in a particular election does not necessarily prove that the district did not experience polarized voting in that election; special circumstances, such as the absence of an opponent, incumbency, or the utilization of bullet voting, may explain minority electoral success in a polarized contest.
As must be apparent, the degree of racial bloc voting that is cognizable as an element of a §2 vote dilution claim will vary according to a variety of factual circumstances. Consequently, there is no simple doctrinal test for the existence of legally significant racial bloc voting. However, the foregoing general principles should provide courts with substantial guidance in determining whether evidence that black and white voters generally prefer different candidates rises to the level of legal significance under § 2.
3
Standard Utilized by the District Court
The District Court clearly did not employ the simplistic standard identified by North Carolina — legally significant bloc voting occurs
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Certiorari, 348 U. S. 812, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Per Curiam:
The Court finds that the order of the Commission is not ambiguous. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, insofar as it modified paragraph 1 (c) of the Commission's order, is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to restore the order of the Commission.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought as an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of Arizona by the State on the relation of its Highway Department. The Department seeks to prohibit the application by the State Land Commissioner of rules governing the acquisition of rights of way and material sites in federally donated lands held in trust by the State. The Commissioner’s rules provide in pertinent part that “Rights of Way and Material Sites may be granted ... for an indefinite period . . . after full payment of the appraised value . . . has been made to the State Land Department. The appraised value . . . shall be determined in accordance with the principles established in A. R. S. 12-1122.” Rule 12. The Supreme Court of Arizona held that it may be conclusively presumed that highways constructed across trust lands always enhance the value of the remaining trust lands in amounts at least equal to the value of the areas taken. It therefore ordered the Commissioner to grant without actual compensation material sites and rights of way upon trust lands. 99 Ariz. 161, 407 P. 2d 747.
The lands at issue here are among some 10,790,000 acres granted by the United States to Arizona in trust for the use and benefit of designated public activities within the State. The Federal Government since the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 has made such grants to States newly admitted to the Union. Although the terms of these grants differ, at least the most recent commonly make clear that the United States has a continuing interest in the administration of both the lands and the funds which derive from them. The grant involved here thus expressly requires the Attorney General of the United States to maintain whatever proceedings may be necessary to enforce its terms. We brought this case here because of the importance of the issues presented both to the United States and to the States which have received such lands. 384 U. S. 926.
The issues here stem chiefly from ambiguities in the grant itself. The terms under which the United States provided these lands were included in the New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act. 36 Stat. 557. The Act describes with particularity the disposition Arizona may make of the lands and of the funds derived from them, but it does not directly refer to the conditions or consequences of the use by the State itself of the trust lands for purposes not designated in the grant. Of the issues which may arise from the Act’s silence, we need now reach only two: first, whether Arizona is permitted to obtain trust lands for such uses without first satisfying the Act’s restrictions on disposition of the land; and second, what standard of compensation Arizona must employ to recompense the trust for the land it uses. Both issues require consideration of the Act’s language and history.
I.
We turn first to the question of the method by which Arizona may obtain trust lands for purposes not included in the grant. The constraints imposed by the Act upon the methods by which trust lands may be transferred are few and simple. Section 28, which is reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion, requires, with exceptions inapplicable here, that lands be sold or leased only to “the highest and best bidder at a public auction to be held at the county seat of the county wherein the lands . . . shall lie . . . .” The section prescribes the terms, form and frequency of the notice which must be given of the auction. It requires that no lands be sold for a price less than their appraised value. The Act imposes two sanctions upon transactions which fail to satisfy its requirements. First, § 28 provides broadly that trust lands must be “disposed of in whole or in part only in manner as herein provided . . . It adds that “Disposition of any of said lands ... in any manner contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed a breach of trust.” Finally, it provides that “Every sale, lease, conveyance, or contract of or concerning any of the lands hereby granted or confirmed . . . not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of this Act shall be null and void . . .
The parties urge, and the state court assumed, that Arizona need not follow these procedures when it seeks material sites and rights of way upon trust lands. The Commissioner’s rules thus do not require an auction or other public sale. This view has been taken by other state courts construing similar grants. Ross v. Trustees of University of Wyoming, 30 Wyo. 433; 222 P. 3, State v. Walker, 61 N. M. 374, 301 P. 2d 317. We have concluded, for the reasons which follow, that the restrictions of the Act are inapplicable to acquisitions by the State for its highway program.
The Act’s silence obliges us to examine its purposes, as evidenced by its terms and its legislative history, to determine whether these restrictions should be imposed here. The grant was plainly expected to produce a fund, accumulated by sale and use of the trust lands, with which the State could support the public institutions designated by the Act. It was not supposed that Arizona would retain all the lands given it for actual use by the beneficiaries; the lands were obviously too extensive and too often inappropriate for the selected purposes. Congress could scarcely have expected, for example, that many of the 8,000,000 acres of its grant “for the support of the common schools,” all chosen without regard to topography or school needs, would be employed as building sites. It intended instead that Arizona would use the general powers of sale and lease given it by the Act to accumulate funds with which it could support its schools.
The central problem which confronted the Act’s draftsmen was therefore to devise constraints which would assure that the trust received in full fair compensation for trust lands. The method of transfer and the transferee were material only so far as necessary to assure that the trust sought and obtained appropriate compensation. This is confirmed by the legislative history of the Enabling Act. All the restrictions on the use and disposition of the trust lands, including those on the powers of sale and lease, were first inserted by the Senate Committee on the Territories. Senator Bev-eridge, the committee’s chairman, made clear on the floor of the Senate that the committee’s determination to require the restrictions sprang from its fear that the trust would be exploited for private advantage. He emphasized that the committee was influenced chiefly by the repeated violations of a similar grant made to New Mexico in 1898. The violations had there allegedly consisted of private sales at unreasonably low prices, and the committee evidently hoped to prevent such depredations here by requiring public notice and sale. The restrictions were thus intended to guarantee, by preventing particular abuses through the prohibition of specific practices, that the trust received appropriate compensation for trust lands. We see no need to read the Act to impose these restrictions on transfers in which the abuses they were intended to prevent are not likely to occur, and in which the trust may in another and more effective fashion be assured full compensation.
Further, we should not fail to recognize that, were we to require Arizona to follow precisely these procedures, we would sanction an empty formality. There would not often be others to bid for the material sites and rights of way which the State might seek. More important, even if such bidders appeared and proved successful, nothing in the grant would prevent Arizona from thereafter condemning the land which it had failed to purchase; the anticipation of condemnation would leave the auction without any real significance. We cannot see that the trust would materially benefit from this circuity.
We conclude that it is consonant with the Act’s essential purposes to exclude from the restrictions in question the transactions at issue here. The trust will be protected, and its purposes entirely satisfied, if the State is required to provide full compensation for the land it uses. We hold, therefore, that Arizona need not offer public notice or conduct a public sale when it seeks trust lands for its highway program. The State may instead employ the procedures established by the Commissioner’s rules, or any other procedures reasonably calculated to assure the integrity of the trust and to prevent misapplication of its lands and funds.
II.
The second issue here is the standard of compensation which Arizona must employ to recompense the trust for the land it acquires. The Land Commissioner’s rules provide simply that the State must pay the appraised value, as measured by the State’s condemnation statute, of the right of way or material site. The Highway Department urges, and the Arizona Supreme Court held, that nothing need ever be actually paid since it may be conclusively presumed that all highways enhance the value of the remaining trust lands in amounts at least equal to the value of the lands which were taken. The United States, as amicus curiae, suggests that the Highway Department be obliged to pay the land’s appraised value, but that it be permitted to reduce that sum by the amount of any enhancement shown in the value of the remaining trust lands. The rule urged by the United States differs from that adopted by the state court only in that the United States would not permit the Highway Department to presume enhancement, but would instead require that it be established by the Department in each instance with reasonable certainty and precision. Under this rule, enhancement would have to be individually proved and computed for small tracts of land checkered over the entire State.
We are urged by the United States to determine only the validity of the rule of law stated by the Arizona Supreme Court, and to defer the broader question of whether enhancement may ever be permitted to diminish the actual compensation payable to the trust. The United States emphasizes that the broader issue does not directly arise under the Commissioner’s rules, since the Arizona condemnation statute incorporated by those rules does not permit benefits to reduce the compensation payable for the condemned land’s fair market value. We are unable to take so narrow a view. The rule adopted by the state court clearly stemmed from, and depended upon, the premise that enhancement may be balanced against the value of the trust lands taken by the State. If we severed the conclusion from its premise, we would halt short of a full adjudication of the validity of the Commissioner’s rules, and unnecessarily prolong the litigation of this important question. We have therefore reached the broader issue, and have concluded that the terms and purposes of the grant do not permit Arizona to diminish the actual compensation, meaning thereby monetary compensation, payable to the trust by the amount of any enhancement in the value of the remaining trust lands.
The Enabling Act unequivocally demands both that the trust receive the full value of any lands transferred from it and that any funds received be employed only for the purposes for which the land was given. First, it requires that before trust lands or their products are offered for sale they must be “appraised at their true value,” and that “no sale or other disposal . . . shall be made for a consideration less than the value so ascertained . . . The Act originally provided in addition that trust lands should not be sold for a price less than a statutory minimum. Second, it imposes a series of careful restrictions upon the use of trust funds. As this Court has noted, the Act contains “a specific enumeration of the purposes for which the lands were granted and the enumeration is necessarily exclusive of any other purpose.” Ervien v. United States, 251 U. S. 41, 47. The Act thus specifically forbids the use of “money or thing of value directly or indirectly derived” from trust lands for any purposes other than those for which that parcel of land was granted. It requires the creation of separate trust accounts for each of the designated beneficiaries, prohibits the transfer of funds among the accounts, and directs with great precision their administration. “Words more clearly designed ... to create definite and specific trusts and to make them in all respects separate and independent of each other could hardly have been chosen.” United States v. Ervien, 246 P. 277, 279. All these restrictions in combination indicate Congress’ concern both that the grants provide the most substantial support possible to the beneficiaries and that only those beneficiaries profit from the trust.
This is confirmed by the background and legislative history of the Enabling Act. The restrictions placed upon land grants to the States became steadily more rigid and specific in the 50 years prior to this Act, as Congress sought to require prudent management and thereby to preserve the usefulness of the grants for their intended purposes. The Senate Committee on the Territories, with the assistance of the Department of Justice, adopted for the New Mexico-Arizona Act the most satisfactory of the restrictions contained in the earlier grants. Its premise was that the grants cannot “be too carefully safeguarded for the purpose for which they are appropriated.” Senator Beveridge described the restrictions as “quite the most important item” in the Enabling Act, and emphasized that his committee believed that “we were giving the lands to the States for specific purposes, and that restrictions should be thrown about it which would assure its being used for those purposes.”
Nothing in these restrictions is explicitly addressed to acquisitions by the State for its other public activities; the Enabling Act is, as we have noted, entirely silent on these questions. We must nevertheless conclude that the purposes of Congress require that the Act’s designated beneficiaries “derive the full benefit” of the grant. The conclusive presumption of enhancement which the Arizona Supreme Court found does not in our view adequately assure fulfillment of that purpose, particularly in the context of lands that are as variegated and far-flung as those comprised in this grant. And we think that the more particularized showing of enhancement advocated by the United States, resting as it largely would upon the forecasts of experts which by nature are subject to the imponderables and hazards of the future, also falls short of assuring accomplishment of the basic intendment of Congress. Acceptance of either of these courses for reimbursing the trust in these circumstances might well result in diminishing the benefits conferred by Congress and in effect deflecting a portion of them to the State’s highway program.
We hold therefore that Arizona must actually compensate the trust in money for the full appraised value of any material sites or rights of way which it obtains on or over trust lands. This standard most nearly reproduces the results of the auction prescribed by the
Act, and most consistently reflects the essential purposes of the grant.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is accordingly reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
Section 28 of New Mexico-Arizona Enabling Act, as Amended.
Sec. 28. That it is hereby declared that all lands hereby granted, including those which, having been heretofore granted to the said Territory, are hereby expressly transferred and confirmed to the said State, shall be by the said State held in trust, to be disposed of in whole or in part only in manner as herein provided and for the several objects specified in the respective granting and confirmatory provisions, and that the natural products and money proceeds of any of said lands shall be subject to the same trusts as the lands producing the same.
Disposition of any of said lands, or of any money or thing of value directly or indirectly derived therefrom, for any object other than for which such particular lands, or the lands from which such money or thing of value shall have been derived, were granted or confirmed, or in any manner contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed a breach of trust.
No mortgage or other encumbrance of the said lands, or any part thereof, shall be valid in favor of any person or for any purpose or under any circumstances whatsoever. Said lands shall not be sold or leased, in whole or in part, , except to the highest and best bidder at a public auction to be held at the county seat of the county wherein the lands to be affected, or the major portion thereof, shall lie, notice of which public auction shall first have been duly given by advertisement, which shall set forth the nature, time, and place of the transaction to be had, with a full description of the lands to be offered, and be published once each week for not less than ten successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published regularly at the State capital, and in that newspaper of like circulation which shall then be regularly published nearest to the location of the lands so offered; nor shall any sale or contract for the sale of any timber or other natural product of such lands be made, save at the place, in the manner, and after the notice by publication provided for sales and leases of the lands themselves. Nothing herein contained shall prevent: (1) the leasing of any of the lands referred to in this section, in such manner as the Legislature of the State of Arizona may prescribe, for grazing, agricultural, commercial, and homesite purposes, for a term of ten years or less; (2) the leasing of any of said lands, in such manner as the Legislature of the State of Arizona may prescribe, whether or not also leased for grazing and agricultural purposes, for mineral purposes, other than for the exploration, development, and production of oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon substances, for a term of twenty years or less; (3) the leasing of any said lands, whether or not also leased for other purposes, for the exploration, development, and production of oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances on, in, or under said lands for an initial term of twenty years or less and as long thereafter as oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substance may be procured therefrom in paying quantities, the leases to be made in any manner, with or without advertisement, bidding, or appraisement, and under such terms and provisions as the Legislature of the State of Arizona may prescribe, the terms and provisions to include a reservation of a royalty to said State of not less than 12% per centum of production; or (4) the Legislature of the State of Arizona from providing by proper laws for the protection of lessees of said lands, whereby such lessees shall be protected in their rights to their improvements (including water rights) in such manner that in case of lease or sale of said lands to other parties the former lessee shall be paid by the succeeding lessee or purchaser the value of such improvements and rights placed thereon by such lessee.
All lands, leaseholds, timber, and other products of land, before being offered, shall be appraised at their true value, and-no sale or other disposal thereof shall be made for a consideration less than the value so ascertained, nor upon credit unless accompanied by ample security, and the legal title shall not be deemed to have passed until the consideration shall have been paid.
No lands shall be sold for less than their appraised value, and no lands which are or shall be susceptible of irrigation under any projects now or hereafter completed or adopted by the United States under legislation for the reclamation of lands, or under any other project for the reclamation of lands, shall be sold at less than twenty-five dollars per acre: Provided, That said State, at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, shall from time to time relinquish such of its lands to the United States as at any time are needed for irrigation works in connection with any such government project. And other lands in lieu thereof are hereby granted to said State, to be selected from lands of the character named and in the manner prescribed in section twenty-four of this Act.
The State of Arizona is authorized to exchange any lands owned by it for other lands, public or private, under such regulations as the legislature thereof may prescribe: Provided, That such exchanges involving public lands may be made only as authorized by Acts of Congress and regulations thereunder.
There is hereby reserved to the United States and excepted from the operation of any and all grants made or confirmed by this Act to said proposed State all land actually or prospectively valuable for the development of water power or power for hydro-electric use or transmission and which shall be ascertained and designated by the Secretary of the Interior within five years after the proclamation of the President declaring the admission of the State; and no lands so reserved and excepted shall be subject to any disposition whatsoever by said State, and any conveyance or transfer of such land by said State or any officer thereof shall be absolutely null and void within the period above named; and in lieu of the land so reserved to the United States and excepted from the operation of any of said grants there be, and is hereby, granted to the proposed State an equal quantity of land to be selected from land of the character named and in the manner prescribed in section twenty-four of this Act.
A separate fund shall be established for each of the several objects for which the said grants are hereby made or confirmed, and whenever any moneys shall be in any manner derived from any of said land the same shall be deposited by the state treasurer in the fund corresponding to the grant under which the particular land producing such moneys was by this Act conveyed or confirmed. No moneys shall ever be taken from one fund for deposit in any other, or for any object other than that for which the land producing the same was granted or confirmed. The state treasurer shall keep all such moneys invested in safe, interest-bearing securities, which securities shall be approved by the governor and secretary o.f state of said proposed State, and shall at all times be under a good and sufficient bond or bonds conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties in regard thereto, as defined by this Act and the laws of the State not in conflict herewith.
Every sale, lease, conveyance, or contract of or concerning any of the lands hereby granted or confirmed, or the use thereof or the natural products thereof, not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of this Act shall be null and void, any provision of the constitution or laws of the said State to the contrary notwithstanding.
It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General of the United States to prosecute, in the name of the United States and in its courts, such proceedings at law or in equity as may from time to time be necessary and appropriate to enforce the provisions hereof relative to the application and disposition of the said lands and the products thereof and the funds derived therefrom.
Nothing herein contained shall be taken as in limitation of the power of the State or of any citizen thereof to enforce the provisions of this Act.
This action is in form and substance a controversy between two agencies of the State of Arizona, both formally represented by the State’s Attorney General. We have nonetheless concluded that this is a. case with which we may properly deal. The Land Commissioner is apparently a substantially independent state officer, appointed for a term of years and removable only for cause. He is essentially the trustee of the trust at issue here, with custody of the trust lands. In addition, both the Commissioner and the Highway Department are represented by special counsel appointed by the Attorney General to advocate the divergent positions of the parties.
The grants consisted of four sections in each township for the support of common schools, plus specified acreages for other designated purposes. The other acreages were granted for the support of agricultural and mechanical colleges, a school of mines, military institutes, the payment of bonds, miners’ hospitals, penitentiaries, and similar purposes. Of the 10,790,000 acres granted to Arizona for all designated uses, some 9,180,000 acres were earmarked for various educational purposes, of which some 8,000,000 acres were given for the support of common schools.
Between 1803 and 1962, the United States granted a total of some 330,000,000 acres to the States for all purposes. Of these, some 78,000,000 acres were given in support of common schools. The Public Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 60 (Comm. Print 1963).
36 Stat. 575.
Nine States urged as amici curiae that we review the judgment below. One of the nine, New Mexico, received lands in trust under the very grant in issue here. The Supreme Court of New Mexico has held in closely similar circumstances that actual compensation must be paid to the trust. State v. Walker, 61 N. M. 374, 301 P. 2d 317.
In addition, the court suggested that the restrictions of the Enabling Act are inapplicable here because the State obtains less than a fee interest. This contention is plainly foreclosed by the language of § 28, by which “Every sale, lease, conveyance, or contract of or concerning any of the lands” is void unless in substantial conformity with the Act.
The school lands were granted according to the rigid checkerboard pattern of the federal survey. Four sections per township were granted by number for the support of common schools, instead of the one section per township ordinarily given in the earlier grants, because the unappropriated lands in Arizona and New Mexico were largely of so little value. Orfield, Federal Land Grants to the States 45.
S. Rep. No. 454, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., 18.
Remarks of Senator Beveridge, 45 Cong. Rec. 8227.
Ibid. These violations culminated in a series of lawsuits brought by the Department of Justice against those privy to them. These, lawsuits were pending when the Enabling Act was under study by Congress. The importance of this episode is also indicated in the committee’s report. S. Rep. No. 454, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., 19-20.
Ariz. Fev. Stat. Ann. §12-1122. The statute permits benefits to reduce any damages caused by severance to the uncondemned portions of a parcel of land, but not to reduce the compensation paid for the land which is condemned.
36 Stat. 574.
Ibid. The Act fixed a minimum price of $3 per acre in Arizona. This requirement was removed by the Act of June 5, 1936. 49 Stat. 1477. The Act still requires that land “susceptible of irrigation” under federal or other projects not be sold for less than $25 per acre. 36 Stat. 574.
36 Stat. 574.
Orfield, Federal Land Grants to the States 48-52.
S. Rep. No. 454, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., 20.
Ibid.
Remarks of Senator Beveridge, 45 Cong. Rec. 8227.
Letter from former Secretary of the Interior Garfield to the House Committee on the Territories. H. R. Rep. No. 152, 61st Cong.-, 2d Sess., 3.
Despite widespread use of the value of benefits in computing condemnation awards, the various rules adopted for that purpose have created confusion and difficulties. See Haar & Hering, The Determination of Benefits in Land Acquisition, 51 Calif. L. Rev. 833. These problems would be aggravated in the context of this situation, since the benefits would have to be individually computed for tracts of land scattered over the entire State.
We do not mean to suggest that deferred payment arrangements might not be appropriate. Cf. the provisions of §28 (see Appendix): “no sale or other disposal thereof shall be made for a consideration less than the value so ascertained, nor upon credit unless accompanied by ample security, and the legal title shall not be deemed to have passed until the consideration shall have been paid.” Nor do we mean that exchanges, in the situations in which they are permitted by the Act, would not be appropriate. Cf. the provisions of § 28 (see Appendix): “The State of Arizona is authorized to exchange any lands owned by it for other lands, public or private, under such regulations as the legislature thereof may prescribe: Provided, That such exchanges involving public lands may be made only as authorized by Acts of Congress and regulations thereunder.”
We are informed by counsel that over a period of years Arizona has obtained the use of large areas of trust lands on bases that may not have accorded with those set forth in this opinion. We wish to make it plain that we do not reach either the validity of any such transfers or the obligations of the State, if any, with respect thereto.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and V, and an opinion with respect to Parts III, IV, and VI, in which Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join.
In 1992, the Chicago City Council enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance, which prohibits “criminal street gang members” from “loitering” with one another or with other persons in any public place. The question presented is whether the Supreme Court of Illinois correctly held that the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
I
Before the ordinance was adopted, the city council’s Committee on Police and Fire conducted hearings to explore the problems created by the city’s street gangs, and more particularly, the consequences of public loitering by gang members. Witnesses included residents of the neighborhoods where gang members are most active, as well as some of the aldermen who represent those areas. Based on that evidence, the council made a series of findings that are included in the text of the ordinance and explain the reasons for its enactment.
The council found that a continuing increase in criminal street gang activity was largely responsible for the city’s rising murder rate, as well as an escalation of violent and drug related crimes. It noted that in many neighborhoods throughout the city, “‘the burgeoning presence of street gang members in public places has intimidated many law abiding citizens.’ ” 177 Ill. 2d 440, 445, 687 N. E. 2d 53, 58 (1997). Furthermore, the council stated that gang members “‘establish control over identifiable areas... by loitering in those areas and intimidating others from entering those areas; and... [m]embers of criminal street gangs avoid arrest by committing no offense punishable under existing laws when they know the police are present....’” Ibid. It further found that “ ‘loitering in public places by criminal street gang members creates a justifiable fear for the safety of persons and property in the area’” and that “ ‘[a]ggressive action is necessary to preserve the city’s streets and other public places so that the public may use such places without fear.’ ” Moreover, the council concluded that the city “‘has an interest in discouraging all persons from loitering in public places with criminal gang members.’” Ibid.
The ordinance creates a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for not more than six months, and a requirement to perform up to 120 hours of community service. Commission of the offense involves four predicates. First, the police officer must reasonably believe that at least one of the two or more persons present in a “‘public place’” is a ‘“criminal street gang membe[r].’” Second, the persons must be “‘loitering,’” which the ordinance defines as “ ‘remaining] in any one place with no apparent purpose.’” Third, the officer must then order “‘all’” of the persons to disperse and remove themselves “‘from the area.’” Fourth, a person must disobey the officer’s order. If any person, whether a gang member or not, disobeys the officer’s order, that person is guilty of violating the ordinance. Ibid.
Two months after the ordinance was adopted, the Chicago Police Department promulgated General Order 92-4 to provide guidelines to govern its enforcement. That order purported to establish limitations on the enforcement discretion of police officers “to ensure that the anti-gang loitering ordinance is not enforced in an arbitrary or discriminatory way.” Chicago Police Department, General Order 92-4, reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a. The limitations confine the authority to arrest gang members who violate the ordinance to sworn “members of the Gang Crime Section” and certain other designated officers, and establish detailed criteria for defining street gangs and membership in such gangs. Id., at 66a-67a. In addition, the order directs district commanders to “designate areas in which the presence of gang members has a demonstrable effect on the activities of law abiding persons in the surrounding community,” and provides that the ordinance “will be enforced only within the designated areas.” Id., at 68a-69a. The city, however, does not release the locations of these “designated areas” to the public.
II
During the three years of its enforcement, the police issued over 89,000 dispersal orders and arrested over 42,000 people for violating the ordinance. In the ensuing enforcement proceedings, 2 trial judges upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance, but 11 others ruled that it was invalid. In respondent Youkhana’s case, the trial judge held that the “ordinance fails to notify individuals what conduct is prohibited, and it encourages arbitrary and capricious enforcement by police.”
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in the Youkhana case, consolidated and affirmed other pending appeals in accordance with Youkhana, and reversed the convictions of respondents Gutierrez, Morales, and others. The Appellate Court was persuaded that the ordinance impaired the freedom of assembly of nongang members in violation of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article I of the Illinois Constitution, that it was unconstitutionally vague, that it improperly criminalized status rather than conduct, and that it jeopardized rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. It held “that the gang loitering ordinance violates due process of law in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.” 177 Ill. 2d, at 447, 687 N. E. 2d, at 59. The court did not reach the contentions that the ordinance “creates a status offense, permits arrests without probable cause or is overbroad.” Ibid.
In support of its vagueness holding, the court pointed out that the definition of “loitering” in the ordinance drew no distinction between innocent conduct and conduct calculated to cause harm. “Moreover, the definition of ‘loiter’ provided by the ordinance does not assist in clearly articulating the proscriptions of the ordinance.” Id., at 451-452, 687 N. E. 2d, at 60-61. Furthermore, it concluded that the ordinance was “not reasonably susceptible to a limiting construction which would affirm its validity.”
We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1071 (1998), and now affirm. Like the Illinois Supreme Court, we conclude that the ordinance enacted by the city of Chicago is unconstitutionally vague.
Ill
The basic factual predicate for the city’s ordinance is not in dispute. As the city argues in its brief, “the very presence of a large collection of obviously brazen, insistent, and lawless gang members and hangers-on on the public ways intimidates residents, who become afraid even to leave their homes and go about their business. That, in turn, imperils community residents’ sense of safety and security, detracts from property values, and can ultimately destabilize entire neighborhoods.” The findings in the ordinance explain that it was motivated by these concerns. We have no doubt that a law that directly prohibited such intimidating conduct would be constitutional, but this ordinance broadly covers a significant amount of additional activity. Uncertainty about the scope of that additional coverage provides the basis for respondents’ claim that the ordinance is too vague.
We are confronted at the outset with the city’s claim that it was improper for the state courts to conclude that the ordinance is invalid on its face. The city correctly points out that imprecise laws can be attacked on their face under two different doctrines. First, the overbreadth doctrine permits the facial invalidation of laws that inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights if the impermissible applications of the law are substantial when “judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 612-615 (1973). Second, even if an enactment does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it may be impermissibly vague because it fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 358 (1983).
While we, like the Illinois courts, conclude that the ordinance is invalid on its face, we do not rely on the overbreadth doctrine. We agree with the city’s submission that the law does not have a sufficiently substantial impact on conduct protected by the First Amendment to render it unconstitutional. The ordinance does not prohibit speech. Because the term “loiter” is defined as remaining in one place “with no apparent purpose,” it is also clear that it does not prohibit any form of conduct that is apparently intended to convey a message. By its terms, the ordinance is inapplicable to assemblies that are designed to demonstrate a group’s support of, or opposition to, a particular point of view. Cf. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288 (1984); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111 (1969). Its impact on the social contact between gang members and others does not impair the First Amendment “right of association” that our cases have recognized. See Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U. S. 19, 23-25 (1989).
On the other hand, as the United States recognizes, the freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have expressly identified this “right to remove from one place to another according to inclination” as “an attribute of personal liberty” protected by the Constitution. Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 274 (1900); see also Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 164 (1972). Indeed, it is apparent that an individual’s decision to remain in a public place of his choice is as much a part of his liberty as the freedom of movement inside frontiers that is “a part of our heritage” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 126 (1958), or the right to move “to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct” identified in Blaekstone’s Commentaries. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 130 (1765).
There is no need, however, to decide whether the impact of the Chicago ordinance on constitutionally protected liberty alone would suffice to support a facial challenge under the overbreadth doctrine. Cf. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 515-517 (1964) (right to travel); Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 82-83 (1976) (abortion); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S., at 355, n. 3, 358-360, and n. 9. For it is clear that the vagueness of this enactment makes a facial challenge appropriate. This is not an ordinance that “simply regulates business behavior and contains a scienter requirement.” See Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 499 (1982). It is a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement, see Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 395 (1979), and infringes on constitutionally protected rights, see id., at 391. When vagueness permeates the text of such a law, it is subject to facial attack.
Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S., at 357. Accordingly, we first consider whether the ordinance provides fair notice to the citizen and then discuss its potential for arbitrary enforcement.
IV
“It is established that a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits....” Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399, 402-403 (1966). The Illinois Supreme Court recognized that the term “loiter” may have a common and accepted meaning, 177 Ill. 2d, at 451, 687 N. E. 2d, at 61, but the definition of that term in this ordinance — “to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose” — does not. It is difficult to imagine how any citizen of the city of Chicago standing in a public place with a group of people would know if he or she had an “apparent purpose.” If she were talking to another person, would she have an apparent purpose? If she were frequently checking her watch and looking expectantly down the street, would she have an apparent purpose?
Since the city cannot conceivably have meant to criminalize each instance a citizen stands in public with a gang member, the vagueness that dooms this ordinance is not the product of uncertainty about the normal meaning of “loitering,” but rather about what loitering is covered by the ordinance and what is not. The Illinois Supreme Court emphasized the law’s failure to distinguish between innocent conduct and conduct threatening harm. Its decision followed the precedent set by a number of state courts that have upheld ordinances that criminalize loitering combined with some other overt act or evidence of criminal intent. However, state courts have uniformly invalidated laws that do not join the term “loitering” with a second specific element of the crime.
The city’s principal response to this concern about adequate notice is that loiterers are not subject to sanction until after they have failed to comply with an officer’s order to disperse. “[Wjhatever problem is created by a law that criminalizes conduct people normally believe to be innocent is solved when persons receive actual notice from a police order of what they are expected to do.” We find this response unpersuasive for at least two reasons.
First, the purpose of the fair notice requirement is to enable the ordinary citizen to conform his or her conduct to the law. “No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes.” Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453 (1939). Although it is true that a loiterer is not subject to criminal sanctions unless he or she disobeys a dispersal order, the loitering is the conduct that the ordinance is designed to prohibit. If the loitering is in fact harmless and innocent, the dispersal order itself is an unjustified impairment of liberty. If the police are able to decide arbitrarily which members of the public they will order to disperse, then the Chicago ordinance becomes indistinguishable from the law we held invalid in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87, 90 (1965). Because an officer may issue an order only after prohibited conduct has already occurred, it cannot provide the kind of advance notice that will protect the putative loiterer from being ordered to disperse. Such an order cannot retroactively give adequate warning of the boundary between the permissible and the impermissible applications of the law.
Second, the terms of the dispersal order compound the inadequacy of the notice afforded by the ordinance. It provides that the officer “shall order all such persons to disperse and remove themselves from the area.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a. This vague phrasing raises a host of questions. After such an order issues, how long must the loiterers remain apart? How far must they move? If each loiterer walks around the block and they meet again at the same location, are they subject to arrest or merely to being ordered to disperse again? As we do here, we have found vagueness in a criminal statute exacerbated by the use of the standards of “neighborhood” and “locality.” Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385 (1926). We remarked in Connolly that “[b]oth terms are elastic and, dependent upon circumstances, may be equally satisfied by areas measured by rods or by miles.” Id., at 395.
Lack of clarity in the description of the loiterer's duty to obey a dispersal order might not render the ordinance uneon-stitutionally vague if the definition of the forbidden conduct were clear, but it does buttress our conclusion that the entire ordinance fails to give the ordinary citizen adequate notiee of what is forbidden and what is permitted. The Constitution does not permit a legislature to “set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.” United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221 (1876). This ordinance is therefore vague “not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all.” Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 614 (1971).
V
The broad sweep of the ordinance also violates “ The requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.’ ” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S., at 358. There are no such guidelines in the ordinance. In any public place in the city of Chicago, persons who stand or sit in the company of a gang member may be ordered to disperse unless their purpose is apparent. The mandatory language in the enactment directs the police to issue an order without first making any inquiry about their possible purposes. It matters not whether the reason that a gang member and his father, for example, might loiter near Wrigley Field is to rob an unsuspecting fan or just to get a glimpse of Sammy Sosa leaving the ballpark; in either event, if their purpose is not apparent to a nearby police officer, she may— indeed, she “shall” — order them to disperse.
Recognizing that the ordinance does reach a substantial amount of innocent conduct, we turn, then, to its language to determine if it “necessarily entrusts lawmaking to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S., at 360 (internal quotation marks omitted). As we discussed in the context of fair notice, see supra, at 56-60, the principal source of the vast discretion conferred on the police in this ease is the definition of loitering as “to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose.”
As the Illinois Supreme Court interprets that definition, it “provides absolute discretion to police officers to decide what activities constitute loitering.” 177 Ill. 2d, at 457, 687 N. E. 2d, at 63. We have no authority to construe the language of a state statute more narrowly than the construction given by that State’s highest court. “The power to determine the meaning of a statute carries with it the power to prescribe its extent and limitations as well as the method by which they shall be determined.” Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447, 455 (1905).
Nevertheless, the city disputes the Illinois Supreme Court’s interpretation, arguing that the text of the ordinance limits the officer’s discretion in three ways. First, it does not permit the officer to issue a dispersal order to anyone who is moving along or who has an apparent purpose. Second, it does not permit an arrest if individuals obey a dispersal order. Third, no order can issue unless the officer reasonably believes that one of the loiterers is a member of a criminal street gang.
Even putting to one side our duty to defer to a state court’s construction of the scope of a local enactment, we find each of these limitations insufficient. That the ordinance does not apply to people who are moving — that is, to activity that would not constitute loitering under any possible definition of the term — does not even address the question of how much discretion the police enjoy in deciding which stationary persons to disperse under the ordinance. Similarly, that the ordinance does not permit an arrest until after a dispersal order has been disobeyed does not provide any guidance to the officer deciding whether sueh an order should issue. The “no apparent purpose” standard for making that decision is inherently subjective because its application depends on whether some purpose is “apparent” to the officer on the scene.
Presumably an officer would have discretion to treat some purposes — perhaps a purpose to engage in idle conversation or simply to enjoy a cool breeze on a warm evening — as too frivolous to be apparent if he suspected a different ulterior motive. Moreover, an officer conscious of the city council’s reasons for enacting the ordinance might well ignore its text and issue a dispersal order, even though an illicit purpose is actually apparent.
It is true, as the city argues, that the requirement that the officer reasonably believe that a group of loiterers contains a gang member does place a limit on the authority to order dispersal. That limitation would no doubt be sufficient if the ordinance only applied to loitering that had an apparently harmful purpose or effect, or possibly if it only applied to loitering by persons reasonably believed to be criminal gang members. But this ordinance, for reasons that are not explained in the findings of the city council, requires no harmful purpose and applies to nongang members as well as suspected gang members. It applies to everyone in the city who may remain in one place with one suspected gang member as long as their purpose is not apparent to an officer observing them. Friends, relatives, teachers, counselors, or even total strangers might unwittingly engage in forbidden loitering if they happen to engage in idle conversation with a gang member.
Ironically, the definition of loitering in the Chicago ordinance not only extends its scope to encompass harmless conduct, but also has the perverse consequence of excluding from its coverage much of the intimidating conduct that motivated its enactment. As the city council’s findings demonstrate, the most harmful gang loitering is motivated either by an apparent purpose to publicize the gang’s dominance of certain territory, thereby intimidating nonmembers, or by an equally apparent purpose to conceal ongoing commerce in illegal drugs. As the Illinois Supreme Court has not placed any limiting construction on the language in the ordinance, we must assume that the ordinance means what it says and that it has no application to loiterers whose purpose is apparent. The relative importance of its application to harmless loitering is magnified by its inapplicability to loitering that has an obviously threatening or illicit purpose.
Finally, in its opinion striking down the ordinance, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to accept the general order issued by the police department as a sufficient limitation on the “vast amount of discretion” granted to the police in its enforcement. We agree. See Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 575 (1974). That the police have adopted internal rules limiting their enforcement to certain designated areas in the city would not provide a defense to a loiterer who might be arrested elsewhere. Nor could a person who knowingly loitered with a well-known gang member anywhere in the city safely assume that they would not be ordered to disperse no matter how innocent and harmless their loitering might be.
I — I i>
In our judgment, the Illinois Supreme Court correctly concluded that the ordinance does not provide sufficiently specific limits on the enforcement discretion of the police “to meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.” 177 Ill. 2d, at 459, 687 N. E. 2d, at 64. We recognize the serious and difficult problems testified to by the citizens of Chicago that led to the enactment of this ordinance. “We are mindful that the preservation of liberty depends in part on the maintenance of social order.” Houston v. Hill, 482 U. S. 451, 471-472 (1987). However, in this instance the city has enacted an ordinance that affords too much discretion to the police and too little notice to citizens who wish to use the public streets.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois is
Affirmed.
The findings are quoted in full in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois. 177 Ill. 2d 440, 445, 687 N. E. 2d 58, 58 (1997). Some of the evidence supporting these findings is quoted in Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion. Post, at 100-101.
The ordinance states in pertinent part:
“(a) Whenever a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a criminal street gang member loitering in any public place with one or more other persons, he shall order all such persons to disperse and remove themselves from the area. Any person who does not promptly obey such an order is in violation of this section.
“(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to an alleged violation of this section that no person who was observed loitering was in fact a member of a criminal street gang.
“(c) As used in this Section:
“(1) ‘Loiter’ means to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose.
“(2) ‘Criminal street gang’ means any ongoing organization, association in fact or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its substantial activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in paragraph (3), and whose members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.
“(5) ‘Public place’ means the public way and any other location open to the public, whether publicly or privately owned.
“(e) Any person who violates this Section is subject to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 for each offense, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.
“In addition to or instead of the above penalties, any person who violates this section may be required to perform up to 120 hours of community service pursuant to section 1-4-120 of this Code.” Chicago Municipal Code §8-4-015 (added June 17,1992), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a-63a.
As the Illinois Supreme Court noted, during the hearings preceding the adoption of the ordinance, “representatives of the Chicago law and police departments informed the city counsel that any limitations on the discretion police have in enforcing the ordinance would be best developed through police policy, rather than placing such limitations into the ordinance itself.” 177 Ill. 2d, at 446, 687 N. E. 2d, at 58-59.
Presumably, these officers would also be able to arrest all nongang members who violate the ordinance.
Tr. of Oral Arg. 22-23.
The city began enforcing the ordinance on the effective date of the general order in August 1992 and stopped enforcing it in December 1995, when it was held invalid in Chicago v. Youkhana, 277 Ill. App. 3d 101, 660 N. E. 2d 34 (1995). Tr. of Oral Arg. 43.
Brief for Petitioner 16. There were 5,251 arrests under the ordinance in 1993, 15,660 in 1994, and 22,056 in 1995. City of Chicago, R. Daley & T. Hillard, Gang and Narcotic Related Violent Crime: 1993-1997, p. 7 (June 1998).
The city believes that the ordinance resulted in a significant decline in gang-related homicides. It notes that in 1995, the last year the ordinance was enforced, the gang-related homicide rate fell by 26%. In 1996, after the ordinance had been held invalid, the gang-related homicide rate rose 11%. Pet. for Cert. 9, n. 5. However, gang-related homicides fell by 19% in 1997, over a year after the suspension of the ordinance. Daley & Hil-lard, at 5. Given the myriad factors that influence levels of violence, it is difficult to evaluate the probative value of this statistical evidence, or to reach any firm conclusion about the ordinance’s efficacy. Cf. Harcourt, Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, the Broken Windows Theory, and Order-Maintenance Policing New York Style, 97 Mich. L. Rev. 291, 296 (1998) (describing the “hotly contested debate raging among... experts over the causes of the decline in crime in New York City and nationally”).
See Poulos, Chicago’s Ban on Gang Loitering: Making Sense of Vagueness and Overbreadth in Loitering Laws, 83 Calif. L. Rev. 379, 384, n. 26 (1995).
Chicago v. Youkhana, Nos. 93 MCI 293368 et al. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Sept. 29, 1993), App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a. The court also concluded that the ordinance improperly authorized arrest on the basis of a person’s status instead of conduct and that it was facially overbroad under the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Art. I, § 5, of the Illinois Constitution. Id., at 59a
Chicago v. Youkhana, 277 Ill. App. 3d 101, 660 N. E. 2d 34 (1995).
Chicago v. Ramsey, Nos. 1-93-4125 et al. (Ill. App., Dec. 29, 1995), App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a.
Chicago v. Morales, Nos. 1-93-4039 et al. (Ill. App., Dec. 29, 1995), App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a
Chicago v. Youkhana, 277 Ill. App. 3d, at 106, 660 N. E. 2d, at 38; id., at 112, 660 N. E. 2d, at 41; id., at 113, 660 N. E. 2d, at 42.
“The ordinance defines ‘loiter’ to mean ‘to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose.’ Chicago Municipal Code §8-4-015(c)(l) (added June 17, 1992). People with entirely legitimate and lawful purposes will not always be able to make their purposes apparent to an observing police officer. For example, a person waiting to hail a taxi, resting on a corner during a jog, or stepping into a doorway to evade a rain shower has a perfectly legitimate purpose in all these scenarios; however, that purpose will rarely be apparent to an observer.” 177 Ill. 2d, at 451—452, 687 N. E. 2d, at 60-61.
It stated: “Although the proscriptions of the ordinance are vague, the city council's intent in its enactment is clear and unambiguous. The city has declared gang members a public menace and determined that gang members are too adept at avoiding arrest for all the other crimes they commit. Accordingly, the dty council crafted an exceptionally broad ordinance which could be used to sweep these intolerable and objectionable gang members from the city streets.” Id., at 458, 687 N. E. 2d, at 64.
Brief for Petitioner 14.
In fact the city already has several laws that serve this purpose. See, e.g., Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720 §§5/12-6 (1998) (intimidation); 570/405.2 (streetgang criminal drug conspiracy); 147/1 et seq. (Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act); 5/25-1 (mob action). Deputy Superintendent Cooper, the only representative of the police department at the Committee on Police and Fire hearing on the ordinance, testified that, of the kinds of behavior people had discussed at the hearing, “90 percent of those instances are actually criminal offenses where people, in fact, can be arrested.” Record, Appendix II to plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 182 (Tr. of Proceedings, Chicago City Council Committee on Police and Fire, May 18, 1992).
Brief for Petitioner 17.
See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23: “We do not doubt that, under the Due Process Clause, individuals in this country have significant liberty interests in standing on sidewalks and in other public places, and in traveling, moving, and associating with others.” The city appears to agree, at least to the extent that such activities include “social gatherings.” Brief for Petitioner 21, n. 13. Both Justice Scalia, post, at 83-86 (dissenting opinion), and Justice Thomas, post, at 102-106 (dissenting opinion), not only disagree with this proposition, but also incorrectly assume (as the city does not, see Brief for Petitioner 44) that identification of an obvious liberty interest that is impacted by a statute is equivalent to finding a violation of substantive due process. See n. 35, infra.
Petitioner cites historical precedent against recognizing what it describes as the “fundamental right to loiter.” Brief for Petitioner 12. While antiloitering ordinances have long existed in this country, their pedigree does not ensure their constitutionality. In 16th-century England, for example, the “ ‘Slavery acts’ ” provided for a 2-year enslavement period for anyone who “‘liveth idly and loiteringly, by the space of three days.’” Note, Homelessness in a Modern Urban Setting, 10 Ford. Urb. L. J. 749, 754, n. 17 (1982). In Papaehristou we noted that many American vagrancy laws were patterned on these “Elizabethan poor laws.” 405 U. S., at 161-162. These laws went virtually unchallenged in this country until attorneys became widely available to the indigent following our decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963). See Recent Developments, Constitutional Attacks on Vagrancy Laws, 20 Stan. L. Rev. 782,783 (1968). In addition, vagrancy laws were used after the Civil War to keep former slaves in a state of quasi slavery. In 1865, for example, Alabama broadened its vagrancy statute to include “‘any runaway, stubborn servant or child’" and ‘“a laborer or servant who loiters away his time, or refuses to comply with any contract for a term of service without just cause.’” T. Wilson, Black Codes of the South 76 (1965). The Reconstruction-era vagrancy laws had especially harsh consequences on African-American women and children. L. Kerber, No Constitutional Right to be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship 50-69 (1998). Neither this history nor the scholarly compendia in Justice Thomas’ dissent, post, at 102-106, persuades us that the right to engage in loitering that is entirely harmless in both purpose and effect is not a part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
The freewheeling and hypothetical character of Justice Scalia’s discussion of liberty is epitomized by his assumption that citizens of Chicago, who were once “free to drive about the city” at whatever speed they wished, were the ones who decided to limit that freedom by adopting a speed limit. Post, at 73. History tells quite a different story.
In 1903, the Illinois Legislature passed “An Act to regulate the speed of automobiles and other
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner is held prisoner in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. He pleaded guilty to charges of forging and uttering United States Treasury checks. He was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on each count, to run concurrently, and the judgment provided that sentence should “begin to run at the expiration of the sentence now being served in the Missouri State Penitentiary.” Petitioner was returned to the Missouri authorities to resume the service of a state sentence of three years for automobile theft. On May 13, 1947, before expiration of such period, he was paroled by the State and delivered to the federal authorities, by whom he has since been held. He contends that the federal sentence does not begin until the full term of the State sentence has expired and that, for the period of parole, he is entitled to freedom. The issue as to whether such wording of a federal sentence entitles the prisoner under such circumstances to temporary freedom is one on which Circuit Courts of Appeals are in conflict. Compare United States ex rel. Lombardo v. McDonnell, 153 F. 2d 919; Johnston v. Wright, 137 F. 2d 914; Kirk v. Squier, 150 F. 2d 3; Martin v. Hunter, 165 F. 2d 215. We brought the case here on certiorari, 333 U. S. 854, to resolve the conflict.
We think it clear that the purpose of the clause deferring commencement of service of the federal sentence was to prevent conflict between the State and Federal Governments. The present federal imprisonment avoids such conflict and achieves that purpose. Missouri authorities have released petitioner from their custody and surrendered him for the apparent purpose of serving his federal sentence and have reserved control over him as a parolee only in event he is not kept in prison during the period of the federal sentence. For all practical purposes contemplated by the judgment, the State sentence has expired — at least insofar as it was an obstacle to service of the federal sentence.
To hold otherwise would mean that a man already finally adjudged guilty of a serious federal crime and sentenced to ten years imprisonment would be left at large and free of all restraint for an interlude between release from the state prison and commencement of the federal term. We do not think such a result is required or intended under the statute, 18 U. S. C. § 709a, or under the terms of the sentence as imposed.
The District Court, after full hearing, dismissed the writ of habeas corpus and remanded petitioner to custody to serve his sentence. We think this was á correct disposition of the matter. The Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary is error.
Judgment reversed.
The Act of June 29,1932, c. 310, § 1,47 Stat. 381.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are asked in this case to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and create a damages remedy for a cross-border shooting. As we have made clear in many prior cases, however, the Constitution's separation of powers requires us to exercise caution before extending Bivens to a new "context," and a claim based on a cross-border shooting arises in a context that is markedly new. Unlike any previously recognized Bivens claim, a cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications. In addition, Congress has been notably hesitant to create claims based on allegedly tortious conduct abroad. Because of the distinctive characteristics of cross-border shooting claims, we refuse to extend Bivens into this new field.
I
The facts of this tragic case are set forth in our earlier opinion in this matter, Hernández v. Mesa, 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2003, 198 L.Ed.2d 625 (2017) (per curiam ). Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, was with a group of friends in a concrete culvert that separates El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The border runs through the center of the culvert, which was designed to hold the waters of the Rio Grande River but is now largely dry. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., detained one of Hernández's friends who had run onto the United States' side of the culvert. After Hernández, who was also on the United States' side, ran back across the culvert onto Mexican soil, Agent Mesa fired two shots at Hernández; one struck and killed him on the other side of the border.
Petitioners and Agent Mesa disagree about what Hernández and his friends were doing at the time of shooting. According to petitioners, they were simply playing a game, running across the culvert, touching the fence on the U.S. side, and then running back across the border. According to Agent Mesa, Hernández and his friends were involved in an illegal border crossing attempt, and they pelted him with rocks.
The shooting quickly became an international incident, with the United States and Mexico disagreeing about how the matter should be handled. On the United States' side, the Department of Justice conducted an investigation. When it finished, the Department, while expressing regret over Hernández's death, concluded that Agent Mesa had not violated Customs and Border Patrol policy or training, and it declined to bring charges or take other action against him. Mexico was not and is not satisfied with the U.S. investigation. It requested that Agent Mesa be extradited to face criminal charges in a Mexican court, a request that the United States has denied.
Petitioners, Hernández's parents, were also dissatisfied
and therefore brought suit for damages in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Among other claims, they sought recovery of damages under Bivens, alleging that Mesa violated Hernández's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The District Court granted Mesa's motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc has twice affirmed this dismissal.
On the first occasion, the court held that Hernández was not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection because he was "a Mexican citizen who had no'significant voluntary connection' to the United States" and "was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot." Hernandez v. United States, 785 F.3d 117, 119 (C.A.5 2015) (per curiam ). It further concluded that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity on petitioners' Fifth Amendment claim. Id., at 120.
After granting review, we vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case, instructing the court "to consider how the reasoning and analysis" of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017), our most recent explication of Bivens, "[might] bear on this case." Hernández, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 2006. We found it "appropriate for the Court of Appeals, rather than this Court, to address the Bivens question in the first instance." Ibid. And with the Bivens issue unresolved, we thought it "imprudent" to resolve the "sensitive"
question whether the Fourth Amendment applies to a cross-border shooting. Ibid. In addition, while rejecting the ground on which the Court of Appeals had held that Agent Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity, we declined to decide whether he was entitled to qualified immunity on a different ground or whether petitioners' claim was cognizable under the Fifth Amendment. Id., at ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 2006-2008
On remand, the en banc Fifth Circuit evaluated petitioners' case in light of Abbasi and refused to recognize a Bivens claim for a cross-border shooting. 885 F.3d 811 (C.A.5 2018). The court reasoned that such an incident presents a " 'new context' " and that multiple factors-including the incident's relationship to foreign affairs and national security, the extraterritorial aspect of the case, and Congress's "repeated refusals" to create a damages remedy for injuries incurred on foreign soil-counseled against an extension of Bivens. 885 F.3d at 816-823.
We granted certiorari, 587 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2636, 204 L.Ed.2d 282 (2019), and now affirm.
II
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619, the Court broke new ground by holding that a person claiming to be the victim of an unlawful arrest and search could bring a Fourth Amendment claim for damages against the responsible agents even though no federal statute authorized such a claim. The Court subsequently extended Bivens to cover two additional constitutional claims: in Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979), a former congressional staffer's Fifth Amendment claim of dismissal based on sex, and in Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980), a federal prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim for failure to provide adequate medical treatment. After those decisions, however, the Court changed course.
Bivens, Davis, and Carlson were the products of an era when the Court routinely inferred "causes of action" that were "not explicit" in the text of the provision that was allegedly violated. Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1855. As Abbasi recounted:
"During this 'ancien regime,'... the Court assumed it to be a proper judicial function to 'provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective' a statute's purpose.... Thus, as a routine matter with respect to statutes, the Court would imply causes of action not explicit in the statutory text itself." Ibid. (quoting Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 287, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) ; J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 433, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964) ).
Bivens extended this practice to claims based on the Constitution itself. 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1855 ; Bivens, 403 U.S. at 402, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (Court can infer availability of damages when, "in its view, damages are necessary to effectuate" the "policy underpinning the substantive provisio[n]").
In later years, we came to appreciate more fully the tension between this practice and the Constitution's separation of legislative and judicial power. The Constitution grants legislative power to Congress; this Court and the lower federal courts, by contrast, have only "judicial Power." Art. III, § 1. But when a court recognizes an implied claim for damages on the ground that doing so furthers the "purpose" of the law, the court risks arrogating legislative power. No law " 'pursues its purposes at all costs.' " American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228, 234, 133 S.Ct. 2304, 186 L.Ed.2d 417 (2013) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525-526, 107 S.Ct. 1391, 94 L.Ed.2d 533 (1987) (per curiam )). Instead, lawmaking involves balancing interests and often demands compromise. See Board of Governors, FRS v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U.S. 361, 373-374, 106 S.Ct. 681, 88 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986). Thus, a lawmaking body that enacts a provision that creates a right or prohibits specified conduct may not wish to pursue the provision's purpose to the extent of authorizing private suits for damages. For this reason, finding that a damages remedy is implied by a provision that makes no reference to that remedy may upset the careful balance of interests struck by the lawmakers. See ibid.
This problem does not exist when a common-law court, which exercises a degree of lawmaking authority, fleshes out the remedies available for a common-law tort. Analogizing Bivens to the work of a common-law court, petitioners and some of their amici make much of the fact that common-law claims against federal officers for intentional torts were once available. See, e.g., Brief for Petitioners 10-20. But Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), held that "[t]here is no federal general common law," and therefore federal courts today cannot fashion new claims in the way that they could before 1938. See Alexander, 532 U.S. at 287, 121 S.Ct. 1511 (" 'Raising up causes of action where a statute has not created them may be a proper function for common-law courts, but not for federal tribunals' ").
With the demise of federal general common law, a federal court's authority to recognize a damages remedy must rest at bottom on a statute enacted by Congress, see id., at 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511 ("private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress"), and no statute expressly creates a Bivens remedy. Justice Harlan's Bivens concurrence argued that this power is inherent in the grant of federal question jurisdiction, see 403 U.S. at 396, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (majority opinion); id., at 405, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (opinion of Harlan, J.), but our later cases have demanded a clearer manifestation of congressional intent, see Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1856-1858.
In both statutory and constitutional cases, our watchword is caution. For example, in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct. 1386, 1391-1403, 200 L.Ed.2d 612 (2018) we expressed doubt about our authority to recognize any causes of action not expressly created by Congress. See also Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1856 ("If the statute does not itself so provide, a private cause of action will not be created through judicial mandate"). And we declined to recognize a claim against a foreign corporation under the Alien Tort Statute. Jesner, 584 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1408.
In constitutional cases, we have been at least equally reluctant to create new causes of action. We have recognized that Congress is best positioned to evaluate "whether, and the extent to which, monetary and other liabilities should be imposed upon individual officers and employees of the Federal Government" based on constitutional torts. Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1856. We have stated that expansion of Bivens is "a 'disfavored' judicial activity," 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1857 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ), and have gone so far as to observe that if "the Court's three Bivens cases [had] been... decided today," it is doubtful that we would have reached the same result, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1856. And for almost 40 years, we have consistently rebuffed requests to add to the claims allowed under Bivens. See 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1863-1864 ; Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118, 132 S.Ct. 617, 181 L.Ed.2d 606 (2012) ; Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537, 127 S.Ct. 2588, 168 L.Ed.2d 389 (2007) ; Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001) ; FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) ; Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 108 S.Ct. 2460, 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) ; United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987) ; Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983) ; Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983).
When asked to extend Bivens, we engage in a two-step inquiry. We first inquire whether the request involves a claim that arises in a "new context" or involves a "new category of defendants." Malesko, 534 U.S. at 68, 122 S.Ct. 515. And our understanding of a "new context" is broad. We regard a context as "new" if it is "different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court." Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1859.
When we find that a claim arises in a new context, we proceed to the second step and ask whether there are any "'"special factors [that] counse[l] hesitation"'" about granting the extension. Id., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1857 (quoting Carlson, 446 U.S. at 18, 100 S.Ct. 1468, in turn quoting Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396, 91 S.Ct. 1999 ). If there are-that is, if we have reason to pause before applying Bivens in a new context or to a new class of defendants-we reject the request.
We have not attempted to "create an exhaustive list" of factors that may provide a reason not to extend Bivens, but we have explained that "central to [this] analysis" are "separation-of-powers principles." Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1857. We thus consider the risk of interfering with the authority of the other branches, and we ask whether "there are sound reasons to think Congress might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages remedy," id., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1858, and "whether the Judiciary is well suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed," id., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1858
III
A
The Bivens claims in this case assuredly arise in a new context. Petitioners contend that their Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims do not involve a new context because Bivens and Davis involved claims under those same two amendments, but that argument rests on a basic misunderstanding of what our cases mean by a new context. A claim may arise in a new context even if it is based on the same constitutional provision as a claim in a case in which a damages remedy was previously recognized. Compare Carlson, 446 U.S. at 16-18, 100 S.Ct. 1468 (allowing Bivens remedy for an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to provide adequate medical treatment), with Malesko, 534 U.S. at 71-74, 122 S.Ct. 515 (declining to create a Bivens remedy in similar circumstances because the suit was against a private prison operator, not federal officials). And once we look beyond the constitutional provisions invoked in Bivens, Davis, and the present case, it is glaringly obvious that petitioners' claims involve a new context, i.e., one that is meaningfully different.
Bivens concerned an allegedly unconstitutional arrest and search carried out in New York City, 403 U.S. at 389, 91 S.Ct. 1999 ; Davis concerned alleged sex discrimination on Capitol Hill, 442 U.S. at 230, 99 S.Ct. 2264. There is a world of difference between those claims and petitioners' cross-border shooting claims, where "the risk of disruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches" is significant. Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1860 ; see Parts III-B and III-C, infra.
Because petitioners assert claims that arise in a new context, we must proceed to the next step and ask whether there are factors that counsel hesitation. As we will explain, there are multiple, related factors that raise warning flags.
B
The first is the potential effect on foreign relations. "The political branches, not the Judiciary, have the responsibility and institutional capacity to weigh foreign-policy concerns." Jesner, 584 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1403. Indeed, we have said that "matters relating 'to the conduct of foreign relations... are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.' " Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 292, 101 S.Ct. 2766, 69 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (quoting Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 589, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586 (1952) ). "Thus, unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in [these matters]." Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530, 108 S.Ct. 818, 98 L.Ed.2d 918 (1988). We must therefore be especially wary before allowing a Bivens remedy that impinges on this arena.
A cross-border shooting is by definition an international incident; it involves an event that occurs simultaneously in two countries and affects both countries' interests. Such an incident may lead to a disagreement between those countries, as happened in this case.
The United States, through the Executive Branch, which has " 'the lead role in foreign policy,' " Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 524, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008) (alteration omitted), has taken the position that this incident should be handled in a particular way-namely, that Agent Mesa should not face charges in the United States nor be extradited to stand trial in Mexico. As noted, the Executive decided not to take action against Agent Mesa because it found that he "did not act inconsistently with [Border Patrol] policy or training regarding use of force." DOJ Press Release. We presume that Border Patrol policy and training incorporate both the Executive's understanding of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures and the Executive's assessment of circumstances at the border. Thus, the Executive judged Agent Mesa's conduct by what it regards as reasonable conduct by an agent under the circumstances that Mesa faced at the time of the shooting, and based on the application of those standards, it declined to prosecute. The Executive does not want a Mexican criminal court to judge Agent Mesa's conduct by whatever standards would be applicable under Mexican law; nor does it want a jury in a Bivens action to apply its own understanding of what constituted reasonable conduct by a Border Patrol agent under the circumstances of this case. Such a jury determination, the Executive claims, would risk the "'"embarrassment of our government abroad" through "multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."'" Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18 (quoting Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 209 (C.A.D.C. 1985) (Scalia, J.)).
The Government of Mexico has taken a different view of what should be done. It has requested that Agent Mesa be extradited for criminal prosecution in a Mexican court under Mexican law, and it has supported petitioners' Bivens suit. In a brief filed in this Court, Mexico suggests that shootings by Border Patrol agents are a persistent problem and argues that the United States has an obligation under international law, specifically Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 19, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-20, 999 U. N. T. S. 174, to provide a remedy for the shooting in this case. Brief for Government of United Mexican States as Amicus Curiae 2, 20-22. Mexico states that it "has a responsibility to look after the well-being of its nationals" and that "it is a priority to Mexico to see that the United States provides adequate means to hold the agents accountable and to compensate the victims." Id., at 3.
Both the United States and Mexico have legitimate and important interests that may be affected by the way in which this matter is handled. The United States has an interest in ensuring that agents assigned the difficult and important task of policing the border are held to standards and judged by procedures that satisfy United States law and do not undermine the agents' effectiveness and morale. Mexico has an interest in exercising sovereignty over its territory and in protecting and obtaining justice for its nationals. It is not our task to arbitrate between them.
In the absence of judicial intervention, the United States and Mexico would attempt to reconcile their interests through diplomacy-and that has occurred. The broad issue of violence along the border, the occurrence of crossborder shootings, and this particular matter have been addressed through diplomatic channels. In 2014, Mexico and the United States established a joint Border Violence Prevention Council, and the two countries have addressed cross-border shootings through the United States-Mexico bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. Following the Justice Department investigation in the present case, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to "work with the Mexican government within existing mechanisms and agreements to prevent future incidents." DOJ Press Release.
For these reasons, petitioners' assertion that their claims have "nothing to do with the substance or conduct of U.S. foreign... policy," Brief for Petitioners 29, is plainly wrong.
C
Petitioners are similarly incorrect in deprecating the Fifth Circuit's conclusion that the issue here implicates an element of national security.
One of the ways in which the Executive protects this country is by attempting to control the movement of people and goods across the border, and that is a daunting task. The United States' border with Mexico extends for 1,900 miles, and every day thousands of persons and a large volume of goods enter this country at ports of entry on the southern border. The lawful passage of people and goods in both directions across the border is beneficial to both countries.
Unfortunately, there is also a large volume of illegal
cross-border traffic. During the last fiscal year, approximately 850,000 persons were apprehended attempting to enter the United States illegally from Mexico, and large quantities of drugs were smuggled across the border. In addition, powerful criminal organizations operating on both sides of the border present a serious law enforcement problem for both countries.
On the United States' side, the responsibility for attempting to prevent the illegal entry of dangerous persons and goods rests primarily with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, and one of its main responsibilities is to "detect, respond to, and interdict terrorists, drug smugglers and traffickers, human smugglers and traffickers, and other persons who may undermine the security of the United States." 6 U.S.C. § 211(c)(5). While Border Patrol agents often work miles from the border, some, like Agent Mesa, are stationed right at the border and have the responsibility of attempting to prevent illegal entry. For these reasons, the conduct of agents positioned at the border has a clear and strong connection to national security, as the Fifth Circuit understood. 885 F.3d at 819.
Petitioners protest that "'shooting people who are just walking down a street in Mexico' " does not involve national security, Brief for Petitioners 28, but that misses the point. The question is not whether national security requires such conduct-of course, it does not-but whether the Judiciary should alter the framework established by the political branches for addressing cases in which it is alleged that lethal force was unlawfully employed by an agent at the border. Cf. Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1861 (explaining that "[n]ational-security policy is the prerogative of the Congress and President").
We have declined to extend Bivens where doing so would interfere with the system of military discipline created by statute and regulation, see Chappell, 462 U.S. 296, 103 S.Ct. 2362 ; Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 107 S.Ct. 3054, and a similar consideration is applicable here. Since regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestionably has national security implications, the risk of undermining border security provides reason to hesitate before extending Bivens into this field. See Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1861 ("Judicial inquiry into the national-security realm raises 'concerns for the separation of powers' " (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 417, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002) )).
D
Our reluctance to take that step is reinforced by our survey of what Congress has done in statutes addressing related matters. We frequently "loo[k] to analogous statutes for guidance on the appropriate boundaries of judge-made causes of action." Jesner, 584 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1403 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). When foreign relations are implicated, it "is even more important... 'to look for legislative guidance before exercising innovative authority over substantive law.' " Id., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1403 (quoting Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 726, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004) ). Accordingly, it is "telling," Abbasi, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1862, that Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the award of damages for injury inflicted outside our borders.
A leading example is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits the recovery of damages for constitutional violations by officers acting under color of state law. We have described Bivens as a "more limited" "federal analog" to § 1983. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006). It is therefore instructive that Congress chose to make § 1983 available only to "citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof." It would be "anomalous to impute... a judicially implied cause of action beyond the bounds [Congress has] delineated for [a] comparable express caus[e] of action." Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 736, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975). Thus, the limited scope of § 1983 weighs against recognition of the Bivens claim at issue here.
Section 1983's express limitation to the claims brought by citizens and persons subject to United States jurisdiction is especially significant, but even if this explicit limitation were lacking, we would presume that § 1983 did not apply abroad. See RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2090, 2100, 195 L.Ed.2d 476 (2016) ("Absent clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have only domestic application"). We presume that statutes do not apply extraterritorially to "ensure that the Judiciary does not erroneously adopt an interpretation of U.S. law that carries foreign policy consequences not clearly intended by the political branches." Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108, 116, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013) ; see also EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991).
If this danger provides a reason for caution when Congress has enacted a statute but has not provided expressly whether it applies abroad, we have even greater reason for hesitation in deciding whether to extend a judge-made cause of action beyond our borders. "[T]he danger of unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy is magnified" where "the question is not what Congress has done but instead what courts may do." Kiobel, 569 U.S. at 116, 133 S.Ct. 1659. Where Congress has not spoken at all, the likelihood of impinging on its foreign affairs authority is especially acute.
Congress's treatment of ordinary tort claims against federal officers is also revealing. As petitioners and their amici stress, the traditional way in which civil litigation addressed abusive conduct by federal officers was by subjecting them to liability for common-law torts. See Brief for Petitioners 10-17. For many years, such claims could be raised in state or federal court, and this Court occasionally considered tort suits against federal officers for extraterritorial injuries. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115, 14 L.Ed. 75 (1852) (affirming award in trespass suit brought by U.S. citizen against U.S. Army officer who seized personal property in Mexico during the Mexican-American war). After Erie, federal common-law claims were out, but we recognized the continuing viability of state-law tort suits against federal officials as recently as Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U.S. 292, 108 S.Ct. 580, 98 L.Ed.2d 619 (1988).
In response to that decision, Congress passed the so-called Westfall Act, formally the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, 28 U.S.C. § 2679. That Act makes the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) "the exclusive remedy for most claims against Government employees arising out of their official conduct." Hui v. Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799, 806, 130 S.Ct. 1845, 176 L.Ed.2d 703 (2010). Thus, a person injured by a federal employee may seek recovery directly from the United States under the FTCA, but the FTCA bars "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country." § 2680(k). The upshot is that claims that would otherwise permit the recovery of damages are barred if the injury occurred abroad.
Yet another example is provided by the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which created a cause of action that may be brought by an alien in a U.S. court under the Alien Tort Statute, § 1350. Under the Torture Victim Protection Act, a damages action may be brought by or on behalf of a victim of torture or an extrajudicial killing carried out by a person who acted under the authority of a foreign state. Consequently, this provision, which is often employed to seek redress for acts committed abroad, cannot be used to sue a United States officer. See Meshal v. Higgenbotham, 804 F.3d 417, 430 (C.A.D.C. 2015) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring).
These statutes form a pattern that is important for present purposes. When Congress has enacted statutes creating a damages remedy for persons injured by United States Government officers, it has taken care to preclude claims for injuries that occurred abroad.
Instead, when Congress has provided compensation for injuries suffered by aliens outside the United States, it has done so by empowering Executive Branch officials to make payments under circumstances found to be appropriate. Thus, the Foreign Claims Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2734, first enacted during World War II, ch. 645, 55 Stat. 880, allows the Secretary of Defense to appoint claims commissions to settle and pay claims for personal injury and property damage resulting from the noncombat activities of the Armed Forces outside this country. § 2734(a). Similarly, § 2734a allows the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to make payments pursuant to "an international agreement which provides for the settlement or adjudication and cost sharing of claims against the United States" that arise out of "acts or omissions" of the Armed Forces. § 2734a(a); see also 22 U.S.C. § 2669(b) (State Department may settle and pay certain claims for death, injury, or property loss or damage "for the purpose of promoting and maintaining friendly relations with foreign countries"); § 2669-1 (Secretary of State
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mb. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This proceeding is a sequel to last Term’s United States v. Louisiana, 389 U. S. 155 (1967), in which we held that the three-league (nine-mile) belt of submerged lands beneath the Gulf of Mexico granted to Texas by the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 was not to be measured from the edge of artificial jetties built in the Gulf by Texas since 1845 but from Texas’ coastline as it existed in 1845 when Texas was admitted to the Union. The cartographic work required to define the 1845 coastline and the gulfward boundary three leagues distant has been completed, and the United States and Texas have agreed upon their locations. However, the 1845 coastline has been substantially modified by extensive erosion and some accretion in the intervening period of more than a century. This modification has occasioned a dispute between the United States and Texas as to whether the Act’s express limitation in § 2 (b), that in no event shall the boundaries of the grant of submerged lands “be interpreted as extending from the coast line ... more than three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico,” is to be read as measuring from the 1845 coastline, as Texas contends, or from the coastline as it exists currently or at any time in the future, as the United States contends. If the limitation is read as measuring from the modern, ambulatory coastline, Texas claims that it would be denied substantial submerged acreage as a result of post-1845 erosion. We ordered oral argument. 393 U. S. 811 (1968). We agree with the United States that the term “coast line” means the modern, ambulatory coastline.
The term “coast line” also appears in § 4 of the Submerged Lands Act. Section 4 approves a seaward boundary three miles distant from the “coast line” of each coastal State, except that if a State can show that its boundary as it existed at the time of entry into the Union or as approved by Congress extended into the Gulf of Mexico more than three miles from the coastline, that State is entitled to claim the submerged lands within such boundary, subject however to the express limitation of § 2 (b). See §§ 2 and 4, 67 Stat. 29, 31, 43 U. S. C. §§ 1301, 1312; United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1 (1960).
The argument of the United States that “coast line” means the modern ambulatory coastline is based on our decision in United States v. California, 381 U. S. 139 (1965). The issue there was whether particular bodies of water on the California coast were “inland waters” within the meaning of § 2 (c) which provides that “[t]he term 'coast line’ means the line . . . marking the seaward limit of inland waters.” We held that the legislative history showed that Congress intended that the courts should define the term “inland waters.” In discharging that assignment we concluded that the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone provided “the best and most workable definitions available.” Accordingly, we adopted those definitions for purposes of the Submerged Lands Act. 381 U. S., at 165. The Convention defines “coast line” as the modern, ambulatory coastline; the decree entered several months later in accordance with our opinion in California expressly provides that “[t]he coast line is to be taken as heretofore or hereafter modified by natural or artificial means . . . .” 382 U. S. 448, 449 (1966).
We said further in California that “[t]his [adoption of the Convention’s definitions] establishes a single coastline for . . . the administration of the Submerged Lands Act . . . .” 381 U. S., at 165. Our conclusion in this case that “coast line” means the modern, ambulatory coastline therefore necessarily follows from our decision in California. See United States v. Louisiana, supra, 389 U. S., at 162, n. 2 (Stewart, J., concurring in result). There is no basis for a finding that “coast line” has a different meaning for the purpose of determining the baseline for measurement of the three-league maximum limitation. Nothing on the face of the Act or in its legislative history supports a different meaning. Rather it seems evident that Congress meant that the same “coast line” should be the baseline of both the three-mile grant and the three-league limitation. Texas suggests no ground for a distinction, but argues that measurement from the modern, ambulatory coastline would produce an inequitable result and work havoc with orderly mineral development. It is true that last Term’s decision that the three-league belt should be measured from the 1845 coastline and not from the edge of subsequently constructed artificial jetties deprived Texas of the benefit of post-1845 accretion. It is also true that the use of the modern, ambulatory coastline as the baseline from which the limitation is measured will penalize Texas for post-1845 erosion and may present practical difficulties for mineral lessees. But any alleged inequitable results, as well as any alleged detriment to orderly mineral development, derive from a consistent reading of the scheme Congress fashioned; thus Texas must look to Congress for relief.
Since the parties have agreed that the decree proposed by the United States should be entered if its view on the disputed point is sustained, we direct the entry of the supplemental decree proposed by the United States.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For supplemental decree entered in this case, see post, p. 836.]
67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. §§ 1301-1315. In United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 84 (1960), we held that the Act entitled Texas, as against the United States, to the submerged lands underlying the Gulf of Mexico to a distance of three marine leagues from Texas’ “coast line.” We expressly reserved the question of what is the “coast line” from which to measure this three-league grant. 363 U. S., at 79. See also 389 U. S., at 156-157 and n. 1.
A Stipulation filed with the Court identifies Texas’ 1845/1849 coastline and also its gulfward boundary three leagues distant. An Act of November 24, 1849, Laws, 3d Tex. Leg., c. 2, p. 4, adopted with the consent of Congress, Act of July 5, 1848, 9 Stat. 245, extended Texas’ boundary opposite Sabine Pass. The United States has accepted Texas’ three-league boundary opposite the western half of Sabine Pass, not as a boundary as it existed when the State came into the Union in 1845, but as one approved by Congress before passage of the Submerged Lands Act, and as such equally entitled to recognition under §2(b). The line identified in the Stipulation as the line to be recognized as Texas’ historic offshore boundary includes the 1849 extension, but the United States reserves the effectiveness of that extension as against other claims, for example, any that might be asserted by Louisiana. See Memorandum of United States 16-18.
Section 2, 43 U. S. C. §1301, so far as relevant here, is as follows:
“(a) The term lands beneath navigable waters’ means—
“(2) all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide and seaward to a line three geographical miles distant from the coast line of each such State and to the boundary line of each such State where in any case such boundary as it existed at the time such State became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by Congress, extends seaward (or into the Gulf of Mexico) beyond three geographical miles,
“(b) The term ‘boundaries’ includes the seaward boundaries of a State or its boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico or any of the Great Lakes as they existed at the time such State became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by the Congress, or as extended or confirmed pursuant to section 4 hereof but in no event shall the term ‘boundaries’ or the term lands beneath navigable waters’ be interpreted as extending from the coast line more than three geographical miles into the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, or more than three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico;
“(c) 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.”
It was represented on oral argument that between 17,000 and 35,000 acres would be lost to Texas as a result of such erosion.
[1964] 15 U. S. T. (pt. 2) 1607, T. I. A. S. No. 5639.
Our decision in California also forecloses any argument that the term “coast line” means the coastline as it existed at the date of passage of the Submerged Lands Act.
Although the three-mile minimum grant measured from the modern coastline has no present application in the case of Texas, the decree includes provisions to cover the situation which would exist if accretion or artificial construction should at some future time extend the coastline more than six miles beyond the 1845-1849 position.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Sou-ter
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI, an opinion with respect to Part V-E,
in which Justice Stevens joins, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV, V-B, and V-D.
I
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. Joining the respondents as amicus curiae, the United States, as it has done in five other cases in the last decade, again asks us to overrule Roe. See Brief for Respondents 104-117; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8.
At issue in these cases are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§3203-3220 (1990). Relevant portions of the Act are set forth in the Appendix. Infra, at 902. The Act requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the abortion procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed. § 3205. For a minor to obtain an abortion, the Act requires the informed consent of one of her parents, but provides for a judicial bypass option if the minor does not wish to or cannot obtain a parent’s consent. § 3206. Another provision of the Act requires that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband of her intended abortion. §3209. The Act exempts compliance with these three requirements in the event of a “medical emergency,” which is defined in §3203 of the Act. See §§3203, 3205(a), 3206(a), 3209(c). In addition to the above provisions regulating the performance of abortions, the Act imposes certain reporting requirements on facilities that provide abortion services. §§ 3207(b), 3214(a), 3214(f).
Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners, who are five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services, brought this suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Each provision was challenged as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the regulations, and, after a 3-day bench trial, held all the provisions at issue here unconstitutional, entering a permanent injunction against Pennsylvania’s enforcement of them. 744 F. Supp. 1323 (ED Pa. 1990). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the regulations except for the husband notification requirement. 947 F. 2d 682 (1991). We granted certiorari. 502 U. S. 1056 (1992).
The Court of Appeals found it necessary to follow an elaborate course of reasoning even to identify the first premise to use to determine whether the statute enacted by Pennsylvania meets constitutional standards. See 947 F. 2d, at 687-698. And at oral argument in this Court, the attorney for the parties challenging the statute took the position that none of the enactments can be upheld without overruling Roe v. Wade. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6. We disagree with that analysis; but we acknowledge that our decisions after Roe cast doubt upon the meaning and reach of its holding. Further, The Chief Justice admits that he would overrule the central holding of Roe and adopt the rational relationship test as the sole criterion of constitutionality. See post, at 944, 966. State and federal courts as well as legislatures throughout the Union must have guidance as they seek to address this subject in conformance with the Constitution. Given these premises, we find it imperative to review once more the principles that define the rights of the woman and the legitimate authority of the State respecting the termination of pregnancies by abortion procedures.
After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.
It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe’s essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.
II
Constitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The controlling word in the cases before us is “liberty.” Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one “barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandéis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, “[djespite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States.” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). “[TJhe guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta’s ‘per legem ter rae’ and considered as procedural safeguards ‘against executive usurpation and tyranny/ have in this country ‘become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation.’ ” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 532 (1884)).
The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e. g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147-148 (1968). It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight Amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 68-92 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). But of course this Court has never accepted that view.
It is also tempting, for the same reason, to suppose that the Due Process Clause protects only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. See Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110, 127-128, n. 6 (1989) (opinion of Scalia, J.). But such a view would be inconsistent with our law. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights and interracial marriage was file-gal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 94-99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678, 684-686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 481-482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id., at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C. J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id., at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id., at 502-507 (White, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399-403 (1923).
Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Arndt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
“[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints,... and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.” Poe v. UUman, supra, at 543 (opinion dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).
Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e. g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210, 221-222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952).
The inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which by tradition courts always have exercised: reasoned judgment. Its boundaries are not susceptible of expression as a simple rule. That does not mean we are free to invalidate state policy choices with which we disagree; yet neither does it permit us to shrink from the duties of our office. As Justice Harlan observed:
“Due process has not been reduced to any formula; its content cannot be determined by reference to any code. The best that can be said is that through the course of this Court’s decisions it has represented the balance which our Nation, built upon postulates of respect for the liberty of the individual, has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society. If the supplying of content to this Constitutional concept has of necessity been a rational process, it certainly has not been one where judges have felt free to roam where unguided speculation might take them. The balance of which I speak is the balance struck by this country, having regard to what history teaches are the traditions from which it developed as well as the traditions from which it broke. That tradition is a living thing. A decision of this Court which radically departs from it eould not long survive, while a decision which builds on what has survived is likely to be sound. No formula could serve as a substitute, in this area, for judgment and restraint.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S., at 542 (opinion dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).
See also Rochin v. California, supra, at 171-172 (Frankfurter, J., writing for the Court) (“To believe that this judicial exercise of judgment could be avoided by freezing ‘due process of law’ at some fixed stage of time or thought is to suggest that the most important aspect of constitutional adjudication is a function for inanimate machines and not for judges”).
Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.
It is conventional constitutional doctrine that where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other. See, e. g., Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726 (1963); Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483 (1955). That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other. See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989).
Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 685. Our cases recognize “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents “have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.
These considerations begin our analysis of the woman’s interest in terminating her pregnancy but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one’s beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision -has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.
It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception, to which Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International afford constitutional protection. We have no doubt as to the correctness of those decisions. They support the reasoning in Roe relating to the woman’s liberty because they involve personal decisions concerning not only the meaning of procreation but also human responsibility and respect for it. As with abortion, reasonable people will have differences of opinion about these matters. One view is based on such reverence for the wonder of creation that any pregnancy ought to be welcomed and carried to full term no matter how difficult it will be to provide for the child and ensure its well-being. Another is that the inability to provide for the nurture and care of the infant is a cruelty to the child and an anguish to thé parent. These are intimate views with infinite variations, and their deep, personal character underlay our decisions in Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Carey. The same concerns are present when the woman confronts the reality that, perhaps despite her attempts to avoid it, she has become pregnant.
It was this dimension of personal liberty that Roe sought to protect, and its holding invoked the reasoning and the tradition of the precedents we have discussed, granting protection to substantive liberties of the person. Roe was, of course, an extension of those cases and, as the decision itself indicated, the separate States could act in some degree to further their own legitimate interests in protecting prenatal life. The extent to which the legislatures of the States might aet to outweigh the interests of the woman in choosing to terminate her pregnancy was a subject of debate both in Roe itself and in decisions following it.
While we appreciate the weight of the arguments made on behalf of the State in the cases before us, arguments which in their ultimate formulation conclude that Roe should be overruled, the reservations any of us may have in reaffirming the central holding of Roe are outweighed by the explication of individual liberty we have given combined with the force of stare decisis. We turn now to that doctrine.
hH I — I
A
The obligation to follow precedent begins with necessity, and a contrary necessity marks its outer limit. With Cardozo, we recognize that no judicial system could do society's work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it. See B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921). Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable. See Powell, Stare Decisis and Judicial Restraint, 1991 Journal of Supreme Court History 13,16. At the other extreme, a different necessity would make itself felt if a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was for that very reason doomed.
Even when the decision to overrule a prior case is not, as in the rare, latter instance, virtually foreordained, it is common wisdom that the rule of stare decisis is not an “inexorable command,” and certainly it is not such in every constitutional case, see Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 405-411 (1932) (Brandéis, J., dissenting). See also Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 842 (1991) (Souter, J., joined by Kennedy, J., concurring); Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203, 212 (1984). Rather, when this Court reexamines a prior holding, its judgment is customarily informed by a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case. Thus, for example, we may ask whether the rule has proven to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability, Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, 116 (1965); whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation, e. g., United States v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 265 U. S. 472, 486 (1924); whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine, see Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 173-174 (1989); or whether facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification, e.g., Burnet, supra, at 412 (Brandéis, J., dissenting).
So in this case we may enquire whether Roe’s central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule’s limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law’s growth in the intervening years has left Roe’s central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe’s premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed.
1
Although Roe has engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven “unworkable,” see Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 546 (1985), representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is unenforceable. While Roe has, of course, required judicial assessment of state laws affecting the exercise of the choice guaranteed against government infringement, and although the need for such review will remain as a consequence of today’s decision, the required determinations fall within judicial competence.
2
The inquiry into reliance counts the cost of a rule’s repudiation as it would fall on those who have relied reasonably on the rule’s continued application. Since the classic case for weighing reliance heavily in favor of following the earlier rule occurs in the commercial context, see Payne v. Tennes see, supra,, at 828, where advance planning of great precision is most obviously a necessity, it is no cause for surprise that some would find no reliance worthy of consideration in support of Roe.
While neither respondents nor their amici in so many words deny that the abortion right invites some reliance prior to its actual exercise, one can readily imagine an argument stressing the dissimilarity of this case to one involving property or contract. Abortion is customarily chosen as an unplanned response to the consequence of unplanned activity or to the failure of conventional birth control, and except on the assumption that no intercourse would have occurred but for Roe’s holding, such behavior may appear to justify no reliance claim. Even if reliance could be claimed on that unrealistic assumption, the argument might run, any reliance interest would be de minimis. This argument would be premised on the hypothesis that reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.
To eliminate the issue of relianee that easily, however, one would need to limit cognizable reliance to specific instances of sexual activity. But to do this would be simply to refuse to face the fact that for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in relianee on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. See, e. g., R. Petehesky, Abortion and Woman’s Choice 109, 138, n. 7 (rev. ed. 1990). The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain cost of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed.
3
No evolution of legal principle has left Roe’s doctrinal footings weaker than they were in 1973. No development of constitutional law since the ease was decided has implicitly or explicitly left Roe behind as a mere survivor of obsolete constitutional thinking.
It will be recognized, of course, that Roe stands at an intersection of two lines of decisions, but in whichever doctrinal category one reads the case, the result for present purposes will be the same. The Roe Court itself placed its holding in the succession of cases most prominently exemplified by Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965). See Roe, 410 U. S., at 152-153. When it is so seen, Roe is clearly in no jeopardy, since subsequent constitutional developments have neither disturbed, nor do they threaten to diminish, the scope of recognized protection accorded to the liberty relating to intimate relationships, the family, and decisions about whether or not to beget or bear a child. See, e. g., Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 (1977).
Roe, however, may be seen not only as an exemplar of Griswold liberty but as a rule (whether or not mistaken) of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection. If so, our cases since Roe accord with Roe’s view that a State’s interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims. Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 U. S. 261, 278 (1990); cf., e. g., Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U. S. 127, 135 (1992); Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990); see also, e. g., Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 24-30 (1905).
Finally, one could classify Roe as sui generis. If the case is so viewed, then there clearly has been no erosion of its central determination. The original holding resting on the concurrence of seven Members of the Court in 1973 was expressly affirmed by a majority of six in 1983, see Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U. S. 416 (Akron I), and by a majority of five in 1986, see Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U. S. 747, expressing adherence to the constitutional ruling despite legislative efforts in some States to test its limits. More recently, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U. S. 490 (1989), although two of the present authors questioned the trimester framework in a way consistent with our judgment today, see id., at 518 (Rehnquist, C. J., joined by White and Kennedy, JJ.); id., at 529 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), a majority of the Court either decided to reaffirm or declined to address the constitutional validity of the central holding of Roe. See Webster, 492 U. S., at 521 (Rehnquist, C. J., joined by White and Kennedy, JJ.); id., at 525-526 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 537, 553 (Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id., at 561-563 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Nor will courts building upon Roe be likely to hand down erroneous decisions as a consequence. Even on the assumption that the central holding of Roe was in error, that error would go only to the strength of the state interest in fetal protection, not to the recognition afforded by the Constitution to the woman’s liberty. The latter aspect of the decision fits comfortably within the framework of the Court’s prior decisions, including Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); Griswold, supra; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), the holdings of which are “not a series of isolated points,” but mark a “rational continuum.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S., at 543 (Harlan, J, dissenting). As we described in Carey v. Population Services International, supra, the liberty which encompasses those decisions
“includes ‘the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions/ While the outer limits of this aspect of [protected liberty] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions ‘relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education/ ” 431 U. S., at 684-685 (citations omitted).
The soundness of this prong of the Roe analysis is apparent from a consideration of the alternative. If indeed the woman’s interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might as readily restrict a woman’s right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, or eugenics, for example. Yet Roe has been sensibly relied upon to counter any such suggestions. E. g., Arnold v. Board of Education of Escambia County, Ala., 880 F. 2d 305, 311 (CA11 1989) (relying upon Roe and concluding that government officials violate the Constitution by coercing a minor to have an abortion); Avery v. County of Burke, 660 F. 2d 111, 115 (CA4 1981) (county agency inducing teenage girl to undergo unwanted sterilization on the basis of misrepresentation that she had sickle cell trait); see also In re Quinlan, 70 N. J. 10, 355 A. 2d 647 (relying on Roe in finding a right to terminate medical treatment), cert, denied sub nom. Garger v. New Jersey, 429 U. S. 922 (1976)). In any event, because Roe’s scope is confined by the fact of its concern with postconeeption potential life, a concern otherwise likely to be implicated only by some forms of contraception protected independently under Griswold and later cases, any error in Roe is unlikely to have serious ramifications in fixture cases.
4
We have seen how time has overtaken some of Roe’s factual assumptions: advances in maternal health care allow for abortions safe to the mother later in pregnancy than was true in 1973, see Akron I, supra, at 429, n. 11, and advances in neonatal care have advanced viability to a point somewhat earlier. Compare Roe, 410 U. S., at 160, with Webster, supra, at 515-616 (opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.); see Akron I, 462 U. S., at 457, and n. 5 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). But these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests, and the divergences from the factual premises of 1973 have no bearing on the validity of Roe’s central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State’s interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was usual at the time of Roe, at 23 to 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at some moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal respiratory capacity can somehow be enhanced in the future. Whenever it may occur, the attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical fact, just as it has done since Roe was decided; which is to say that no change in Roe’s factual underpinning has left its central holding obsolete, and none supports an argument for overruling it.
5
The sum of the precedential enquiry to this point Shows Roe’s underpinnings unweakened in any way affecting its central holding. While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable. An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe’s concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe’s central holding a doctrinal remnant; Roe portends no developments at odds with other precedent for the analysis of personal
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Interstate Commerce Act, the initiative for rate increases remains with the railroads. But in the absence of special permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission, a railroad seeking an increase must provide at least 30 days’ notice to the Commission and the public before putting the new rate into effect. 49 U. S. C. § 6 (3). During that 30-day period, the Commission may suspend the operation of the proposed rate for a maximum of seven months pending an investigation and decision on the lawfulness of the new rates. 49 XL S. C. § 15 (7). At the end of the seven-month period, the carrier may put the suspended rate into effect unless the Commission has earlier completed its investigation and found the rate unlawful.
Proceeding under this regulatory scheme, on December 13, 1971, substantially all of the railroads in the United States requested Commission authorization to file on 5 days’ notice a 2.5% surcharge on nearly all freight rates. The railroads sought a January 1, 1972, effective date for the new rates. The surcharge was proposed as an interim emergency measure designed to produce some $246 million annually in increased revenues pending adoption of selective rate increases on a permanent basis.
As justification for the proposed surcharge, the railroads alleged increasing costs and severely inadequate revenues. In its last general revenue increase case, less than two years earlier, the Commission had found:
“[T]he financial condition of the railroad industry as a whole, and the financial status of many individual carriers by rail, must be found to be at a dangerously low level. The precipitous decline in working capital and serious loss of liquidity has reduced many carriers to a truly marginal operation. This has been most clearly demonstrated by the recent bankruptcy application of the Penn Central. We think it undeniable that a number of other roads are approaching a similar financial crisis.” Ex parte Nos. 265/267, Increased Freight Rates, 1970 and 1971, 339 I. C. C. 125, 173.
The railroads alleged that, since the close of that proceeding, their costs had increased by over $1 billion on an annual basis, including $305 million in increased wages, while economic indicators such as decreased working capital and increased debt obligations pointed toward an ever-worsening financial condition.
In an order dated December 21, 1971, the Commission acknowledged the need, particularly of some carriers, for increased revenues, but it concluded that five days’ notice and a January 1, 1972, effective date “would preclude the public from effective participation.” Ex parte No. 281, Increased Freight Rates and Charges, 1972, 340 I. C. C. 358, 361. The Commission authorized the railroads to refile the 2.5% surcharge with not less than 30 days’ notice, and an effective date no earlier than February 5, 1972.
On January 5, 1972, the railroads refiled the surcharge, to become effective on February 5, 1972. Shippers, competing carriers, and other interested persons requested the Commission to suspend the tariff for the statutory seven-month period. Various environmental groups, including Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), two of the appellees here, protested that failure to suspend the surcharge would cause their members “economic, recreational and aesthetic harm.” Specifically, they claimed that the rate structure would discourage the use of “recyclable” materials, and promote the use of new raw materials that compete with scrap, thereby adversely affecting the environment by encouraging unwarranted mining, lumbering, and other extractive activities. The members of these environmental groups were allegedly forced to pay more for finished products, and their use of forests and streams was allegedly impaired because of unnecessary destruction of timber and extraction of raw materials, and the accumulation of otherwise recyclable solid and liquid waste materials. The railroads replied that since this was a general rate increase, recyclable materials would not be made any less competitive relative to other commodities, and that in the past general rate increases had not discouraged the movement of scrap materials.
The Commission issued an order on February 1, 1972, shortly before the surcharge would have automatically become effective. It recognized that “the railroads have a critical need for additional revenue from their interstate freight rates and charges to offset, in part, recently incurred increased operating costs,” and announced its decision not to suspend the 2.5% surcharge for the seven-month statutory period. In anticipation of the proposed permanent selective increases to be filed by the railroads and to avoid further complication of the tariff rates, the Commission specified that its refusal to suspend was conditioned upon the carriers’ setting an expiration date for the surcharge of no later than June 5, 1972. The Commission ordered the investigation into the railroads’ rates which had been instituted by its December 21 order to be held in abeyance until the carriers requested permission to file the indicated permanent rate increases on a selective basis. With respect to the ap-pellees’ environmental arguments, the Commission found that “the involved general increase will have no significant adverse effect on the movement of traffic by railway or on the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the [National] Environmental Policy Act of 1969.”
The proposed permanent selective increases, averaging 4.1%, were subsequently filed with the Commission, and various parties again requested that these proposed rates also be suspended. By order served March 6, 1972, the Commission did not grant the railroads’ request to have the selective increases go into effect on April 1, 1972, as they had sought but it allowed the carriers to republish their rates to become effective on May 1, 1972, upon not less than 45 days’ notice to the public. The carriers did republish the rates, and on April 24, 1972, the Commission entered an order suspending the proposed selective increase for the full seven-month period allowed by statute, or to and including November 30, 1972. The investigation into the increased rates was continued. Since the selective increases were to supplant the temporary surcharge, and since they had been suspended, the Commission modified its February 1 order and authorized the railroads to eliminate the June 5 expiration date for the surcharge and to continue collecting the surcharge until November 30, 1972.
I
On May 12, 1972, SCRAP filed the present suit against the United States and the Commission in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, along with other relief, a preliminary injunction to restrain enforcement of the Commission’s February 1 and April 24 orders allowing the railroads to collect the 2.5% surcharge.
SCRAP stated in its amended complaint that it was “an unincorporated association formed by five law students,... in September, 1971. Its primary purpose is to enhance the quality of the human environment for its members, and for all citizens....” To establish standing to bring this suit, SCRAP repeated many of the allegations it had made before the Commission in Ex parte 281. It claimed that each of its members “suffered economic, recreational and aesthetic harm directly as a result of the adverse environmental impact of the railroad freight structure, as modified by the Commission’s actions to date in Ex Parte 281.” Specifically, SCRAP alleged that each of its members was caused to pay more for finished products, that each of its members “[u]ses the forests, rivers, streams, mountains, and other natural resources surrounding the Washington Metropolitan area and at his legal residence, for camping, hiking, fishing, sightseeing, and other recreational [and] aesthetic purposes,” and that these uses have been adversely affected by the increased freight rates, that each of its members breathes the air within the Washington metropolitan area and the area of his legal residence and that this air has suffered increased pollution caused by the modified rate structure, and that each member has been forced to pay increased taxes because of the sums which must be expended to dispose of otherwise reusable waste materials.
The main thrust of SCRAP'S complaint was that the Commission's decisions of February 1 and April 24, insofar as they declined to suspend the 2.5% surcharge, were unlawful because the Commission had failed to include a detailed environmental impact statement as required by § 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U. S. C. § 4332 (2) (C). NEPA requires such a statement in “every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment Ibid. SCRAP contended that because of its alleged adverse impact upon recycling, the Commission’s action with respect to the surcharge constituted a major federal action significantly affecting the environment.
Three additional environmental groups, also appellees here, were allowed to intervene as plaintiffs, and a group of railroads, appellants here, intervened as defendants to support the 2.5% surcharge. After a single district judge had denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and SCRAP’S motion for a temporary restraining order, a statutory three-judge district court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2284, 2325, to decide the motion for a preliminary injunction and the cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.
On July 10, 1972, the District Court filed an opinion, 346 F. Supp. 189, and entered an injunction prohibiting the Commission “from permitting,” and the railroads “from collecting” the 2.5% surcharge “insofar as that surcharge relates to goods being transported for purposes of recycling, pending further order of this court.”
The court first rejected the contention that the appel-lees were without standing to sue because they allegedly had no more than “a general interest in seeing that the law is enforced,” id., at 195, and distinguished our recent decision in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, on the basis that, unlike the petitioner in Sierra Club, the environmental groups here had alleged that their members used the forests, streams, mountains and other resources in the Washington area and that this use was disturbed by the environmental impact caused by nonuse of recyclable goods.
Second, the court found that its power to grant an injunction was not barred by our decision in Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern R. Co., 372 U. S. 658, 667, where we held that in enacting 49 U. S. C. § 15 (7), Congress had intentionally vested “in the Commission the sole and exclusive power to suspend” and withdrew “from the judiciary any pre-existing power to grant injunctive relief.” The court reasoned that NEPA “implicitly confers authority on the federal courts to enjoin any federal action taken in violation of NEPA's procedural requirements” “so long as the review is confined to a determination as to whether the procedural requisites of NEPA have been followed.” 346 F. Supp., at 197 and n. 11.
Finally, turning to the merits, the court concluded that the Commission’s April 24 decision not to suspend the surcharge for the statutory seven-month period was a “ ‘major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.’ ” Id., at 199. On the premise that an environmental impact statement is required “whenever the action arguably will have an adverse environmental impact,” id., at 201, the court held that “the danger of an adverse impact is sufficiently real to require a statement in this case.” Ibid.
The District Court declined to stay its injunctive order pending appeal to this Court, and on July 19, 1972, The Chief Justice, as Circuit Justice for the District of Columbia Circuit, denied applications to stay the preliminary injunction. 409 U. S. 1207. On December 18, 1972, we noted probable jurisdiction of the appeals filed by the United States, the Commission, and the railroads. 409 U. S. 1073.
II
The appellants challenge the appellees’ standing to sue, arguing that the allegations in the pleadings as to standing were vague, unsubstantiated, and insufficient under our recent decision in Sierra Club v. Morton, supra. The appellees respond that unlike the petitioner in Sierra Club, their pleadings sufficiently alleged that they were “adversely affected” or “aggrieved” within the meaning of § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 702, and they point specifically to the allegations that their members used the forests, streams, mountains, and other resources in the Washington metropolitan area for camping, hiking, fishing, and sightseeing, and that this use was disturbed by the adverse environmental impact caused by the nonuse of recyclable goods brought about by a rate increase on those commodities. The District Court found these allegations sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. We agree.
The petitioner in Sierra Club, “a large and long-established organization, with a historic commitment to the cause of protecting our Nation's natural heritage from man's depredations,” 405 U. S., at 739, sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to restrain federal officials from approving the creation of an extensive ski-resort development in the scenic Mineral King Valley of the Sequoia National Forest. The Sierra Club claimed standing to maintain its “public interest” lawsuit because it had “ ‘a special interest in the conservation and the sound maintenance of the national parks, game refuges and forests of the country....’” Id., at 730. We held those allegations insufficient.
Relying upon our prior decisions in Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, and Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, we held that § 10 of the APA conferred standing to obtain judicial review of agency action only upon those who could show “that the challenged action had caused them 'injury in fact/ and where the alleged injury was to an interest 'arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated’ by the statutes that the agencies were claimed to have violated.” 405 U. S., at 733.
In interpreting “injury in fact” we made it clear that standing was not confined to those who could show “economic harm,” although both Data Processing and Barlow had involved that kind of injury. Nor, we said, could the fact that many persons shared the same injury be sufficient reason to disqualify from seeking review of an agency’s action any person who had in fact suffered injury. Rather, we explained: “Aesthetic and environmental well-being, like economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society, and the fact that particular environmental interests are shared by the many rather than the few does not make them less deserving of legal protection through the judicial process.” Id,, at 734. Consequently, neither the fact that the appellees here claimed only a harm to their use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the Washington area, nor the fact that all those who use those resources suffered the same harm, deprives them of standing.
In Sierra Club, though, we went on to stress the importance of demonstrating that the party seeking review be himself among the injured, for it is this requirement that gives a litigant a direct stake in the controversy and prevents the judicial process from becoming no more than a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders. No such specific injury was alleged in Sierra Club. In that case the asserted harm “will be felt directly only by those who use Mineral King and Sequoia National Park, and for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the area will be lessened by the highway and ski resort,” id.,, at 735, yet “[tjhe Sierra Club failed to allege that it or its members would be affected in any of their activities or pastimes by the... development.” Ibid. Here, by contrast, the appellees claimed that the specific and allegedly illegal action of the Commission would directly harm them in their use of the natural resources of the Washington Metropolitan Area.
Unlike the specific and geographically limited federal action of which the petitioner complained in Sierra Club, the challenged agency action in this case is applicable to substantially all of the Nation’s railroads, and thus allegedly has an adverse environmental impact on all the natural resources of the country. Rather than a limited group of persons who used a picturesque valley in California, all persons who utilize the scenic resources of the country, and indeed all who breathe its air, could claim harm similar to that alleged by the environmental groups here. But we have already made it clear that standing is not to be denied simply because many people suffer the same injury. Indeed some of the cases on which we relied in Sierra Club demonstrated the patent fact that persons across the Nation could be adversely affected by major governmental actions. See, e. g., Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 428 F. 2d 1093, 1097 (interests of consumers affected by decision of Secretary of Agriculture refusing to suspend registration of certain pesticides containing DDT); Reade v. Ewing, 205 F. 2d 630, 631-632 (interests of consumers of oleomargarine in fair labeling of product regulated by Federal Security Administration). To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody. We cannot accept that conclusion.
But the injury alleged here is also very different from that at issue in Sierra Club because here the alleged injury to the environment is far less direct and perceptible. The petitioner there complained about the construction of a specific project that would directly affect the Mineral King Valley. Here, the Court was asked to follow a far more attenuated line of causation to the eventual injury of which the appellees complained — a general rate increase would allegedly cause increased use of nonre-cyclable commodities as compared to recyclable goods, thus resulting in the need to use more natural resources to produce such goods, some of which resources might be taken from the Washington area, and resulting in more refuse that might be discarded in national parks in the Washington area. The railroads protest that the appel-lees could never prove that a general increase in rates would have this effect, and they contend that these allegations were a ploy to avoid the need to show some injury in fact.
Of course, pleadings must be something more than an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable. A plaintiff must allege that he has been or will in fact be perceptibly harmed by the challenged agency action, not that he can imagine circumstances in which he could be affected by the agency’s action. And it is equally clear that the allegations must be true and capable of proof at trial. But we deal here simply with the pleadings in which the appellees alleged a specific and perceptible harm that distinguished them from other citizens who had not used the natural resources that were claimed to be affected. If, as the railroads now assert, these allegations were in fact untrue, then the appellants should have moved for summary judgment on the standing issue and demonstrated to the District Court that the allegations were sham and raised no genuine issue of fact. We cannot say on these pleadings that the ap-pellees could not prove their allegations which, if proved, would place them squarely among those persons injured in fact by the Commission’s action, and entitled under the clear import of Sierra Club to seek review. The District Court was correct in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to allege sufficient standing to bring this lawsuit.
Ill
We need not reach the issue whether, under conventional standards of equity, the District Court was justified in issuing a preliminary injunction, because we have concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter an injunction in any event.
The District Court enjoined the Commission from “permitting,” and the railroads from “collecting,” the 2.5%' interim surcharge on recyclable commodities. Finding that NEPA implicitly conferred authority “on the federal courts to enjoin any federal action taken in violation of NEPA’s procedural requirements,” 346 F. Supp., at 197, it concluded that our decision in Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern R. Co., 372 U. S. 658, did not affect judicial power to issue an injunction in the circumstances of this case. We cannot agree.
In Arrow, the Commission had suspended a railroad’s proposed rates for the statutory seven-month period, and the railroad had voluntarily deferred the proposed rate for an additional five months. When the Commission had not reached a final decision within that period, the railroad announced its intent to adopt the new rates. In a suit brought to enjoin the railroad from effectuating that change, we held that the courts were without power to issue such an injunction. From the language and history of § 15 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act, we concluded that Congress had vested exclusive power in the Commission to suspend rates pending its final decision on their lawfulness, and had deliberately extinguished judicial power to grant such relief. The factual distinctions between the present cases and Arrow are inconsequential.
It is true that the injunction in Arrow was sought after the statutory seven-month period had expired and thus represented an attempt to extend judicially the suspension period, while here the injunction was issued during the suspension period. But Arrow was grounded on the lack of power in the courts to grant any injunction before the Commission had finally determined the lawfulness of the rates, and that holding did not depend on the fact that the availability of the Commission’s power of suspension had passed. Indeed, the federal court decisions cited and approved in Arrow involved instances where the courts had been asked to enjoin rates during the statutory sevenmonth period. See, e. g., M. C. Kiser Co. v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 236 F. 573, aff’d, 239 F. 718; Freeport Sulphur Co. v. United States, 199 F. Supp. 913; Bison S. S. Corp. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 63; Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 605, 609—610, acated in part as moot, 364 U. S. 280; Carlsen v. United States, 107 F. Supp. 398.
Similarly, there is no significance in the fact that, unlike Arrow, the injunction in this litigation ran against the Commission as well as the railroads. The only way in which the Commission could comply with the court’s order would be to exercise its power of suspension and suspend the surcharge. The injunction constitutes a direct interference with the Commission’s discretionary decision whether or not to suspend the rates. It would turn Arrow into a sheer formality and effectively amend § 15 (7) if a federal court could accomplish by injunction against the Commission what it could not accomplish by injunction directly against the railroads. And, again, the federal court decisions on which Arrow relied were for the most part cases in which the courts had held that they were without power to compel the Commission to grant a rate suspension. See, e. g., Bison S. S. Corp. v. United States, supra; Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, supra; Carlsen v. United States, supra; cf. Freeport Sulphur Co. v. United States, supra. Thus, the only arguably significant distinction between the present litigation and Arrow is that here the Commission allegedly failed to comply with NEPA. However, we cannot agree with the District Court that NEPA has amended § 15 (7) sub silentio and created an implicit exception to Arrow so that judicial power to grant in-junctive relief in this case has been revived. NEPA, one of the recent major federal efforts at reversing the deterioration of the country’s environment, declares "that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government... to use all practicable means and measures... in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” 42 U. S. C. § 4331. To implement these lofty purposes, Congress imposed a number of responsibilities upon federal agencies, most notably the requirement of producing a detailed environmental impact statement for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U. S. C. § 4332 (2) (C). But nowhere, either in the legislative history or the statutory language, is there any indication that Congress intended to restore to the federal courts the power temporarily to suspend railroad rates, a power that had been clearly taken away by § 15 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act.
The statutory language, in fact, indicates that NEPA was not intended to repeal by implication any other statute. Thus, 42 U. S. C. §4335 specifies that “[t]he policies and goals set forth in [NEPA] are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of Federal agencies,” and 42 U. S. C. § 4334 instructs that the Act “shall [not] in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency....” Rather than providing for any wholesale overruling of prior law, NEPA requires all federal agencies to review their “present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of [NEPA] • and shall propose to the President... such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in [NEPA].” 42 U. S. C. §4333. It would be anomalous if Congress had provided at one and the same time that federal agencies, which have the primary responsibility for the implementation of NEPA, must comply with present law and ask for any necessary new legislation, but that the courts may simply ignore what we described in Arrow as “a clear congressional purpose to oust judicial power... 372 U. S., at 671 n. 22.
The District Court pointed to nothing either in the language or history of NEPA that suggests a restoration of previously eliminated judicial power. While it relied primarily on the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm. v. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 33, 449 F. 2d 1109, and Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Seaborg, 149 U. S. App. D. C. 380, 463 F. 2d 783, neither case supports an injunction under the circumstances of this case. Calvert Cliffs’ held that a federal court had power to review rules promulgated by the Atomic Energy Commission, and there the court ordered further consideration of the rules on the ground that there had not been compliance with NEPA. In Committee for Nuclear Responsibility it was held that federal courts had jurisdiction to consider whether an executive decision to conduct a nuclear test had satisfied the procedural requirements of NEPA. The question here, however, is not whether there is general judicial power to determine if an agency has complied with NEPA, and to grant equitable relief if it has not, cf. Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern R. Co., supra, at 671 n. 22; Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U. S. 4, but rather whether in a specific context NEPA sub silentio revived judicial power that had been explicitly eliminated by Congress. Calvert Cliffs’ and Committee for Nuclear Responsibility have nothing to say on this issue, for neither was concerned with a specific statute that restricts the power of the federal courts to grant injunctions.
Our conclusion that the District Court lacked the power to grant the present injunction is confirmed by the fact that each of the policies that we identified in Arrow as the basis for § 15 (7) would be substantially undermined if the courts were found to have suspension powers simply because noncompliance with NEPA was alleged.
First, Arrow found that the Commission had been granted exclusive suspension powers in order to avoid the diverse results that had previously been reached by the courts. District courts had differed as to the existence and scope of any power to grant interim relief, with the consequence that the uniformity of rates had been jeopardized, and different shippers, carriers, and areas of the country had been subjected to disparate treatment. Similarly, since a suit to enjoin a national rate increase on NEPA grounds could be brought in any federal district court in the country, see 28 U. S. C. §§ 2284, 2321-2325, the result might easily be that the courts would "[reach] diverse results,... [engendering] confusion and [producing] competitive inequities.” 372 U. S., at 663. In short, a rate increase allowed in New York might be disallowed in New Jersey.
Second, we stressed in Arrow that § 15 (7) represents a careful accommodation of the various interests involved. The suspension period was limited as to time to prevent excessive harm to the carriers, for the revenues lost during that period could not be recouped from the shippers. On the other hand, Congress was aware that if the Commission did not act within the suspension period, then the new rates would automatically go into effect and the shippers would have to pay increased rates that might eventually be found unlawful. To mitigate this loss, Congress authorized the Commission to require the carriers to keep detailed accounts and eventually to repay the increased rates if found unlawful. To allow judicial suspension for noncompliance with NEPA, would disturb this careful balance of interests. A railroad may depend for its very financial life on an increased rate, and the rate may be perfectly just and reasonable. Granting an injunction against that rate based on the Commission’s alleged noncompliance with NEPA, although the Commission had determined not to suspend the rate, would deprive the railroad of vitally needed revenues and result in an unjustified windfall to shippers.
Finally, we found in Arrow that any survival of a judicial power to grant interim injunctive relief would represent an undesirable interference with the orderly exercise of the Commission’s power of suspension. Similarly, to grant an injunction in the present context, even though not based upon a substantive consideration of the rates, would directly interfere with the Commission’s decision as to when the rates were to go into effect, and would ignore our conclusion in Arrow that “Congress meant to foreclose a judicial power to interfere with the timing of rate changes which would be out of harmony with the uniformity of rate levels fostered by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.” 372 U. S., at 668. As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained in Port of New York Authority v. United States, 451 F. 2d 783, 788, where, on the basis of alleged noncompliance with NEPA, an injunction was sought against a Commission order refusing to suspend rates:
“The basis of the decision in Arrow — that to permit judicial interference with the Commission’s suspension procedures would invite the very disruption in the orderly review of the lawfulness of proposed tariffs that Congress meant to preclude — applies with equal force to the issue now before us.”
Accordingly, because the District Court granted a preliminary injunction suspending railroad rates when it lacked the power to do so, its judgment must be reversed and the cases remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Title 49 U. S. C. § 6 (3) provides: “No change shall be made in the rates, fares, and charges or joint rates, fares, and charges which have been filed and published by any common carrier in compliance with the requirements of this section, except after thirty days’ notice to the Commission and to the public published as aforesaid, which shall plainty state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in force and the time when the changed rates, fares, or charges will go into effect; and the proposed changes shall be shown by printing new schedules, or shall be plainly indicated upon the schedules in force at the time and kept open to public inspection: Provided, That the Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, allow' changes upon less than the notice herein specified, or modify the requirements of this section in respect to publishing, posting, and filing of tariffs, either in particular instances or by a general order applicable to special or peculiar circumstances or conditions: Provided further, That the Commission is authorized to make suitable rules and regulations for the simplification of schedules of rates, fares, charges, and classifications and to permit in such rules and regulations the filing of an amendment of or change in any rate, fare, charge, or classification without filing complete schedules covering rates, fares, charges, or classifications not changed if, in its judgment, not inconsistent with the public interest.”
Title 49 U. S. C. § 15 (7) provides in pertinent part: “Whenever there shall be filed with the Commission any schedule stating a new... rate, fare, or charge,... the Commission shall have... authority, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, at once, and if it so orders without answer or other formal pleading by the interested carrier or carriers, but upon reasonable notice, to enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of such rate, fare, [or] charge... ; and pending such hearing and the decision thereon the Commission, upon filing with such schedule and delivering to the carrier or carriers affected thereby a statement in writing of its reasons for such suspension, may from time to time suspend the operation of such schedule and defer the use of such rate, fare, [or] charge..., but not for a longer period than seven months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect; and after full hearing, whether completed before or after the rate, fare, [or] charge... goes into effect, the Commission may make such order with reference thereto as would be proper in a proceeding initiated after it had become effective. If the proceeding has not been concluded and an order made within the period of suspension, the proposed change of rate, fare, [or] charge... shall go into effect at the end of such period; but in case of a proposed increased rate or charge for or in respect to the transportation of property, the Commission may by order require the interested carrier or carriers to keep accurate account in detail of all amounts received by reason of such increase, specifying by whom and in whose behalf such amounts are paid, and upon completion of the hearing and decision may by further order require the interested carrier or carriers to refund, with interest, to the persons in whose behalf such amounts were paid, such portion of such increased rates or charges as by its decision shall be found not justified. At any hearing involving a change in a rate, fare, [or] charge... after September 18, 1940, the burden of proof shall be upon the carrier to show that the proposed changed rate, fare, [or] charge... is just and reasonable, and the Commission shall give to the hearing and decision of such questions preference over all other questions pending before it and decide the same as speedily as possible.”
Other statutory provisions giving suspension powers to the Commission include 49 U. S. C. §§ 316 (g), 318 (c) (Motor Carrier Act); 49 U. S. C. §§907 (g), (i) (Water Carrier Act); 49 U. S. C. § 1006 (e) (Freight Forwarders Act).
Figures reported to the Commission indicated that the net working capital of the Class I railroads for the 12 months ending September 30, 1971, was only $75.4 million, approximately $33.7 million less than the year-end 1970 figure. Long-term debt maturing within one year from September 30, 1971, was $43.6
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Auto
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The attorney-client privilege ranks among the oldest and most established evidentiary privileges known to our law. The common law, however, has recognized an exception to the privilege when a trustee obtains legal advice related to the exercise of fiduciary duties. In such cases, courts have held, the trustee cannot withhold attorney-client communications from the beneficiary of the trust.
In this case, we consider whether the fiduciary exception applies to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. We hold that it does not. Although the Government’s responsibilities with respect to the management of funds belonging to Indian tribes bear some resemblance to those of a private trustee, this analogy cannot be taken too far. The trust obligations of the United States to the Indian tribes are established and governed by statute rather than the common law, and in fulfilling its statutory duties, the Government acts not as a private trustee but pursuant to its sovereign interest in the execution of federal law. The reasons for the fiduciary exception — that the trustee has no independent interest in trust administration, and that the trustee is subject to a general common-law duty of disclosure — do not apply in this context.
I
The Jicarilla Apache Nation (Tribe) occupies a 900,000-acre reservation in northern New Mexico that was established by Executive Order in 1887. The land contains timber, gravel, and oil and gas reserves, which are developed pursuant to statutes administered by the Department of the Interior. Proceeds derived from these natural resources are held by the United States in trust for the Tribe pursuant to the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 4239, and other statutes.
In 2002, the Tribe commenced a breach-of-trust action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC). The Tribe sued under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491 (2006 ed. and Supp. Ill), and the Indian Tucker Act, §1505, which vest the CFC with jurisdiction over claims against the Government that are founded on the Constitution, laws, treaties, or contracts of the United States. The complaint seeks monetary damages for the Government’s alleged mismanagement of funds held in trust for the Tribe. The Tribe argues that the Government violated various laws, including 25 U. S. C. §§ 161a and 162a, that govern the management of funds held in trust for Indian tribes. See 88 Fed. Cl. 1, 3 (2009).
From December 2002 to June 2008, the Government and the Tribe participated in alternative dispute resolution in order to resolve the claim. During that time, the Government turned over thousands of documents but withheld 226 potentially relevant documents as protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or the deliberative-process privilege.
In 2008, at the request of the Tribe, the case was restored to the active litigation docket. The CFC divided the case into phases for trial and set a discovery schedule. The first phase, relevant here, concerns the Government’s management of the Tribe’s trust accounts from 1972 to 1992. The Tribe alleges that during this period the Government failed to invest its trust funds properly. Among other things, the Tribe claims the Government failed to maximize returns on its trust funds, invested too heavily in short-term maturities, and failed to pool its trust funds with other tribal trusts. During discovery, the Tribe moved to compel the Government to produce the 226 withheld documents. In response, the Government agreed to withdraw its claims of deliberative-process privilege and, accordingly, to produce 71 of the documents. But the Government continued to assert the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine with respect to the remaining 155 documents. The CFC reviewed those documents in camera and classified them into five categories: (1) requests for legal advice relating to trust administration sent by personnel at the Department of the Interior to the Office of the Solicitor, which directs legal affairs for the Department, (2) legal advice sent from the Solicitor’s Office to personnel at the Interior and Treasury Departments, (3) documents generated under contracts between Interior and an accounting firm, (4) Interior documents concerning litigation with other tribes, and (5) miscellaneous documents not falling into the other categories.
The CFC granted the Tribe’s motion to compel in part. The CFC held that communications relating to the management of trust funds fall within a “fiduciary exception” to the attorney-client privilege. Under that exception, which courts have applied in the context of common-law trusts, a trustee who obtains legal advice related to the execution of fiduciary obligations is precluded from asserting the attorney-client privilege against beneficiaries of the trust. The CFC concluded that the trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes is sufficiently analogous to a common-law trust relationship that the exception should apply. Accordingly, the CFC held, the United States may not shield from the Tribe communications with attorneys relating to trust matters.
The CFC ordered disclosure of almost all documents in the first two categories because those documents “involve matters regarding the administration of tribal trusts, either directly or indirectly implicating the investments that benefit Jicarilla” and contain “legal advice relating to trust administration.” Id., at 14-15. The CFC allowed the Government to withhold most of the documents in the remaining categories as attorney work product, but the court identified some individual documents that it determined were also subject to the fiduciary exception. Id., at 18-19.
The Government sought to prevent disclosure of the documents by petitioning the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the CFC to vacate its production order. The Court of Appeals denied the petition because, in its view, the CFC correctly applied the fiduciary exception. The court held that “the United States cannot deny an Indian tribe’s request to discover communications between the United States and its attorneys based on the attorney-client privilege when those communications concern management of an Indian trust and the United States has not claimed that the government or its attorneys considered a specific competing interest in those communications.” In re United States, 590 F. 3d 1305, 1313 (CA Fed. 2009). In qualifying its holding, the court recognized that sometimes the Government may have other statutory obligations that clash with its fiduciary duties to the Indian tribes. But because the Government had not alleged that the legal advice in this case related to such conflicting interests, the court reserved judgment on how the fiduciary exception might apply in that situation. The court rejected the Government’s argument that, because its duties to the Indian tribes were governed by statute rather than the common law, it had no general duty of disclosure that would override the attorney-client privilege. The court also disagreed with the Government’s contention that a case-by-case approach made the attorney-client privilege too unpredictable and would impair the Government’s ability to obtain confidential legal advice.
We granted certiorari, 562 U. S. 1128 (2011), and now reverse and remand for further proceedings.
II
The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that evidentiary-privileges “shall be governed by the principles of the common law... in the light of reason and experience.” Fed. Rule Evid. 501. The attorney-client privilege “is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U. S. 383, 389 (1981) (citing 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2290 (J. Me-Naughton rev. 1961)). Its aim is “to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice. ” 449 U. S., at 389; Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U. S. 464, 470 (1888).
The objectives of the attorney-client privilege apply to governmental clients. “The privilege aids government entities and employees in obtaining legal advice founded on a complete and accurate factual picture.” 1 Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers §74, Comment b, pp. 573-574 (1998). Unless applicable law provides otherwise, the Government may invoke the attorney-client privilege in civil litigation to protect confidential communications between Government officials and Government attorneys. Id., at 574 (“[Gjovernmental agencies and employees enjoy the same privilege as nongovernmental counterparts”). The Tribe argues, however, that the common law also recognizes a fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege and that, by virtue of the trust relationship between the Government and the Tribe, documents that would otherwise be privileged must be disclosed. As preliminary matters, we consider the bounds of the fiduciary exception and the nature of the trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes.
A
English courts first developed the fiduciary exception as a principle of trust law in the 19th century. The rule was that when a trustee obtained legal advice to guide the administration of the trust, and not for the trustee’s own defense in litigation, the beneficiaries were entitled to the production of documents related to that advice. Wynne v. Humberston, 27 Beav. 421, 423-424, 54 Eng. Rep. 165,166 (1858); Talbot v. Marshfield, 2 Dr. & Sm. 549, 550-551, 62 Eng. Rep. 728, 729 (1865). The courts reasoned that the normal attorney-client privilege did not apply in this situation because the legal advice was sought for the beneficiaries’ benefit and was obtained at the beneficiaries’ expense by using trust funds to pay the attorney’s fees. Ibid.; Wynne, supra, at 423-424, 54 Eng. Rep., at 166.
The fiduciary exception quickly became an established feature of English common law, see, e. g., In re Mason, 22 Ch. D. 609 (1883), but it did not appear in this country until the following century. American courts seem first to have expressed skepticism. See In re Prudence-Bonds Corp., 76 F. Supp. 643, 647 (EDNY 1948) (declining to apply the fiduciary exception to the trustee of a bondholding corporation because of the "important right of such a corporate trustee... to seek legal advice and nevertheless act in accordance ■with its own judgment”). By the 1970’s, however, American courts began to adopt the English common-law rule. See Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F. 2d 1093, 1103-1104 (CA5 1970) (allowing shareholders, upon a showing of “good cause,” to discover legal advice given to corporate management).
The leading American case on the fiduciary exception is Riggs Nat. Bank of Washington, D. C. v. Zimmer, 355 A. 2d 709 (Del. Ch. 1976). In that case, the beneficiaries of a trust estate sought to compel the trustees to reimburse the estate for alleged breaches of trust. The beneficiaries moved to compel the trustees to produce a legal memorandum related to the administration of the trust that the trustees withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The Delaware Chancery Court, observing that “American case law is practically nonexistent on the duty of a trustee in this context,” looked to the English eases. Id., at 712. Applying the common-law fiduciary exception, the court held that the memorandum was discoverable. It identified two reasons for applying the exception.
First, the court explained, the trustees had obtained the legal advice as “mere representative^]” of the beneficiaries because the trustees had a fiduciary obligation to act in the beneficiaries’ interest when administering the trust. Ibid. For that reason, the beneficiaries were the “real clients” of the attorney who had advised the trustee on trust-related matters, and therefore the attorney-client privilege properly belonged to the beneficiaries rather than the trustees. Id., at 711-712. The court based its “real client” determination on several factors: (1) When the advice was sought, no adversarial proceedings between the trustees and beneficiaries had been pending, and therefore there was no reason for the trustees to seek legal advice in a, personal rather than a, fiduciary capacity; (2) the court saw no indication that the memorandum was intended for any purpose other than to benefit the trust; and (B) the law firm had been paid out of trust assets. That the advice was obtained at the beneficiaries’ expense was not only a “significant factor” entitling the beneficiaries to see the document but also “a strong indication of precisely who the real clients were.” Id., at 712. The court distinguished between “legal advice procured at the trustee’s own expense and for his own protection,” which would remain privileged, “and the situation where the trust itself is assessed for obtaining opinions of counsel where interests of the beneficiaries are presently at stake.” Ibid. In the latter case, the fiduciary exception applied, and the trustees could not withhold those attorney-client communications from the beneficiaries.
Second, the court concluded that the trustees’ fiduciary duty to furnish trust-related information to the beneficiaries outweighed their interest in the attorney-client privilege. “The policy of preserving the full disclosure necessary in the trustee-beneficiary relationship,” the court explained, “is here ultimately more important than the protection of the trustees’ confidence in the attorney for the trust.” Id., at 714. Because more information helped the beneficiaries to police the trustees’ management of the trust, disclosure was, in the court’s judgment, “a weightier public policy than the preservation of confidential attorney-client communications.” Ibid.
The Federal Courts of Appeals apply the fiduciary exception based on the same two criteria. See, e. g., In re Long Island Lighting Co., 129 F. 3d 268, 272 (CA2 1997); Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 482 F. 3d 225, 233-234 (CA3 2007); Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Assn., 644 F. 3d 221, 227-228 (CA4 2011); Wildbur v. ARCO Chemical Co., 974 F. 2d 631, 645 (CA5 1992); United States v. Evans, 796 F. 2d 264, 265-266 (CA9 1986) (per curiam). Not until the decision below had a federal appellate court held the exception to apply to the United States as trustee for the Indian tribes.
B
In order to apply the fiduciary exception in this case, the Court of Appeals analogized the Government to a private trustee. 590 F. 3d, at 1313. We have applied that analogy in limited contexts, see, e. g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 226 (1983) (Mitchell II), but that does not mean the Government resembles a private trustee in every respect. On the contrary, this Court has previously noted that the relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes is distinctive, “different from that existing between individuals whether dealing at arm’s length, as trustees and beneficiaries, or otherwise.” Klamath and Moadoc Tribes v. United States, 296 U. S. 244, 254 (1935) (emphasis added). “The general relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes is not comparable to a private trust relationship.” Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 565, 573 (1990) (emphasis added).
The Government, of course, is not a private trustee. Though the relevant statutes denominate the relationship between the Government and the Indians a “trust,” see, e. g., 25 U. S. C. § 162a, that trust is defined and governed by statutes rather than the common law. See United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U. S. 488, 506 (2003) (Navajo I) (“[T3he analysis must train on specific rights-creating or duty-imposing statutory or regulatory prescriptions”). As we have recognized in prior cases, Congress may style its relations with the Indians a “trust” without assuming all the fiduciary duties of a private trustee, creating a trust relationship that is “limited” or “bare” compared to a trust relationship between private parties at common law United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, 542 (1980) (Mitchell I); Mitchell II, supra, at 224.
The difference between a private common-law trust and the statutory Indian trust follows from the unique position of the Government as sovereign. The distinction between “public rights” against the Government and “private rights” between private parties is well established. The Government consents to be liable to private parties “and may yield this consent upon such terms and under such restrictions as it may think just.” Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 283 (1856). This creates an important distinction “between eases of private right and those which arise between the Government and persons subject to its authority in connection with the performance of the constitutional functions of the executive or legislative departments.” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 50 (1932).
Throughout the history of the Indian trust relationship, we have recognized that the organization and management of the. trust is a sovereign function subject to the plenary authority of Congress. See Merrion v. Jicarilla, Apache Tribe, 455 U. S. 130, 169, n. 18 (1982) (“The United States retains plenary authority to divest the tribes of any attributes of sovereignty”); United States v. Wheeler, 435 U. S. 313, 319 (1978) (“Congress has plenary authority to legislate for the Indian tribes in all matters, including their form of government”); Winton v. Amos, 255 U. S. 373, 391 (1921) (“Congress has plenary authority over the Indians and all their tribal relations, and full power to legislate concerning their tribal property”); Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553, 565 (1903) (“Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government”); Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 308 (1902) (“The power existing in Congress to administer upon and guard the tribal property, and the power being political and administrative in its nature, the manner of its exercise is a question within the province of the legislative branch to determine, and is not one for the courts”); see also United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432, 439 (1926); Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, 315 (1911).
Because the Indian trust relationship represents an exercise of that authority, we have explained that the Government “has a real and direct interest” in the guardianship it exercises over the Indian tribes; “the interest is one which is vested in it as a sovereign.” United States v. Minnesota, 270 U. S. 181, 194 (1926). This is especially so because the Government has often structured the trust relationship to pursue its own policy goals. Thus, while trust administration “relat[es] to the welfare of the Indians, the maintenance of the limitations which Congress has prescribed as a part of its plan of distribution is distinctly an interest of the United States.” Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413, 437 (1912); see also Candelaria, supra, at 443-444.
In Heckman, the Government brought suit to caneel certain conveyances of allotted lands by members of an Indian tribe because the conveyances violated restrictions on alienation imposed by Congress. This Court explained that the Government brought suit as the representative of the very Indian grantors whose conveyances it sought to cancel, and those Indians were thereby bound by the judgment. 224 U. S., at 445-446. But while it was formally acting as a trustee, the Government was in fact asserting its own sovereign interest in the disposition of Indian lands, and the Indians were precluded from intervening in the litigation to advance a position contrary to that of the Government. Id., at 445. Such a result was possible because the Government assumed a fiduciary role over the Indians not as a common-law trustee but as the governing authority enforcing statutory law.
We do not question “the undisputed existence of a general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian people.” Mitchell II, 463 U. S., at 225. The Government, following “a humane and self imposed policy..., has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust,” Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U. S. 286, 296-297 (1942), obligations “to the fulfillment of which the national honor has been committed,” Heckman, supra, at 437. Congress has expressed this policy in a series of statutes that have defined and redefined the trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. In some cases, Congress established only a limited trust relationship to serve a narrow purpose. See Mitchell I, supra, at 544 (Congress intended the United States to hold land “'in trust’ ” under the General Allotment Act “simply because it wished to prevent alienation of the land and to ensure that allottees would be immune from state taxation”); Navajo I, supra, at 507-508 (Indian Mineral Leasing Act imposes no “detailed fiduciary responsibilities” nor is the Government “expressly invested with responsibility to secure ‘the needs and best interests of the Indian, owner’ ”).
In other cases, we have found that particular “statutes and regulations... clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the Government” in some areas. Mitchell II, supra, at 226; see also United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S. 465, 475 (2003). Once federal law imposes such duties, the common law “could play a role.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 287, 301 (2009) (Navajo II). We have looked to common-law principles to inform our interpretation of statutes and to determine the scope of liability that Congress has imposed. See White Mountain Apache Tribe, supra, at 475-476. But the applicable statutes and regulations “establish [the] fiduciary relationship and define the contours of the United States’ fiduciary responsibilities.” Mitchell II, supra, at 224. When “the Tribe cannot identify a specific, applicable, trust-creating statute or regulation that the Government violated,... neither the Government’s ‘control’ over [Indian assets] nor common-law trust principles matter.” Navajo II, supra, at 302. The Government assumes Indian trust responsibilities only to the extent it expressly accepts those responsibilities by statute.
Over the years, we have described the federal relationship with the Indian tribes using various formulations. The Indian tribes have been called “domestic dependent nations,” Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 17 (1831), under the “tutelage” of the United States, Heckman, supra, at 444, and subject to “the exercise of the Government’s guardianship over... their affairs,” United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28, 48 (1913). These concepts do not necessarily correspond to a common-law trust relationship. See, e. g., Restatement 2d, § 7, at 22 (“A guardianship is not a trust”). That is because Congress has chosen to structure the Indian trust relationship in different ways. We will apply common-law trust principles where Congress has indicated it is appropriate to do so. For that reason, the Tribe must point to a right conferred by statute or regulation in order to obtain otherwise privileged information from the Government against its wishes.
Ill
In this ease, the Tribe’s claim arises from 25 U. S. C. §§ 161a-162a and the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, §4001 et seq. These provisions define “the trust responsibilities of the United States” with respect to tribal funds. §162a(d). The Court of Appeals concluded that the trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes, outlined in these and other statutes, is “sufficiently similar to a private trust to justify applying the fiduciary exception.” 590 F. Bd, at 1313. We disagree.
As we have discussed, the Government exercises its carefully delimited trust responsibilities in a sovereign capacity to implement national policy respecting the Indian tribes. The two features justifying the fiduciary exception — the beneficiary’s status as the “real client” and the trustee’s common-law duty to disclose information about the trust— are notably absent in the trust relationship Congress has established between the United States and the Tribe.
A
The Court of Appeals applied the fiduciary exception based on its determination that the Tribe rather than the Government was the “real client” with respect to the Government attorneys’ advice. Ibid. In cases applying the fiduciary exception, courts identify the “real client” based on whether the advice was bought by the trust corpus, whether the trustee had reason to seek advice in a personal rather than a fiduciary capacity, and whether the advice could have been intended for any purpose other than to benefit the trust. Riggs, 355 A. 2d, at 711-712. Applying these factors, we conclude that the United States does not obtain legal advice as a “mere representative” of the Tribe; nor is the Tribe the “real client” for whom that advice is intended. See ibid.
Here, the Government attorneys are paid out of congressional appropriations at no cost to the Tribe. Courts look to the source of funds as a “strong indication of precisely who the real clients were” and a “significant factor” in determining who ought to have access to the legal advice. Id., at 712. We similarly find it significant that the attorneys were paid by the Government for advice regarding the Government’s statutory obligations.
The payment structure confirms our view that the Government seeks legal advice in its sovereign capacity rather than as a conventional fiduciary of the Tribe. Undoubtedly, Congress intends the Indian tribes to benefit from the Government’s management of tribal trusts. That intention represents “a humane and self imposed policy” based on felt “moral obligations.” Seminole Nation, 316 U. S., at 296-297. This statutory purpose does not imply a full common-law trust, however. Cf. Restatement 2d, §25, Comment b, at 69 (“No trust is created if the settlor manifests an intention to impose merely a moral obligation”). Congress makes such policy judgments pursuant to its sovereign governing authority, and the implementation of federal policy remains “distinctly an interest of the United States.” Heckman, 224 U. S., at 437. We have said that “the United States continue[s] as trustee to have an active interest” in the disposition of Indian assets because the terms of the trust relationship embody policy goals of the United States. McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458, 469 (1907).
In some prior cases, we have found that the Government had established the trust relationship in order to impose its own policy on Indian lands. See Mitchell I, 445 U. S., at 544 (Congress “intended that the United States 'hold the land... in trust'... because it wished to prevent alienation of the land”). In other cases, the Government has invoked its trust relationship to prevent state interference with its policy toward the Indian tribes. See Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382, 386 (1939); Candelaria, 271 U. S., at 442-444; United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 382-384 (1886). And the exercise of federal authority thereby established has often been “left under the acts of Congress to the discretion of the Executive Department.” Heckman, supra, at 446. In this way, Congress has designed the trust relationship to serve the interests of the United States as well as to benefit the Indian tribes. See United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 443 (1903) (trust relationship “ ‘authorizes the adoption on the part of the United States of such policy as their own public interests may dictate'” (quoting Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U. S. 1, 28 (1886))).
We cannot agree with the Tribe and its amici that “[t]he government and its officials who obtained the advice have no stake in [the] substance of the advice, beyond their trustee role,” Brief for Respondent 9, or that “the United States’ interests in trust administration were identical to the interests of the tribal trust fund beneficiaries,” Brief for National Congress of American Indians et al. as Amici Curiae 5. The United States has a sovereign interest in the administration of Indian trusts distinct from the private interests of those who may benefit from its administration. Courts apply the fiduciary exception on the ground that “management does not manage for itself.” Garner, 430 F. 2d, at 1101; Wachtel, 482 F. 3d, at 232 (“[0]f central importance in both Garner and Riggs was the fiduciary’s lack of a legitimate personal interest in the legal advice obtained”). But the Government is never in that position. While one purpose of the Indian trust relationship is to benefit the tribes, the Government has its own independent interest in the implementation of federal Indian policy. For that reason, when the Government seeks legal advice related to the administra,tion of tribal trusts, it establishes an attorney-client relationship related to its sovereign interest in the execution of federal law. In other words, the Government seeks legal advice in a “personal” rather than a fiduciary capacity. See Riggs, 355 A. 2d, at 711.
Moreover, the Government has too many competing legal concerns to allow a case-by-case inquiry into the purpose of each communication. When “multiple interests” are involved in a trust relationship, the equivalence between the interests of the beneficiary and the trustee breaks down. Id., at 714. That principle applies with particular force to the Government. Because of the multiple interests it must represent, “the Government cannot follow the fastidious standards of a private fiduciary, who would breach his duties to his single beneficiary solely by representing potentially conflicting interests without the beneficiary’s consent.” Nevada v. United States, 463 U. S. 110, 128 (1983).
As the Court of Appeals acknowledged, the Government may be obliged “to balance competing interests” when it administers a tribal trust. 590 F. 3d, at 1315. The Government may need to comply with other statutory duties, such as the environmental and conservation obligations that the Court of Appeals discussed. See id., at 1314-1315. The Government may also face conflicting obligations to different tribes or individual Indians. See, e. g., Nance v. EPA, 645 F. 2d 701, 711 (CA9 1981) (Federal Government has “conflicting fiduciary responsibilities” to the Northern Cheyenne and Crow Tribes); Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F. 2d 1097, 1102 (CA9 1986) (“No trust relation exists which can be discharged to the plaintiff here at the expense of other Indians”). Within the bounds of its “general trust relationship” with the Indian people, we have recognized that the Government has “discretion to reorder its priorities from serving a subgroup of beneficiaries to serving the broader class of all Indians nationwide.” Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U. S. 182, 195 (1993); see also ibid. (“Federal Government ‘does have a fiduciary obligation to the Indians; but it is a fiduciary obligation that is owed to all Indian tribes’ ” (quoting Hoopa Valley Tribe, supra, at 1102». And sometimes, we have seen, the Government has enforced the trust statutes to dispose of Indian property contrary to the wishes of those for whom it was nominally kept in trust. The Government may seek the advice of counsel for ^guidance in balancing these competing interests. Indeed, the point of consulting counsel may be to determine whether conflicting interests are at stake.
The Court of Appeals sought to accommodate the Government’s multiple obligations by suggesting that the Government may invoke the attorney-client privilege if it identifies “a specific competing interest” that was considered in the particular communications it seeks to withhold. 590 F. 3d, at 1313. But the conflicting interests the Government must consider are too pervasive for such a case-by-case approach to be workable.
We have said that for the attorney-client privilege to be effective, it must be predictable. See Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U. S. 1, 18 (1996); Upjohn, 449 U. S., at 393. If the Government were required to identify the specific interests it considered in each communication, its ability to receive confidential legal advice would be substantially compromised. The Government will not always be able to predict what considerations qualify as a “specific competing interest,” especially in advance of receiving counsel’s advice. Forcing the Government to monitor all the considerations contained in each communication with counsel would render its attorney-client privilege “little better than no privilege at all.” Ibid.
B
The Court of Appeals also decided the fiduciary exception properly applied to the Government because “the fiduciary has a duty to disclose all information related to trust management to the beneficiary.” 590 F. 3d, at 1312. In general, the common-law trustee of an irrevocable trust must produce trust-related information to the beneficiary on a reasonable basis, though this duty is sometimes limited and may be modified by the settlor. Restatement (Third) of Trusts §82 (2005) (hereinafter Restatement 3d); Bogert §§962, 965. The fiduciary exception applies where this duty of disclosure overrides the attorney-client privilege. United States v. Mett, 178 F. 3d 1058, 1063 (CA9 1999) (“[T]he fiduciary exception can be understood as an instance of the attorney-client privilege giving way in the face of a competing legal principle”).
The United States, however, does not have the same common-law disclosure obligations as a private trustee. As we have previously said, common-law principles are relevant only when applied to a “specific, applicable, trust-creating statute or regulation.” Navajo II, 556 U. S., at 302. The relevant statute in this case is 25 U. S. C. § 162a(d), which delineates “trust responsibilities of the United States” that the Secretary of the Interior must discharge. The enumerated responsibilities include a provision identifying the Secretary’s obligation to provide specific information to tribal account holders: The Secretary must “suppl[y] account holders with periodic statements of their account performance” and must make “available on a daily basis” the “balances of their account.” §162a(d)(5). The Secretary has complied with these requirements by adopting regulations that instruct the Office of Trust Fund Management to provide each tribe with a quarterly statement of performance, 25 CFR § 115.801 (2010), that identifies “the source, type, and status of the trust funds deposited and held in a trust account; the beginning balance; the gains and losses; receipts and disbursements; and the ending account balance of the quarterly statement period,” § 115.803. Tribes may request more frequent statements
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge District Court, 241 F. Supp. 974, setting aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 307 I. C. C. 493, 312 I. C. C. 277, 317 I. C. C. 502, which granted the applications of seven railroads to provide additional rail service to the Lake Calumet Harbor Port near the southern limits of Chicago, Illinois. The service was to be provided through the construction of a single line of track into the Chicago Regional Port District for the joint use of the seven railroads. At present the port is served directly by only one railroad, appellee Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company (Rock Island). Appellee New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company (Nickel Plate), has facilities on the east side of Lake Calumet which has been reserved for future commercial development, but at present its facilities do not reach the port. The court, with one judge dissenting, rejected as not having “ample support” in the record, the findings of the Commission that the public convenience and necessity required the additional service applied for by the seven roads. It further found, unanimously, that the requirements of due process were violated by the Commission in its refusal to give Rock Island and Nickel Plate a hearing before approving a nonexclusive agreement, subsequently executed between the applicant roads and the Port District, covering the use of the latter’s facilities. The court ordered a new hearing on all the issues, one judge concluding that such hearing should be limited to the subsequently executed nonexclusive use agreement. We noted probable jurisdiction, 382 U. S. 913, and reverse the judgment.
I.
Background of Lake Calumet Harbor Port.
Lake Calumet Harbor Port is one of seven facilities within the Port of Chicago available for the handling of water-borne freight. It is a shallow lake approximately two miles in length and covers approximately 1,250 acres. It is accessible by water from Lake Michigan via the Calumet River into the heart of the Chicago switching district, a distance of some six miles.
As early as 1880 one of the Pullman companies constructed trackage that first brought rail service to Lake Calumet. Pullman reserved some 300 to 500 acres for the. development of a harbor and later donated some acreage to the United States for the development of a turning basin. Comprehensive plans for dredging Lake Calumet harbor and the filling of submerged lands were prepared in 1916 by an engineer for the City of Chicago. In 1917 Pullman waived riparian rights to some four miles of Lake Calumet shoreline to the City of Chicago and in 1935 gave additional land to the United States for the purpose of widening the Calumet River.
In 1947 the Illinois Central, an appellant here, attempted to enter the port area. Pullman and two of the seven appellants here, New York Central and the Belt Railway Company of Chicago, opposed the application which was addressed to the Illinois Commerce Commission. In 1949, during the pendency of the proceeding, Rock Island acquired the common stock and certain industrial property of Pullman for $2,200,000. Rock Island then entered the proceedings in opposition to Illinois Central. The application of the latter was approved by the Illinois Commerce Commission but the Circuit Court of Cook County rejected it and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed in 1953. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission ex rel. Illinois Central R. Co., 414 Ill. 134, 111 N. E. 2d 136.
The Interstate Commerce Commission in approving the acquisition of Pullman by Rock Island — over the objections of Illinois Central and the Belt Railway Company, each of which also sought to acquire Pullman or a portion of its trackage on the lake — imposed certain conditions on Rock Island designed to guarantee fair practices, assure nondiscriminatory handling of the traffic of other railroads to and from the lake and guarantee the mutuality of traffic and operating relationships theretofore existing between Pullman and the other roads. Rock Island, however, continued to be the only line providing direct service to the port.
The Chicago Regional Port District was created as a municipal corporation by the State of Illinois in 1951. Its purpose.was the development of Lake Calumet into a major deep water port facility for both domestic and import-export traffic via the St. Lawrence Seaway. In 1954 the Port District declared by resolution that the public’s, as well as the port’s, interest required that its trackage be accessible to as many railroads as possible. In 1955 the Port District acquired the lake and some adjoining property from the City of Chicago and began dredging the lake and constructing port facilities at its southern end; it also built 14 miles of railroad yard “hold” tracks in the port, docks, two 6,500,000-bushel grain elevators, three transit sheds occupying 300,000 square feet of space, a back-up warehouse with 200,000 square feet of space, and streets. These facilities cost $24,000,000 and were paid for by the sale of Port District revenue bonds. By contract with the Port District the Rock Island operates over the trackage of the Port District and also serves the Calumet Harbor Terminals, Inc., a private harbor facility. No other railroads reach the port on their own tracks. The Nickel Plate is the nearest rail facility. As previously noted, it has trackage on the east side of the lake which has been reserved for future development by the Port District. Any railroad wishing to service the port must use the facilities of Rock Island.
II.
The Applications Before the Commission.
On October -22, 1956, the appellants Illinois Central Railroad Company and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, requested authority from the Commission under the provisions of 49 U. S. C. § 1 (18) to construct 1.431 miles of new track that would connect their lines to the present trackage of an affiliate of Illinois Central that passes near Lake Calumet’s southwestern shore. Similar applications were subsequently filed by the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad, the Belt Railway Company of Chicago, the Michigan Central Railroad Company, the New York Central Railroad Company and the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company. All of the applicants sought to operate directly to and from the Lake Calumet port, rather than use the facilities of the Rock Island. The latter, as well as the Nickel Plate, requested and was given leave to intervene as were other parties. The Rock Island and Nickel Plate were the only objectors, the remaining intervenors all supporting the applications.
The original applications of the seven railroads did not specifically request authority from the Commission to operate over the Port District’s tracks. It appears that appellants were under the impression that formal Commission authority was not necessary because of the fact that Rock Island was currently operating without it. Nevertheless, the applications covered the entire plan of operations proposed by appellants, including activity within the Port District as well as an unexecuted agreement covering the leasing of the Port District facilities which was attached to the application as an exhibit. This lease was before the Hearing Examiner during the 12-day joint hearing he conducted and was the subject of testimony and consideration. The appellants advised, and the Hearing Examiner concluded, that the appellants sought approval to operate within the Port District, as well as authority for the track extension. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner recommended to the Commission that the entire project of the appellants be approved.
On October 5, 1959, the Commission adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendations but ruled that the applicants should file supplemental applications covering their proposed operations within the Port District, as provided in the proposed lease with the District. The Commission discussed the lease and indicated that it was satisfactory. It did, however, feel that the exclusive right of operation clause should be eliminated. The Commission also ruled that Rock Island’s service to Calumet Harbor Terminals, Inc., was not to be disrupted and that every industry located at Lake Calumet Harbor was to have direct rail service, not only from the applicants but the Rock Island and Nickel Plate, if they so elected.
In April 1960, the appellants, pursuant to the Commission’s requirement, filed supplemental applications for specific authority to operate within the Port District. The proposed lease covered by these applications eliminated the exclusionary provisions to which the Commission had objected. Despite the request of Rock Island and Nickel Plate for a hearing on the new lease the Commission found that the “technical deficiency” existing in appellants' original applications had been corrected by the filing of their supplemental applications; that the record of the previous hearing was adequate to support approval of the entire proposal of the appellants; and the applications, as supplemented, were approved.
In June 1961, however, the appellants and the Port District found it necessary to amend their operating agreement and appellants filed a second supplemental application asking for approval of the same. This agreement modified the one previously approved by the Commission. The old agreement had provided for a 5% annual rental for the use of the Port District’s rail facilities based upon the valuation of the latter, but not to exceed $2 per car, loaded or empty, including locomotives. The new agreement provided for a flat charge of $2 for each loaded freight car; it also specifically eliminated industry-owned tracks within the Port District from the agreement; and provided that it did not affect the right of Rock Island to operate in the Port District nor grant any exclusive privilege to the appellants. The Commission, after once again denying ap-pellees’ request for a hearing, approved this final agreement on November 26, 1962. The Commission found that the changes merely clarified the rights and responsibilities of the parties. As to the rentals it found that “rentals generally may be considered reasonable where, as here, the facts of record disclose that nonaifiliated parties, after bargaining at arm’s length, have entered into an agreement under which increased service will be offered to the public, all parties to the agreement will benefit financially, and the interveners’ ability to. continue to serve the public will not be impaired.”
III.
Proceedings in the District Court.
The Rock Island and Nickel Plate then filed this suit seeking to enjoin the Commission’s orders and the three-judge District Court vacated the orders on the grounds we have stated.
The court found that it was faced with two basic problems: (1) whether there was “substantial evidence” to support the order of the Commission and (2) whether the refusal of the Commission to have a hearing on the lease agreement between the applicants and the Port District denied Rock Island and Nickel Plate due process of law.
With respect to the first problem the court found “substantial support” for some of the “important findings” of the Commission. However, it found that the record did not “offer ample support” for certain of its conclusions. These conclusions appeared to have been drawn by the Commission from the prior findings which the court had found to have “substantial support” in the record.
On the supplemental application for authority to operate within the Port District the court held there was insufficient evidence to support the order of approval; that the rental under the final contract was materially different from the provisions of the original plan and bound the Rock Island and Nickel Plate to operate under the same condition without affording them the right of a hearing. By a divided court it ordered a complete rehearing on all issues. We cannot agree with either the findings of the District Court or with its disposition of the case.
IV.
Applicable Standard on Review.
At the outset the Commission and the appellant railroads contend that the court did not apply the correct standards in reviewing the Commission’s action. As we have noted, the court did reject certain “conclusions” of the Commission, as above indicated, with respect to the public convenience and necessity for additional rail service to Lake Calumet port on the ground that they did not have “ample support” in the record. The test on judicial review is, of course, whether the action of the Commission is supported by “substantial evidence” on the record viewed as a whole, 5 U. S. C. § 1009 (e) (5). Substantial evidence is “enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.” Labor Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U. S. 292, 300 (1939). A careful reading of the opinion leads us-to conclude that the court was applying the test of substantiality. Indeed, at four separate places in the opinion it uses the term “substantial evidence” as being the necessary requirement. As unfortunate as it is that the “ample support” language crept into the decision, we do not believe that the court was creating a “novel formulation” but rather inadvertently used the “ample support” terminology merely to meet the same language in the dissent referring to the conclusions of the Commission.
We have concluded that the court erred in setting aside the conclusions of the Commission. The Act authorizes the issuance of certificates such as the ones sought here when the Commission finds that the future public convenience and necessity will require additional railroad service. 49 U. S. C. § 1 (18). This Court has repeatedly held that if a railroad, voluntarily proposing the extension of its lines, can show that its proposal “either presently or in the reasonably near future will be self-sustaining, or so nearly so as not unduly to burden interstate commerce, the Commission may issue a certificate authorizing the proposed line,” Interstate Commerce Commission v. Oregon-Wash. R. & Nav. Co., 288 U. S. 14, 37 (1933). The Commission, however, “must be convinced that the proposed venture will not drain the railroad’s resources and disable it from performing those duties of public service under which it then rested, with consequent detriment to the public in the matter of service and rates.” Ibid. Also see Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 270 U. S. 266, 277 (1926); Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 35, 42 (1931). Rock Island and Nickel Plate contend that the “evidence [of appellants] adduced before the Commission was so totally devoid of factual possibility as to be no evidence at all.” As we read it, the evidence as to the future possibilities of the port was somewhat conflicting. The Commission, in keeping with its duty, resolved this conflict. Indeed, the findings of the Commission, which were upheld by the District Court, completely refute the Rock Island and Nickel Plate claims. Among the findings approved by the court are the following: The port was “the major deepwater port facility of the port of Chicago,” with “unparalleled access” to barge, rail, lake steamer and motor transportation and “complete access to ocean transportation” in the immediate future, with 71,490,510 tons of water-borne traffic in 1955 and with “material increases” in tonnages predicted for the future from among an estimated 600 to 900 vessels coming to the Chicago port each season, that “will necessitate a substantially broadened railroad service into and out of the Lake Calumet port”; appellants’ combined yard capacity was 61,601 cars, more than 12 times that presently available at the port; appellants’ routing would be “more direct,” entail less handling, expedite shipments and be less expensive than the present operation of Rock Island; and, finally, it was “imperative . . . that at the very beginning of this new era of development a plan and system for handling the transportation needs of the port be established which will assure the type of service that is expected and will provide for steady progress and expansion.” We believe that these findings, in the light of others not overturned by the District Court, are sufficient to sustain the Commission’s action in issuing the certificates.
Moreover, we believe that the District Court erred in striking down the conclusions of the Commission. These conclusions included: Consideration of the whole record warranted the finding that the applications should be granted; granting them would result in greater rail competition, better service, greater car supply and lower rates for the industries served by the port; appellants would be “on a par” with the Rock Island in solicitation of grain traffic, and by having control of their cars- they could return empties in a fast shuttle service to country elevators without interchange with Rock Island; the time has come when additional freight service is required for the future development of the Port District; better service can be given through elimination of delays, by single-line hauls or more direct hauls; a single trunkline railroad service would be detrimental and a hindrance to the development of the harbor, and, although the port is served by some 100 common carrier trucklines, the Rock Island is the only railroad presently serving the port; the future convenience and necessity must be given “a higher value” than the present convenience and necessity; the proposed construction either presently or in the reasonably near future is necessary to meet a public need and will be reasonably profitable; and, finally, considering the expansion program at the port and the increased rail traffic to be made available the Commission is “of the opinion that the additional service ... is warranted.” As we have said, these conclusions were largely based upon previous Commission findings which the District Court approved. The Commission’s function is to draw such reasonable conclusions from its findings as in its discretion are appropriate. As we said in Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U. S. 607, 620 (1966), “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” It is not for the court to strike down conclusions that are reasonably drawn from the evidence and findings in the case. Its duty is to determine whether the evidence supporting the Commission’s findings is substantial, Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474 (1951). Having found that there was substantial support in the record for the Commission’s findings as to the port’s future potential and the necessity of providing competitive rail service at the outset of the port’s development, it was not the District Court’s function to substitute its own conclusions for those which the Commission had fairly drawn from such findings. Its agreement with the controlling subsidiary findings required the District Court to sustain the Commission’s conclusions.
The court also erred, we believe, in ordering a new hearing on the issues. It found that the Commission’s order issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate within the Port District was not supported by sufficient evidence and violated due process in that a hearing was not afforded the appellees thereon.
As we view the original applications of the appellants they proposed “to extend their operations to serve the Lake Calumet Harbor District near Chicago, in Cook County, Illinois •. . . future industries, elevators, warehouses, docks and piers in the Calumet Harbor Port area.” The prayer was that “your Commission issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation for which authority is herein sought.” The proceeding came on for a hearing before the Hearing Examiner on September 30,1957, and counsel for the Rock Island stated for the record that his understanding was “the issue in this case is that all applications are for the purpose, of handling import and export business only to and from the Port District Harbor of Chicago (Emphasis supplied.) And counsel for the appellants stated that the plan was “to handle interstate business to and from the area over which the port has jurisdiction. We have no such limitation at all as to import or export trade.” Likewise, the “Return to Questionnaire” executed by appellants stated: “The line proposed to be constructed and operated will receive material revenue from freight traffic to be handled to and from industries, elevators, warehouses, docks, and piers presently operating in the Calumet Harbor Port area, in addition to those facilities to be constructed with the further development of the area.” To make it crystal clear paragraph 10 of the same answer to the questionnaire stated:
“The Lake Calumet Port District, which the proposed line will serve is currently served by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company by virtue of its acquisition of the Pullman Railroad Company, through purchase of capital stock, and lease by the former of the railroad property of the latter approved and authorized by the Commission in Finance Docket No. 16252, Pullman Railroad Company Control, decided November 17, 1949.”
The other applications had similar allegations and the other appellants’ questionnaire returns contained like statements. Moreover, the answers filed on May 16, 1957, by Rock Island and Pullman to the applications, addressed themselves solely to the proposition that “applicant’s extension of its line of railroad and operations through trackage rights to serve territory [the Port District] heretofore served exclusively and adequately by petitioners cannot be supported by public convenience and necessity, could mean only a duplication of rail service, and would create unsound and uneconomic conditions in transportation.”
As we read the record before the Hearing Examiner the case was tried on the theory that the applications included the proposed operations within the Port District. During the presentation of appellants’ evidence objection was made to the introduction of the proposed lease between appellants and the Port District on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the application. The Hearing Examiner overruled the objection. The testimony of virtually all of the appellants’ witnesses was directed to some phase of the operations of the Port District. It should also be noted that the appellees sought to rebut this testimony in voluminous detail. For example, 40 pages of the record detail the testimony of Mr. R. C. Davidson, a witness for Rock Island. His testimony is devoted to Rock Island’s operation in the United States with specific reference to the Port District. It compares Rock Island’s operation in the Port District with that proposed by the appellants and answers in detail the statistics of the appellants as to charges, rates, switching problems, etc., involved in operations within the Port District. Page after page of prepared statistics on the costs, profits, etc., of the proposed operation were included in the testimony, together with forecasts as to the impact of the same, if permitted, on Rock Island’s operations. Another witness for Rock Island, Professor Marvin L. Fair, testified for some 15 pages on the potential of the Port District. His research was in great depth and included comparisons with other Great Lakes ports; estimated traffic of the Port District, including iron ore, grain, and general cargo; physical conditions of navigation at the port; the effect of tolls; the capacity of the Welland Canal (in the St. Lawrence Seaway) and its impact on the port; the efficiency of the port facilities; established movement of exports and imports; the effect of political, military, and economic conditions at home and abroad and the adequacy of Rock Island’s service.
The record establishes beyond a doubt that the appellants were in fact seeking Commission approval of the entire project. Their offering of the unexecuted, proposed contract into evidence is one of many indications of this fact. The Hearing Examiner specifically noted, at the time the contract was received in evidence, that its approval by the Commission was necessary in order for the appellants to serve the Port District as they proposed. It would, indeed, have been a futile act for the appellants to seek and attain approval to extend their lines to the Port District but not be able to enter it!
It is true that appellees objected to the introduction of the proposed agreement because they felt, and rightly so, that the application which the appellants had submitted was not technically broad enough for the authority they sought. The Hearing Examiner overruled them and they were obliged to — and did — offer their evidence on the matter. When the question came before the Commission for decision, it ruled that the applications were technically deficient and permitted the parties to correct the same through the filing of supplemental applications. At no time did the Commission find that the proposal to operate within the Port District had not been adequately explored and examined. Rather, a careful reading of the Commission’s entire opinion leads us to the opposite conclusion. At every stage of the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner and also before the Commission, operations of the appellants within the Port District were considered an integral part of the overall plan which they submitted.
The ruling of the Commission that the supplemental applications should be considered in “conjunction with the original application,” did not, in our view, deprive appellees of due process of law. When appellees requested a full hearing on the supplemental applications the grounds they alleged were that they were adequately serving the port; that they were prepared to spend further sums of money in the construction of facilities to serve it; that they were entitled to retain the traffic of the Port District; that there was no adequate reason for extension of the railroad lines of appellants into territory heretofore served exclusively by appellees; and that the extension of the railroad lines of appellants was not justified by public convenience and necessity. As the Commission itself found, “Examination of the record discloses that these are the same arguments and contentions that were set forth in protestants’ original briefs, exceptions to the examiner's proposed report, in their petitions for reconsideration, and in their oral arguments." Illinois Central R. Co. Construction and Trackage, 312 I. C. C. 277, 280.
The changes in the proposed lease agreement which the Commission approved without a further hearing involved the removal of the “exclusive right to operate within the Port” clause, which that document had given the appellants, and the formula for determining the annual rental to be charged by the Port District. As to the former, it can hardly be maintained that this worked a hardship or detriment upon the appellees. The removal of the clause, in fact, made certain that appel-lees were not precluded from continuing their present operations. As to the rental clause, it will be remembered that the original proposed agreement provided for 5% annual rental based on the value of the land and tracks, but not to exceed $2 per car. This was changed in the first supplemental application to a charge of not to exceed $2 per revenue car or locomotive. The final contract merely provided for a charge of $2 for each revenue car, which was much more favorable to the appellants than either of the former clauses. Moreover, the final charge compared favorably to other per-car rates previously approved by the Commission. In the light of these considerations, as well as the fact that appellees were invited and refused to sit in on the negotiation of the contract; had ample opportunity and did present their evidence as to the reasonableness of the charge for the use of Port District property; were, and are, in nowise bound by the contract; and, finally, in view of the insignificance of the changes in the final agreement compared with the former ones, we are led to conclude that appel-lees were not entitled to another hearing.
Appellees also insist that a new hearing be held so that evidence of “present conditions” could be presented to the Commission rather than “speculation.” It is true that this case has been pending for 10 years but this, rather than being a reason for holding additional hearings, operates to the contrary. We have concluded that the orders of the Commission were proper under the circumstances. We have found. substantial support for its actions. Accordingly, it is our view that this matter be concluded.
The judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to sustain the Commission’s orders. It is s0 ordered.
Illinois Central Railroad Company; Pennsylvania Railroad Company; Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad; Belt Railway Company of Chicago; the New York Central Railroad Company; and the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company. The Michigan Central Railroad Company sought additional trackage approval but had not signed a proposed lease with the Port District as the other appellants had.
The Nickel Plate has merged into the Norfolk and Western Railway Company since this proceeding began.
Others included: the Secretary of Agriculture, the Port District, the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, and two private companies operating on the lake, Calumet Harbor Terminals, Inc., and North Pier Terminal Company.
317 I. C. C. 502, 505.
Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. United States, 241 F. Supp. 974, 977.
The testimony was that rail traffic to and from the port in 1960 would be 27,000 carloads which could easily increase to 76,500 carloads in 1962, 115,000 carloads in 1968 and anywhere from 250,000 to 350,000 carloads a year when both sides of the lake are completed. There was also much testimony as to grain shipments. The seven States of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado in 1956 produced 43% of all the wheat and 51% of the corn grown in the United States. The existing disparity in rates will divert much grain from Atlantic and Gulf ports for movement via Chicago and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Service to the port by one railroad does not appear adequate since the railroads serving the midwest grain-producing States terminate in Chicago and have extensive switching and classification yards which could be utilized.
241 F. Supp. 974, 979.
Application of Illinois Central, Pennsylvania, and Chicago South Shore and South Bend railroads filed October 19, 1956, with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Return of Illinois Central, Pennsylvania, and the Chicago South Shore and South Bend, R. 17.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again we are presented with “ 'the perennial problem of the validity of a state tax for the privilege of carrying on, within a state, certain activities’ related to a corporation’s operation of an interstate business.” Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U. S. 100, 101 (1975), quoting Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80, 85 (1948). The issue in this case is whether Mississippi runs afoul of the Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, when it applies the tax it imposes on “the privilege of . . . doing business” within the State to appellant’s activity in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court of Mississippi unanimously sustained the tax against appellant’s constitutional challenge. 330 So. 2d 268 (1976). We noted probable jurisdiction in order to consider anew the applicable principles in this troublesome area. 429 U. S. 813 (1976).
I
The taxes in question are sales taxes assessed by the Mississippi State Tax Commission against the appellant, Complete Auto Transit, Inc., for the period from August 1, 1968, through July 31, 1972. The assessments were made pursuant to the following Mississippi statutes:
“There is hereby levied and assessed and shall be collected, privilege taxes for the privilege of engaging or continuing in business or doing business within this state to be determined by the application of rates against gross proceeds of sales or gross income or values, as the case may be, as provided in the following sections.” Miss. Code Ann., 1942, § 10105 (1972 Supp.), as amended.
“Upon every person operating a pipeline, railroad, airplane, bus, truck, or any other transportation business for the transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire between points within this State, there is hereby levied, assessed, and shall be collected, a tax equal to five per cent of the gross income of such business . . . .” § 10109 (2), as amended.
Any person liable for the tax is required to add it to the gross sales price and, “insofar as practicable,” to collect it at the time the sales price is collected. § 10117, as amended.
Appellant is a Michigan corporation engaged in the business of transporting motor vehicles by motor carrier for General Motors Corporation. General Motors assembles outside Mississippi vehicles that are destined for dealers within the State. The vehicles are then shipped by rail to Jackson, Miss., where, usually within 48 hours, they are loaded onto appellant’s trucks and transported by appellant to the Mississippi dealers. App. 47-48, 78-79, 86-87. Appellant is paid on a contract basis for the transportation from the railhead to the dealers. Id., at 50-51, 68.
By letter dated October 5, 1971, the Mississippi Tax Commission informed appellant that it was being assessed taxes and interest totaling $122,160.59 for the sales of transportation services during the three-year period from August 1, 1968, through July 31, 1971. Remittance within 10 days was requested. Id., at 9-10. By similar letter dated December 28, 1972, the Commission advised appellant of an assessment of $42,990.89 for the period from August 1, 1971, through July 31, 1972. Id., at 11-12. Appellant paid the assessments under protest and, in April 1973, pursuant to § 10121.1, as amended, of the 1942 Code (now § 27-65-47 of the 1972 Code), instituted the present refund action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County.
Appellant claimed that its transportation was but one part of an interstate movement, and that the taxes assessed and paid were unconstitutional as applied to operations in interstate commerce. App. 4, 6-7. The Chancery Court, in an unreported opinion, sustained the assessments. Id., at 99-102.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. It concluded:
“It will be noted that Taxpayer has a large operation in this State. It is dependent upon the State for police protection and other State services the same as other citizens. It should pay its fair share of taxes so long, but only so long, as the tax does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and there is no danger of interstate commerce being smothered by cumulative taxes of several states. There is no possibility of any other state duplicating the tax involved in this case.” 330 So. 2d, at 272.
Appellant, in its complaint in Chancery Court, did not allege that its activity which Mississippi taxes does not have a sufficient nexus with the State; or that the tax discriminates against interstate commerce; or that the tax is unfairly apportioned; or that it is unrelated to services provided by the State. No such claims were made before the Mississippi Supreme Court, and although appellant argues here that a tax on “the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce” creates an unacceptable risk of discrimination and undue burdens, Brief for Appellant 20-27, it does not claim that discrimination or undue burdens exist in fact.
Appellant's attack is based solely on decisions of this Court holding that a tax on the “privilege” of engaging in an activity in the State may not be applied to an activity that is part of interstate commerce. See, e. g., Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, 340 U. S. 602 (1951); Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249 (1946). This rule looks only to the fact that the incidence of the tax is the “privilege of doing business”; it deems irrelevant any consideration of the practical effect of the tax. The rule reflects an underlying philosophy that interstate commerce should enjoy a sort of “free trade” immunity from state taxation.
Appellee, in its turn, relies on decisions of this Court stating that “ [i]t was not the purpose of the commerce clause to relieve those engaged in interstate commerce from their just share of state tax burden even though it increases the cost of doing the business,” Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250, 254 (1938). These decisions have considered not the formal language of the tax statute but rather its practical effect, and have sustained a tax against Commerce Clause challenge when the tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the State.
Over the years, the Court has applied this practical analysis in approving many types of tax that avoided running afoul of the prohibition against taxing the “privilege of doing business,” but in each instance it has refused to overrule the prohibition. Under the present state of the law, the Spector rule, as it has come to be known, has no relationship to economic realities. Rather it stands only as a trap for the unwary draftsman.
II
The modern origin of the Spector rule may be found in Freeman v. Hewit, supra. At issue in Freeman was the application of an Indiana tax upon “the receipt of the entire gross income” of residents and domiciliaries. 329 U. S., at 250. Indiana sought to impose this tax on income generated when a trustee of an Indiana estate instructed his local stockbroker to sell certain securities. The broker arranged with correspondents in New York to sell the securities on the New York Stock Exchange. The securities were sold, and the New York brokers, after deducting expenses and commission, transmitted the proceeds to the Indiana broker who in turn delivered them, less his commission, to the trustee. The Indiana Supreme Court sustained the tax, but this Court reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, speaking for five Members of the Court, announced a blanket prohibition against any state taxation imposed directly on an interstate transaction. He explicitly deemed unnecessary to the decision of the case any showing of discrimination against interstate commerce or error in apportionment of the tax. Id., at 254, 256-257. He recognized that a State could constitutionally tax local manufacture, impose license taxes on corporations doing business in the State, tax property within the State, and tax the privilege of residence in the State and measure the privilege by net income, including that derived from interstate commerce. Id., at 255. Nevertheless, a direct tax on interstate sales, even if fairly apportioned and nondiscriminatory, was held to be unconstitutional per se.
Mr. Justice Rutledge, in a lengthy concurring opinion, argued that the tax should be judged by its economic effects rather than by its formal phrasing. After reviewing the Court’s prior decisions, he concluded: “The fact is that 'direct incidence’ of a state tax or regulation . . . has long since been discarded as being in itself sufficient to outlaw state legislation.” Id., at 265-266. In his view, a state tax is unconstitutional only if the activity lacks the necessary connection with the taxing state to give “jurisdiction to tax,” id., at 271, or if the tax discriminates against interstate commerce, or if the activity is subject to multiple taxation. Id., at 276-277.
The rule announced in Freeman was viewed in the commentary as a triumph of formalism over substance, providing little guidance even as to formal requirements. See P. Hartman, State Taxation of Interstate Commerce 200-204 (1953); Dunham, Gross Receipts Taxes on Interstate Transactions, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 211 (1947). Although the rule might have been utilized as the keystone of a movement toward absolute immunity of interstate commerce from state taxation, the Court consistently has indicated that “interstate commerce may be made to pay its way,” and has moved toward a standard of permissibility of state taxation based upon its actual effect rather than its legal terminology.
The narrowing of the rule to one of draftsmanship and phraseology began with another Mississippi case, Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80 (1948). Memphis Natural Gas Company owned and operated a pipeline running from Louisiana to Memphis. Approximately 135 miles of the line were in Mississippi. Mississippi imposed a “franchise or excise” tax measured by “the value of the capital used, invested or employed in the exercise of any power, privilege or right enjoyed by [a corporation] within this state.” Miss. Code Ann., 1942, § 9313. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the tax, and this Court affirmed.
In an opinion for himself and two others, Mr. Justice Reed noted that the tax was not discriminatory, that there was no possibility of multiple taxation, that the amount of the tax was reasonable, and that the tax was properly apportioned to the investment in Mississippi. 335 U. S., at 87-88. He then went on to consider whether the tax was “upon the privilege of doing interstate business within the state.” Id., at 88. He drew a distinction between a tax on “the privilege of doing interstate business” and a tax on “the privilege of exercising corporate functions within the State,” and held that while the former is unconstitutional, the latter is not barred by the Commerce Clause. Id., at 88-93. He then approved the tax there at issue because
“there is no attempt to tax the privilege of doing an interstate business or to secure anything from the corporation by this statute except compensation for the protection of the enumerated local activities of 'maintaining, keeping in repair, and otherwise in manning the facilities.’ ” Id., at 93.
Mr. Justice Black concurred in the judgment without opinion. Id., at 96. Mr. Justice Rutledge provided the fifth vote, stating in his concurrence:
“[I]t is enough for me to sustain the tax imposed in this case that it is one clearly within the state’s power to lay insofar as any limitation of due process or 'jurisdiction to tax’ in that sense is concerned; it is nondiscriminatory, that is, places no greater burden upon interstate commerce than the state places upon competing intrastate commerce of like character; is duly apportioned, that is, does not undertake to tax any interstate activities carried on outside the state’s borders; and cannot be repeated by any other state.” Id., at 96-97 (footnotes omitted).
Four Justices dissented, id., at 99, on the grounds that it had not been shown that the State afforded any protection in return for the tax, and that, therefore, the tax must be viewed as one on the “privilege” of engaging in interstate commerce. The dissenters recognized that an identical effect could be achieved by an increase in the ad valorem property tax, id., at 104, but would have held, notwithstanding, that a tax on the “privilege” is unconstitutional.
The prohibition against state taxation of the “privilege” of engaging in commerce that is interstate was reaffirmed in Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, 340 U. S. 602 (1951), a case similar on its facts to the instant case. The taxpayer there was a Missouri corporation engaged exclusively in interstate trucking. Some of its shipments originated or terminated in Connecticut. Connecticut imposed on a corporation a “tax or excise upon its franchise for the privilege of carrying on or doing business within the state,” measured by apportioned net income. Id., at 603-604, n. 1. Spector brought suit in federal court to enjoin collection of the tax as applied to its activities. The District Court issued the injunction. The Second Circuit reversed. This Court, with three Justices in dissent, in turn reversed the Court of Appeals and held the tax unconstitutional as applied.
The Court recognized that “where a taxpayer is engaged both in intrastate and interstate commerce, a state may tax the privilege of carrying on intrastate business and, within reasonable limits, may compute the amount of the charge by applying the tax rate to a fair proportion of the taxpayer’s business done within the state, including both interstate and intrastate.” Id., at 609-610 (footnote omitted). It held, nevertheless, that a tax on the “privilege” of doing business is unconstitutional if applied against what is exclusively interstate commerce. The dissenters argued, on the other hand, id., at 610, that there is no constitutional difference between an “exclusively interstate” business and a “mixed” business, and that a fairly apportioned and nondiscriminatory tax on either type is not prohibited by the Commerce Clause.
The Spector rule was applied in Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, 347 U. S. 359 (1954) (Railway Express I), to declare unconstitutional a State’s “annual license tax” levied on gross receipts for the “privilege of doing business in this State.” The Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, held that the tax on gross receipts was a tax on the privilege of doing business rather than a tax on property in the State, as Virginia contended.
Virginia thereupon revised the wording of its statute to impose a “franchise tax” on “intangible property” in the form of “going concern” value as measured by gross receipts. The tax was again asserted against the Agency which in Virginia was engaged exclusively in interstate commerce. This Court’s opinion, buttressed by two concurring opinions and one concurrence in the result, upheld the reworded statute as not violative of the Spector rule. Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, 358 U. S. 434 (1959) (Railway Express II). In upholding the statute, the Court’s opinion recognized that the rule against taxing the “privilege” of doing interstate business had created a situation where “the use of magic words or labels” could “disable an otherwise constitutional levy.” Id., at 441.
There was no real economic difference between the statutes in Railway Express I and Railway Express II. The Court long since had recognized that interstate commerce may be made to pay its way. Yet under the Spector rule, the economic realities in Railway Express I became irrelevant. The Spector rule had come to operate only as a rule of draftsmanship, and served only to distract the courts and parties from their inquiry into whether the challenged tax produced results forbidden by the Commerce Clause.
On the day it announced Railway Express II, the Court further confirmed that a State, with proper drafting, may tax exclusively interstate commerce so long as the tax does not create any effect forbidden by the Commerce Clause. In Northwestern Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U. S. 450 (1959), the Court held that net income from the interstate operations of a foreign corporation may be subjected to state taxation, provided the levy is not discriminatory and is properly apportioned to local activities within the taxing State forming sufficient nexus to support the tax. Limited in that way, the tax could be levied even though the income was generated exclusively by interstate sales. Spector was distinguished, briefly and in passing, as a case in which “the incidence” of the tax “was the privilege of doing business.” 358 U. S., at 464.
Thus, applying the rule of Northwestern Cement to the facts of Spector, it is clear that Connecticut could have taxed the apportioned net income derived from the exclusively interstate commerce. It could not, however, tax the “privilege” of doing business as measured by the apportioned net income. The reason for attaching constitutional significance to a semantic difference is difficult to discern.
The unsatisfactory operation of the Spector rule is well demonstrated by our recent case of Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U. S. 100 (1975). Colonial was a Delaware corporation with an interstate pipeline running through Louisiana for approximately 258 miles. It maintained a work force and pumping stations in Louisiana to keep the pipeline flowing, but it did no intrastate business in that State. Id., at 101-102. In 1962, Louisiana imposed on Colonial a franchise tax for “the privilege of carrying on or doing business” in the State. The Louisiana Court of Appeal invalidated the tax as violative of the rule of Spector. Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Mouton, 228 So. 2d 718 (1969). The Supreme Court of Louisiana refused review. 255 La. 474, 231 So. 2d 393 (1970). The Louisiana Legislature, perhaps recognizing that it had run afoul of a rule of words rather than a rule of substance, then redrafted the statute to levy the tax, as an alternative incident, on the “qualification to carry on or do business in this state or the actual doing of business within this state in a corporate form.” Again, the Court of Appeal held the tax unconstitutional as applied to the appellant. Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Agerton, 275 So. 2d 834 (1973). But this time the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the new tax. 289 So. 2d 93 (1974)
By a 7-to-1 vote, this Court affirmed. No question had been raised as to the propriety of the apportionment of the tax, and no claim was made that the tax was discriminatory. 421 U. S., at 101. The Court noted that the tax was imposed on that aspect of interstate commerce to which the State bore a special relation, and that the State bestowed powers, privileges, and benefits sufficient to support a tax on doing business in the corporate form in Louisiana. Id., at 109. Accordingly, on the authority of Memphis Gas, the tax was held to be constitutional. The Court distinguished Spector on the familiar ground that it involved a tax on the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce, while the Louisiana Legislature, in contrast, had worded the statute at issue “narrowly to confine the impost to one related to appellant’s activities within the State in the corporate form.” 421 U. S., at 113-114.
While refraining from overruling Spector, the Court noted:
“[D]ecisions of this Court, particularly during recent decades, have sustained nondiscriminatory, properly apportioned state corporate taxes upon foreign corporations doing an exclusively interstate business when the tax is related to a corporation’s local activities and the State has provided benefits and protections for those activities for which it is justified in asking a fair and reasonable return.” Id., at 108.
One commentator concluded: “After reading Colonial, only the most sanguine taxpayer would conclude that the Court maintains a serious belief in the doctrine that the privilege of doing interstate business is immune from state taxation.” Hellerstein, State Taxation of Interstate Business and the Supreme Court, 1974 Term: Standard Pressed Steel and Colonial Pipeline, 62 Va. L. Rev. 149, 188 (1976).
III
In this case, of course, we are confronted with a situation like that presented in Spector. The tax is labeled a privilege tax “for the privilege of . . . doing business” in Mississippi, § 10105 of the State’s 1942 Code, as amended, and the activity taxed is, or has been assumed to be, interstate commerce. We note again that no claim is made that the activity is not sufficiently connected to the State to justify a tax, or that the tax is not fairly related to benefits provided the taxpayer, or that the tax discriminates against interstate commerce, or that the tax is not fairly apportioned.
The view of the Commerce Clause that gave rise to the rule of Spector perhaps was not without some substance. Nonetheless, the possibility of defending it in the abstract does not alter the fact that the Court has rejected the proposition that interstate commerce is immune from state taxation:
“It is a truism that the mere act of carrying on business in interstate commerce does not exempt a corporation from state taxation. 'It was not the purpose of the commerce clause to relieve those engaged in interstate commerce from their just share of state tax burden even though it increases the cost of doing business.’ Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250, 254 (1938).” Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U. S., at 108.
Not only has the philosophy underlying the rule been rejected, but the rule itself has been stripped of any practical significance. If Mississippi had called its tax one on “net income” or on the “going concern value” of appellant’s business, the Spector rule could not invalidate it. There is no economic consequence that follows necessarily from the use of the particular words, “privilege of doing business,” and a focus on that formalism merely obscures the question whether the tax produces a forbidden effect. Simply put, the Spector rule does not address the problems with which the Commerce Clause is concerned. Accordingly, we now reject the rule of Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. O’Connor, that a state tax on the “privilege of doing business” is per se unconstitutional when it is applied to interstate commerce, and that case is overruled.
There being no objection to Mississippi’s tax on appellant except that it was imposed on nothing other than the “privilege of doing business” that is interstate, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The statute is now § 27-65-13 of the State’s 1972 Code.
This statute is now § 27-65-19 (2) of the 1972 Code. It was amended, effective August 1, 1972, to exclude the transportation of property. 1972 Miss. Laws, c. 506, § 2.
Section 10109, as codified in 1942, imposed a tax on gross income from all transportation, with gross income defined to exclude “so much thereof as is derived from business conducted in commerce between this State and other States of the United States . . . which the State of Mississippi is prohibited from taxing under the Constitution of the United States of America.” In 1955, this exclusionary language was eliminated and the statute was amended to cover only transportation “between points within this state.” 1955 Miss. Laws, c. 109, § 10. The amendment gave the statute essentially the form it possessed during the period relevant here.
It might be argued that the statute as so amended evinces an intent to reach only intrastate commerce, and that it should be so construed. Appellant, however, does not make that argument, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi clearly viewed that statute as applying to both intrastate commerce and interstate commerce.
We are advised by the appellee that the tax has been applied only to commercial transactions in which a distinct service is performed and payment made for transportation from one point within the State to another point within the State. Tr. of Oral Arg. 34-35, 38.
This statute is now § 27-65-31 of the 1972 Code. Violation of the requirements of the section is a misdemeanor. Ibid.
The parties understandably go to great pains to describe the details of the bills of lading, and the responsibility of various entities for the vehicles as they travel from the assembly plant to the dealers. Appellant seeks to demonstrate that the transportation it provides from the railhead to the dealers is part of a movement in interstate commerce. Appellee argues that appellant’s transportation is intrastate business, but further argues that even if the activity is part of interstate commerce, the tax is not unconstitutional. Brief for Appellant 11-14; Brief for Appellee 12-24; Reply Brief for Appellant 44-16. The Mississippi courts, in upholding the tax, assumed that the transportation is in interstate commerce. For present purposes, we make the same assumption.
Although appellant had been operating in Mississippi since 1960, App. 77, the state audit and assessment covered only the period beginning August 1, 1968. Id., at 37-38. No effort had been made to apply the tax to appellant for any period prior to that date.
See Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U. S. 318 (1977); General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S. 436 (1964); Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 309 U. S. 157 (1940); Ingels v. Morf, 300 U. S. 290 (1937). See also Standard Steel Co. v. Washington Rev. Dept., 419 U. S. 560 (1975), and Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583 (1939).
The Court summarized the “free trade” view in Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S., at 252:
“[T]he Commerce Clause was not merely an authorization to Congress to enact laws for the protection and encouragement of commerce among the States, but by its own force created an area of trade free from interference by the States. In short, the Commerce Clause even without implementing legislation by Congress is a limitation upon the power of the States. . . . This limitation on State power . . . does not merely forbid a State to single out interstate commerce for hostile action. A State is also precluded from taking any action which may fairly be deemed to have the effect of impeding the free flow of trade between States. It is immaterial that local commerce is subjected to a similar encumbrance.”
See, e. g., General Motors Corp. v. Washington, supra; Northwestern Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U. S. 450 (1959); Memphis Gas Co. v. Stone, 335 U. S. 80 (1948); Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444 (1940).
Although we mention Freeman as the starting point, elements of the views expressed therein, and the positions that underlie that debate, were evident in prior opinions. Compare State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284 (1873), with Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U. S. 230 (1887); and compare Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U. S. 34 (1927), and Cooney v. Mountain States Tel. Co., 294 U. S. 384 (1935), with Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250 (1938). See generally P. Hartman, State Taxation of Interstate Commerce (1953); Barrett, State Taxation of Interstate Commerce—“Direct Burdens,” “Multiple Burdens,” or What Have You?, 4 Vand. L. Rev. 496 (1951), and writings cited therein at 496 n. 1; Dunham, Gross Receipts Taxes on Interstate Transactions, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 211 (1947).
Mr. Justice Rutledge agreed with the result the Court reached in Freeman because of his belief that the apportionment problem was best solved if States other than the market State were forbidden to impose unapportioned gross receipts taxes of the kind Indiana sought to exact.
A consistent application of the doctrine of immunity for interstate commerce, of course, would have necessitated overruling the cases approved by the Freeman Court that upheld taxes whose burden, although indirect, fell on interstate commerce.
In arriving at this conclusion, the dissent relied upon a construction of a stipulation entered into by the parties, 335 U. S., at 100-101, and upon an independent review of the record. The plurality rejected the dissent’s reading of the stipulation and noted, in addition, that the question presented in the petition for certiorari did not raise a claim that the State was providing no service for which it could ask recompense. Id., at 83-84. The plurality then relied on the Supreme Court of Mississippi’s holding that the State did provide protection that could properly be the subject of a tax.
Five Members of the Court joined in the opinion distinguishing Spector. Two concurred in the judgment, but viewed Spector as indistinguishable and would have overruled it. 421 U. S., at 114-116. One also viewed Spector as indistinguishable, but felt that it was an established precedent until forthrightly overruled. Id., at 116. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part.
Less charitably put: “In light of the expanding scope of the state taxing power over interstate commerce, Spector is an anachronism. . . . Continued adherence to Spector, especially after Northwestern States Portland Cement, cannot be justified.” Comment, Pipelines, Privileges and Labels: Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 70 Nw. U. L. Rev. 835, 854 (1975).
It might be argued that "privilege” taxes, by focusing on the doing of business, are easily tailored to single out interstate businesses and subject them to effects forbidden by the Commerce Clause, and that, therefore, “privilege” taxes should be subjected to a per se rule against their imposition on interstate business. Yet property taxes also may be tailored to differentiate between property used in transportation and other types of property, see Railway Express II, 358 U. S. 434 (1959); an income tax could use different rates for different types of business; and a tax on the “privilege of doing business in corporate form” could be made to change with the nature of the corporate activity involved. Any tailored tax of this sort creates an increased danger of error in apportionment, of discrimination against interstate commerce, and of a lack of relationship to the services provided by the State. See Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S., at 265-266, n. 13 (concurring opinion). A tailored tax, however accomplished, must receive the careful scrutiny of the courts to determine whether it produces a forbidden effect on interstate commerce. We perceive no reason, however, why a tax on the “privilege of doing business” should be viewed as creating a qualitatively different danger so as to require a per se rule of unconstitutionality.
It might also be argued that adoption of a rule of absolute immunity for interstate commerce (a rule that would, of course, go beyond Spector) would relieve this Court of difficult judgments that on occasion will have to be made. We believe, however, that administrative convenience, in this instance, is insufficient justification for abandoning the principle that “interstate commerce may be made to pay its way.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Washington requires every public employee to subscribe to an oath that he is “not a subversive person or a member of the Communist Party or any subversive organization, foreign or otherwise, which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the overthrow, destruction or alteration of the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the State of Washington, or of any political subdivision of either of them, by revolution, force or violence; . . Refusal so to do “on any grounds shall be cause for immediate termination of such employee’s employment.”
Appellants brought this declaratory judgment action claiming the Act to be violative of due process as well as other provisions of the Federal Constitution. One of the claims is that no hearing is afforded at which the employee can explain or defend his refusal to take the oath. The Supreme Court of Washington did not pass on this point. The Attorney General suggests in his brief that prior to any decision thereon here, “the Supreme Court of Washington should be first given the opportunity to consider and pass upon” it. Moreover, appellants point to a recent case of the Washington Supreme Court, City of Seattle v. Ross, 54 Wash. 2d 655, 344 P. 2d 216 (1959), as analogous. There that court overturned an ordinance because it established a presumption of guilt without affording the accused an opportunity of a hearing to rebut the same. In the light of these circumstances we cannot say how the Supreme Court of Washington would construe this statute on the hearing point.
The declaratory nature of the case, the fact that the State’s statute here under attack supplements previous statutory provisions raising questions concerning the applicability of the latter, and the principle of comity that should be afforded the State with regard to the interpretation of its own laws, bring us to the conclusion that we must remand the case for further consideration. Cf. Williams v. Georgia, 349 U. S. 375 (1955).
Vacated and remanded.
Chapter 377, Laws of Washington 1955. The pertinent part of that statute reads:
“See. 1. Every person and every board, commission, council, department, court or other agency of the state of Washington or any political subdivision thereof, who or which appoints or employs or supervises in any manner the appointment or employment of public officials or employees . . . shall require every employee ... to state under oath whether or not he or she is a member of the communist party or other subversive organization, and refusal to answer on any grounds shall be cause for immediate termination of such employee's employment . . . .”
The Washington Supreme Court construed this statute as requiring the element of scienter.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases present the question whether §§611-613A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), 26 U. S. C. §§611-613A, entitle taxpayers to an allowance for percentage depletion on lease bonus or advance royalty income received from lessees of their oil and gas mineral interests.
I
A
Ever since enacting the earliest income tax laws, Congress has subsidized the development of our Nation’s natural resources. Toward this end, Congress has allowed holders of economic interests in mineral deposits, including oil and gas wells, to deduct from their taxable incomes the larger of two depletion allowances: cost or percentage. Under cost depletion, taxpayers amortize the cost of their wells over their total productive lives. Under percentage depletion, taxpayers deduct a statutorily specified percentage of the “gross income” generated from the property, irrespective of actual costs incurred. Through these depletion provisions, Congress has permitted taxpayers to recover the investments they have made in mineral deposits and to generate additional capital for further exploration and production of the Nation's mineral resources.
Taxpayers have historically preferred the allowance for percentage, as opposed to cost, depletion on wells that are good producers because the tax benefits are significantly greater. Prior to 1975, it was well settled that taxpayers leasing their interests in mineral deposits to others were entitled to percentage depletion on any bonus or advance royalty received, whether there was production of the underlying mineral or not. Thé bonus was regarded as “payment in advance for oil and gas to be extracted,” Herring v. Commissioner, 293 U. S. 322, 324 (1934), and the advance royalty was considered a “return pro tanto of [the lessor’s] capital investment in the oil in anticipation of its extraction... Palmer v. Bender, 287 U. S. 551, 559 (1933). Though the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had once argued that the allowance should not apply to such income, this Court determined that both lease bonuses and advance royalties constituted “gross income from property” and accordingly were subject to percentage depletion. See Herring v. Commissioner, supra, at 327-328. The depletion was based on the income received from the property, and not, at least in the short run, on the production of the substance itself. 293 U. S., at 327-328.
Even under pre-1975 law, however, depletion deductions eventually had to be attributed to actual production. Lessors receiving bonus or advance royalty income without oil or gas being produced during the life of the lease have been required to recapture their depletion deductions and restore the previously deducted amounts to income. See Douglas v. Commissioner, 322 U. S. 275, 285 (1944). Furthermore, since only one percentage depletion allowance is statutorily authorized for each dollar of oil and gas income, lessees have always been required to reduce their allowances by any bonuses or advance royalties paid to lessors. See Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate, 293 U. S. 312 (1934). Thus, prior to 1975, those who held economic interests in mineral deposits, large or small, were entitled to a single percentage depletion deduction for all income from the property, including lease bonus and advance royalty income, so long as oil or gas was eventually extracted from the land.
The 1970’s, however, brought about an abrupt redirection in the Nation’s energy policy. Escalating energy prices and the Arab oil embargo awakened the public to the Nation’s growing reliance on foreign energy sources. Some thought the major integrated oil companies were reaping excessive oil and gas profits at the public’s expense, while reinvesting little of their concomitant tax depletion subsidies in domestic energy production. Congress responded to this public outcry by repealing the percentage depletion allowance as applied to the major integrated oil companies. See Tax Reduction Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-12, 89 Stat. 26, 47-53. At the same time, however, it exempted independent producers and royalty owners from the repeal to encourage domestic production. In new § 613A, Congress provided that
“... the allowance for depletion under section 611 shall be computed in accordance with section 613 with respect to—
“(A) so much of the taxpayer’s average daily production of domestic crude oil as does not exceed the taxpayer’s depletable oil quantity; and
“(B) so much of the taxpayer’s average daily production of domestic natural gas as does not exceed the taxpayer’s depletable natural gas quantity;
“and the applicable percentage (determined in accordance with the table contained in paragraph (5)) shall be deemed to be specified in subsection (b) of section 613 for purposes of subsection (a) of that section.” 26 U. S. C. §613A(c)(l).
Thus, beginning with tax year 1975, only taxpayers who met the terms of this new provision were eligible for the percentage depletion allowance.
B
During 1975, Fred Engle and his wife assigned their two Wyoming oil and gas leases to third parties, retaining overriding royalties in each lease. As partial consideration for these assignments, the Engles received a total of $7,600 in advance royalties. This $7,600 constituted the entire income the Engles received from the property in 1975 since there was no oil and gas production that year. On their joint federal income tax return for 1975, the Engles claimed a percentage depletion deduction equal to 22% of the advance royalties received. The Commissioner disallowed the deduction because the advance royalties were not received “with respect to” any “average daily production” of oil or gas as, in his view, was required by the 1975 amendments to the Code.
The Tax Court, with one judge dissenting, upheld the Commissioner’s determination. 76 T. C. 915 (1981). It agreed that new §613A tied the oil and gas percentage depletion allowance to actual production and that the Engles’ advance royalty receipts were not attributable to such production. But the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 677 F. 2d 594 (1982). It found that Congress’ motivation in retaining the percentage depletion allowance for “small producers” — namely, to subsidize domestic energy development — was equally applicable to advance royalties received by lessors. Id., at 600. The Court of Appeals therefore held that, in light of this motivation and the Code’s longstanding treatment of advance royalties, new §613A should be interpreted to authorize a percentage depletion allowance on advance royalties received, so long as there eventually was production from the property. Id., at 601-602.
Also during 1975, the families of Philip D. Farmar and A. A. Sugg, joint owners of 46,515 acres of land in Irion County, Tex., leased their oil and gas interests to various lessees. Under the leases, the Farmars and Suggs were to receive as royalties 20% of all oil and gas produced and sold from the property or 20% of the value of all oil and gas produced from the leases. The leases also provided that the Farmars and Suggs were to receive annual cash bonuses, beginning with a small sum in 1975 and continuing with large sums through 1979, over the life of the lease. These bonuses were payable even if no oil or gas was produced from the property. In 1976, oil and gas was discovered on the Irion property and was produced in substantial amounts. The Farmars and Suggs claimed percentage depletion deductions on both the bonuses and royalties received in that year. The Commissioner disallowed the percentage depletion deductions on the lease bonuses, again because income of this type was not received “with respect to” any “average daily production.”
After paying the resulting deficiencies, the Farmars and Suggs filed a consolidated suit for refund in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims held for the Commissioner. 231 Ct. Cl. 642, 689 F. 2d 1017 (1982). It concluded that “[t]his statutory language regularly linking depletion directly to production during a taxable year indicates to us that Congress wanted depletion allowable only ‘with respect to’ income derived from, or connected with, actual extraction during the taxable year.” Id., at 649, 689 F. 2d, at 1021. Since lease bonus income was not so attributable, the court determined that the Farmars and Suggs were not entitled to a percentage depletion allowance on it. See id., at 656-657, 689 F. 2d, at 1025.
The Commissioner sought a writ of certiorari from the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the Farmars and Suggs sought a writ of certiorari from the adverse decision of the Court of Claims. We granted both writs, 459 U. S. 1102 (1983), and consolidated the cases so that we could decide the effect the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 had on percentage depletion of oil and gas income.
II
The 1975 amendments to the Code did not repeal any of the provisions that previously entitled taxpayers to an allowance for percentage depletion on lease bonus or advance royalty income arising from oil and gas mineral interests. Rather, the 1975 amendments added new § 613A, which, as its title indicates, is a “Limitatio[n] on percentage depletion in case of oil and gas wells.” Our sole task in this case is to determine whether Congress, in enacting the §613A “limitation,” intended to deny the allowance for percentage depletion on advance royalty or lease bonus income altogether.
A
Our starting point, of course, is the language of the statute itself. That language authorizes any independent producer or royalty owner not otherwise disqualified, see 26 U. S. C. § 613A(d), to compute “the allowance for depletion under section 611... in accordance with” § 613’s “gross income from... property” concept. 26 U. S. C. § 613A(c)(l). That language also stipulates that the allowance be “with respect to... so much of the taxpayer’s average daily production... as does not exceed the taxpayer’s depletable... quantity....” Ibid. The Commissioner and the taxpayers take different positions as to what this language means.
The Commissioner contends that new § 613A finally adopts the position he took a half century ago in the Herring case— namely, that taxpayers are not entitled to percentage depletion on any income not attributable to specific units of production during the taxable year. He points to § 613A(c)(l)’s requirement that “the allowance... be computed... with respect to... the taxpayer’s average daily production” and to the repeated references in §§613A(c)(2) through (10) to “aggregate production,” “production during the taxable year,” and “production during the calendar year.” From these statutory reference points, the Commissioner contends that §613A redefines depletable “gross income from... property” to be that income attributable to specific units of production during the taxable year. Since lease bonuses and advance royalties are not attributable to specific production during any taxable year, the Commissioner concludes that Congress did not intend such receipts to be eligible for percentage, as opposed to cost, depletion. See Brief for Commissioner 18-24.
The taxpayers, by contrast, suggest that Congress did not intend, by enacting new § 613A, to change the tax treatment of lease bonus or advance royalty income at all. Rather, they contend that the percentage depletion allowance is available regardless of whether physical extraction occurred during the year for which the deduction is claimed. Under their view, the reference to “average daily production” in § 613A constitutes a limitation on the amount of, rather than a prerequisite to, the deduction a taxpayer may claim. Furthermore, the requirement that the allowance be “with respect to” production is simply the pre-1975 recapture requirement reenacted: depletion deductions must always “be with respect to” actual or prospective extraction. Since lease bonus and advance royalty receipts are income arising from the property, the taxpayers conclude that they are eligible for percentage depletion so long as they do not exceed the § 613A limitation and production eventually occurs on the property. See Brief for Respondents in No. 82-599, pp. 5-9; Brief for Petitioners in No. 82-774, pp. 7-16.
The Commissioner’s and taxpayers’ interpretations do not exhaust the possible readings of this linguistic maze. For example, §613A could also be read to change the timing, though not the availability, of the percentage depletion allowance. Under this view, all income arising from the property would potentially be subject to an eventual allowance for depletion, but the actual deduction would be deferred to a year in which it could be attributed, by some allocation method, to actual production. Since lease bonus and advance royalty income alwáys precede production, they would be included in taxable income during the year of receipt. The depletion allowance attributable to such receipts, however, would be capitalized and amortized against income in years of actual extraction, subject to the rates and depletable quantities limitations applicable in those subsequent years.
Each of these possible interpretations of new § 613A can be reconciled with the language of the statute itself. Congress’ repeated references to “production” during the “taxable year” could not have been completely inadvertent, but each of the possible interpretations gives meaning to those references. Our duty then is “to find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be imbedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested.” NLRB v. Lion Oil Co., 352 U. S. 282, 297 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The circumstances of the enactment of particular legislation may be particularly relevant to this inquiry, Watt v. Alaska, 451 U. S. 259, 266 (1981), and it is to those circumstances that we now turn.
B
The 1975 amendments to the Code responded both to the public outcry concerning the country’s growing dependence on foreign energy and to the alleged excessive profits that major integrated oil companies were earning. Congress wanted to encourage domestic production and to improve the competitive position of “small producers” — the independents and the royalty owners — vis-á-vis the major integrated ones. Section 613A’s goal, more simply put, was to subsidize the combined efforts of small producers and royalty owners in the exploration and production of the Nation’s oil and gas resources. Any reasonable interpretation of the statute, therefore, must harmonize with this goal.
If the Commissioner’s interpretation were adopted, taxpayers would receive percentage depletion on income derived from oil and gas interests only if the payment associated with that income could be attributed directly to specific units of production. On that view, lessors and lessees interested in favorable tax benefits will not use financing arrangements that provide for prepayments on production, that spread income to nonproduction periods or, more importantly, that shift the risks of nonproduction to the parties better able to bear them. Lessors naturally will begin demanding larger production royalties to offset the increased expense resulting from delayed receipt of payments, income bunching, and risk bearing. Lessees who are forced to pay the increased royalties will, in turn, have less money with which to purchase leases or to extract minerals therefrom. Thus, solely for tax reasons, lessors and lessees will choose less preferred forms of financing their exploration and production efforts and, in the long run, devote fewer dollars to development of the Nation’s energy reserves. In short, the Commissioner’s interpretation anomalously suggests that a Congress intent on increasing domestic production by small producers included substantial economic disincentives in the same enabling legislation. Such an interpretation does not comport with Congress’ effort to increase production by the independent producers and royalty owners. By contrast, allowing percentage depletion on all qualified income arising from the property makes available the maximum public subsidy that Congress was willing to provide.
Ironically, the Commissioner defends his interpretation by reference to the oil and gas crisis that existed in 1975. See Reply Brief for Commissioner 7. He argues that if lessors are allowed percentage depletion only on income directly attributable to production, they will have strong incentives to encourage lessees to produce oil and gas immediately from the property. No one disputes this premise. Requiring lessors to defer percentage depletion deductions to years of actual production would indeed optimize the incentives for early production of the property. But the Commissioner has not suggested that the percentage depletion deductions on advance royalties and lease bonuses be deferred to years of actual production; he argues that they be eliminated altogether. Eliminating the percentage depletion deductions, rather than deferring them, will reduce the total amount of “gross income” subject to the percentage depletion allowance and thereby shrink the public subsidy of domestic oil and gas production. Smaller public subsidies, in turn, mean reduced exploration and production incentives and smaller absolute quantities of domestic production. Thus, the Commissioner’s initial premise — that Congress wanted to encourage domestic exploration and production — is against the general position he has taken with respect to lease bonus and advance royalty income.
C
The reasonableness of each possible interpretation of the statute can also be measured against the legislative process by which § 613A was enacted. When the 1975 amendments were introduced, neither the bill, H. R. 2166, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), nor the accompanying Ways and Means Committee Report, see H. Rep. No. 94-19 (1975), provided for repeal of the percentage depletion allowance on oil and gas wells. Rather, the provision repealing the percentage depletion allowance was introduced only during debate on the House floor. See 121 Cong. Rec. 4651-4652 (1975). This floor amendment did not contain any of the exemptions ultimately enacted as part of § 613A, including the exemption for independent producers and royalty owners. It was only when H. R. 2166 reached the Senate floor that the exemption for independent producers and royalty owners was added. See id., at 7813. The Congress then enacted H. R. 2166, with slight alteration by the Conference Committee, as it was amended on the Senate floor.
At no time during either the Senate’s or the Conference Committee’s consideration of H. R. 2166 was a repeal of the percentage depletion allowance on lease bonus or advance royalty income suggested. Rather, both the Senate and the conferees agreed to maintain the percentage depletion allowance, in its entirety, for those small producers and royalty owners whose income from the property did not exceed that associated with the yearly depletable quantities. As explained by the Conference Report, the proposed legislation
“retains percentage depletion at 22 percent on a permanent basis for the small independent producer to the extent that his average daily production of oil does not exceed 2,000 barrels a day, or his average daily production of gas does not exceed 12,000,000 cubic feet. Where the independent producer has both oil and natural gas production, the exemption must be allocated between two types of production.
“... The conference substitute follows the Senate amendment in providing a small producer exemption from the repeal of percentage depletion for oil and gas.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 94-120, pp. 67-68 (1975) (emphasis added).
Thus, in exempting independent producers and royalty owners from the repeal, the Senate and the Conference Committee expressed a clear intent to retain the percentage depletion rules as they then existed. Again, the congressional intent is more in harmony with interpretations of the statute that retain percentage depletion on all forms of income than with the Commissioner’s interpretation.
The Commissioner attempts to find legislative support for his interpretation not in the history of the enacting Congress, but in the history of a previous Congress. In H. R. 17488, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), the House proposed to repeal the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas production and, at the same time, to exempt certain independent producers from the repeal. The House Ways and Means Committee Report on H. R. 17488 emphasized that “a lease bonus paid to the lessor of mineral lands in a lump sum or in installments is independent of any actual production from the lease and thus would not be within any of the exemptions.” H. R. Rep. No. 93-1502, p. 46 (1974). The Commissioner suggests that “ ‘[t]he idea of a special exemption for small entities, expressly involving production, was very much in the air of the 94th Congress, and it is not unlikely that the prior report was known to several, if not many, of the members who considered § 613A,’ and almost certainly to those who proposed that Section 613A be added to the tax reduction bill.” Reply Brief for Commissioner 6 (quoting 231 Ct. Cl., at 654, 689 F. 2d, at 1024).
In the 94th Congress, however, the House Ways and Means Committee reported out another bill, H. R. 2166, in lieu of H. R. 17488. This bill retained the percentage depletion allowance and differed from H. R. 17488 in many other respects. See 121 Cong. Rec. 4651-4652 (1975). Thus, it cannot be said that a subsequent Congress, or even the House Ways and Means Committee itself, retained the same intent as reflected in H. R. 17488. Moreover, since it was the Senate, and not the House, that added the small-producer exemption to H. R. 2166, we must dismiss the Commissioner’s reconstruction of the legislative intent as mere wishful thinking. The idea of an exemption for small producers was certainly in the “air” of the 94th Congress, but we find no evidence that a change in the definition of depletable “gross income” was aloft with it.'
D
We have noted that “[t]he true meaning of a single section of a statute in a setting as complex as that of the revenue acts, however precise its language, cannot be ascertained if it be considered apart from related sections, or if the mind be isolated from the history of the income tax legislation of which it is an integral part.” Helvering v. Morgan’s, Inc., 293 U. S. 121, 126 (1934). When the Commissioner’s, the taxpayers’, and the commentators’ interpretations of § 613A are viewed in these terms, it becomes clear to us that Congress did not mean, as the Commissioner’s interpretation suggests, to withdraw the percentage depletion allowance on lease bonus or advance royalty income arising from oil and gas properties.
The 1975 Congress was concerned with shrinking domestic production levels and with assisting smaller producers to compete with the larger ones. Since most depletion deductions are on royalty payments attributable to actual production, Congress, in its haste, not surprisingly defined the class of taxpayers exempted from the percentage depletion repeal in terms of certain production levels. Section 613A clearly provides that income attributable to production over a certain level will not be eligible for percentage depletion. But nothing in the statute bars percentage depletion on income received prior to actual production. To the contrary, we agree that so long as the income can, by some allocation method, be attributed to production below the ceilings Congress established, lease bonus and advance royalty income come within the four corners of the percentage depletion provisions. Lease bonuses and advance royalties are payments received in advance for oil and gas to be extracted, see Herring v. Commissioner, 293 U. S. 322 (1934), and therefore should be subject to the § 613(a) computation of, and §611 allowance for, oil and gas depletion.
Ill
Unable to find persuasive support for his position in the text, general purpose, or specific history of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, the Commissioner reminds us both that the “choice among reasonable interpretations is for the Commissioner, not the courts,” National Muffler Dealers Assn., Inc. v. United States, 440 U. S. 472, 488 (1979), and that his choice, if found to “implement the congressional mandate in some reasonable manner,” must be upheld. United States v. Correll, 389 U. S. 299, 307 (1967). “But that principle [only sets] the framework for judicial analysis; it does not displace it. We find that the [Commissioner’s interpretation] is... unreasonable,” and we therefore cannot defer to it. United States v. Cartwright, 411 U. S. 546, 550 (1973) (similarly refusing to defer to unreasonable position of Commissioner).
Holders of economic interests in oil and gas deposits have consistently been entitled to a percentage depletion allowance on all income arising from their property, including lease bonuses and advance royalties, for the past 50 years. See Herring v. Commissioner, supra. Our cases have taken a longrun view of the relation between income and production, and we have interpreted the Code to allow percentage depletion on all income so long as actual extraction eventually occurs. See Douglas v. Commissioner, 322 U. S. 275 (1944). We usually presume that “Congress is... aware of [our longstanding] interpretation of a statute and adopt[s] that interpretation when it re-enacts [the] statute without [explicit] change....” Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580 (1978); see also Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 414, n. 8 (1975). Had Congress meant to eliminate the percentage depletion allowance on lease bonus and advance royalty income, we believe it would have addressed our decisions to the contrary more explicitly. See Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270, 289 (1956). Since Congress did not, we find the Commissioner’s shortrun view of the relation between income and production to be at odds with the amended statutory scheme.
The percentage depletion provisions, as modified in 1975, plainly were intended to encourage independent producers and royalty owners to explore and develop the Nation’s domestic oil and gas deposits. See supra, at 217-218. Yet the Commissioner would discourage these small producers from using the financing arrangements that would optimize their combined efforts to produce oil and gas. See supra, at 218-220. Not only would the Commissioner deny lessors percentage depletion on lease bonus and advance royalty income, but he also would continue to require lessees to reduce their depletion allowances by the amounts lessors would have been allowed, under pre-1975 law, to deplete. See Rev. Rul. 81-266, 1981-2 Cum. Bull. 139. The Commissioner would allow no one to take the single allowance that the statute clearly contemplates someone should take. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 611(b)(1), 613(a). Thus, the Commissioner not only skews the industry’s preferred means of financing oil and gas exploration, but he unreasonably denies that industry a subsidy Congress expressly contemplated it should receive. Such an interpretation is “unrealistic and unreasonable,” and therefore is not entitled to deference. United States v. Cartwright, supra, at 550.
Finally, the Commissioner has not persuaded us of any “insurmountable” practical problems that would render his position more tenable. We do not doubt that § 613A’s various production requirements and limitations make accurate calculation of the percentage depletion allowance difficult in the absence of actual production figures. See 76 T. C., at 926. But we believe the Commissioner can resolve these problems in a number of reasonable ways, for example, by requiring lessors to defer depletion deductions to years of actual production or by requiring lessors to adjust deductions taken with amended returns filed in later tax years. The Commissioner has broad authority to prescribe all “needful rules and regulations” for the enforcement of the tax laws, see 26 U. S. C. § 7805(a), and it is up to him to choose the method that best implements the statutory mandate. See United States v. Correll, 389 U. S., at 306-307. What the Commissioner cannot do — because it is an “unreasonable” interpretation of the statutory language in light of its history and purpose — is to resolve the practical problems by eliminating the allowance altogether. Eliminating the allowance might make the statute “simpler to administer,” Reply Brief for Commissioner 9, and n. 8, but it does so by ignoring the language of the statute, the views of those who sought its enactment, and the purpose they articulated.
>
In cases such as these, where the effective and expeditious enforcement of our Nation’s tax laws is at issue, what we do not decide is as important as what we do decide. These cases do not concern whether taxpayers must include bonuses and advance royalties in their income in the year of receipt. No one questions that taxpayers must do that. See North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U. S. 417 (1932). Nor do these cases concern the appropriate tax period in which the percentage depletion deduction should be used to offset taxable income. That issue is a significant one, but none of the parties has directly raised it for our review. Cf. 26 CFR § 1.461-1 (1983) (assets having useful life beyond close of year not necessarily deductible in year expenditure made). Rather, our decision holds only that §§ 611-613A of the Code entitle taxpayers to an allowance for percentage depletion on lease bonus or advance royalty income at some time during the productive life of the lease.
Accordingly, since the Commissioner has never contested the tax period in which the Engles claimed their percentage depletion deduction, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in No. 82-599 is affirmed. The judgment of the Court of Claims in No. 82-774 denying the Farmars and Suggs any percentage depletion on their lease bonus income is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun, with whom Justice Brennan, Justice White, and Justice Marshall join, dissenting.
The Court’s decision today is a troubling one, perhaps less for where the Court has ended up than for how it arrived there. Under the principles that traditionally have governed this Court’s approach to statutory interpretation in the field of federal tax law, the Commissioner’s administrative interpretation is entitled to prevail so long as it is not “ 'unreasonable and plainly inconsistent with the revenue statutes.’” Bingler v. Johnson, 394 U. S. 741, 749-750 (1969), quoting Commissioner v. South Texas Lumber Co., 333 U. S. 496, 501 (1948); accord, Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 522, 533, n. 11 (1979); Fulman v. United States, 434 U. S. 528, 533 (1978). While the Court professes to adhere to this rule today, ante, at 224-225, a review of the Court’s reasoning suggests that the Court has chosen to honor the rule in the breach. Because I regard the Commissioner’s interpretation as consistent with the language of the controlling statute, its legislative history, and the policies underlying § 613A of the 1954 Code, 26 U. S. C. § 613A, and because his interpretation surely is as reasonable in these respects as the rival interpretations advanced by the taxpayers and the Court, I must dissent.
The Court concedes that interpreting §613A to disallow percentage depletion for advance royalties and lease bonuses is compatible with the language of the statute. Ante, at 215-217. I am less sanguine than the Court about how easily § 613A can be read to accommodate the depletion rule of Herring v. Commissioner, 293 U. S. 322 (1934). Section 613A(c)(l) requires that percentage depletion be calculated with respect to “average daily production,” which in turn is defined in terms of “aggregate production of domestic crude oil or natural gas... during the taxable year.” § 613A(e)(2) (emphasis added). “Taxable year” is defined by § 7701(23) to mean the calendar or fiscal year “upon the basis of which the taxable income is computed under subtitle A.” When a taxpayer claims percentage depletion for advance royalties or lease bonuses in a calendar or fiscal year in which no oil or gas is produced, he necessarily asks that “taxable year” be given a meaning in § 613A(c) different from the one assigned to it by §7701(23), because the “taxable year” defined by § 7701(23) is one during which no “aggregate production,” and hence no “average daily production,” has occurred. In any event, the depletion rule sought by the taxpayers in these cases certainly does not fit the language of § 613A so closely that the Commissioner’s interpretation becomes unreasonable on textual grounds.
The Herring rule also produces what the Court itself characterizes as difficult practical problems under § 613A(c). Because the depletion limitations contained in §613A(c) are couched in terms of quantities of output, a taxpayer who claims percentage depletion on advance royalties or lease bonuses before production has occurred cannot possibly establish ex ante how many barrels of oil or cubic feet of gas his advance payment represents. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the limitations of § 613A(c) vary depending on the type of fuel produced and the nature of the extraction process, factors that often cannot be known before production begins. See §§ 613A(c)(4) and (6). A review of the academic literature, see ante, at 216-217, and n. 13, appears to have convinced the Court that these problems can be overcome by deferring the depletion allowance for advance royalties and lease bonuses to years in which the allowance can be attributed “by some allocation” to actual production. This timing theory, however, has its own practical problems. In particular, it is unclear how the taxpayer is to apply the income limitations of § 613(a) and § 613A(d)(l), under which the depletion allowance is limited to 50 percent of the taxpayer’s taxable income from the property and 65 percent of his overall taxable income, when the income that gives rise to the allowance is recognized in one year and the allowance itself is taken in one or more subsequent years.
The Court’s assertion that the Commissioner can resolve the problems caused by retention of percentage depletion for advance royalties and lease bonuses “in a number of reasonable ways,” ante, at 226-227, stands the normal rationale for judicial deference to administrative interpretations of the tax laws on its head. One reason for that deference is that the Commissioner is better able than any court, including this one, to assess the practical consequences of particular interpretations and to resolve statutory ambiguities in ways that minimize administrative difficulties. Rather than give due regard to this expertise in the first instance in construing §613A, the Court has embraced an interpretation whose practical complications the Court itself recognizes and has left the Commissioner to bring order to the confusion that the Court now has created. Ockham’s razor is nowhere in evidence.
To justify its rejection of an administrative interpretation that is consistent with the statutory language and at least as administrable as any other interpretation, the Court relies in part on the legislative history of §613A. Contrary to the views of the Court, however, nothing in “the legislative process by which § 613A was enacted,” ante, at 220, makes it unreasonable to interpret § 613A to disallow percentage depletion for advance royalties and lease bonuses. Section 613A is the product of a major effort in both Houses of Congress in 1975 to abolish the percentage depletion allowance altogether. With minor exceptions not relevant here, H. R. 2166 was amended by the House to accomplish that result. See 121 Cong. Rec. 4651-4652, 4657-4658 (1975). When the full Senate took
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Wisconsin, like most other States, entrusts to its legislature the periodic task of redrawing the boundaries of the State's legislative districts. A group of Wisconsin Democratic voters filed a complaint in the District Court, alleging that the legislature carried out this task with an eye to diminishing the ability of Wisconsin Democrats to convert Democratic votes into Democratic seats in the legislature. The plaintiffs asserted that, in so doing, the legislature had infringed their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
But a plaintiff seeking relief in federal court must first demonstrate that he has standing to do so, including that he has "a personal stake in the outcome," Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), distinct from a "generally available grievance about government," Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439, 127 S.Ct. 1194, 167 L.Ed.2d 29 (2007) (per curiam ). That threshold requirement "ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives." Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 700, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013). Certain of the plaintiffs before us alleged that they had such a personal stake in this case, but never followed up with the requisite proof. The District Court and this Court therefore lack the power to resolve their claims. We vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings, in the course of which those plaintiffs may attempt to demonstrate standing in accord with the analysis in this opinion.
I
Wisconsin's Legislature consists of a State Assembly and a State Senate. Wis. Const., Art. IV, § 1. The 99 members of the Assembly are chosen from single districts that must "consist of contiguous territory and be in as compact form as practicable." § 4. State senators are likewise chosen from single-member districts, which are laid on top of the State Assembly districts so that three Assembly districts form one Senate district. See § 5; Wis. Stat. § 4.001 (2011).
The Wisconsin Constitution gives the legislature the responsibility to "apportion and district anew the members of the senate and assembly" at the first session following each census. Art. IV, § 3. In recent decades, however, that responsibility has just as often been taken up by federal courts. Following the census in 1980, 1990, and 2000, federal courts drew the State's legislative districts when the Legislature and the Governor-split on party lines-were unable to agree on new districting plans. The Legislature has broken the logjam just twice in the last 40 years. In 1983, a Democratic Legislature passed, and a Democratic Governor signed, a new districting plan that remained in effect until the 1990 census. See 1983 Wis. Laws ch. 4. In 2011, a Republican Legislature passed, and a Republican Governor signed, the districting plan at issue here, known as Act 43. See Wis. Stat. §§ 4.009, 4.01 - 4.99 ; 2011 Wis. Laws ch. 4. Following the passage of Act 43, Republicans won majorities in the State Assembly in the 2012 and 2014 elections. In 2012, Republicans won 60 Assembly seats with 48.6% of the two-party statewide vote for Assembly candidates. In 2014, Republicans won 63 Assembly seats with 52% of the statewide vote. 218 F.Supp.3d 837, 853 (W.D.Wis.2016).
In July 2015, twelve Wisconsin voters filed a complaint in the Western District of Wisconsin challenging Act 43. The plaintiffs identified themselves as "supporters of the public policies espoused by the Democratic Party and of Democratic Party candidates." 1 App. 32, Complaint ¶ 15. They alleged that Act 43 is a partisan gerrymander that "unfairly favor[s] Republican voters and candidates," and that it does so by "cracking" and "packing"
Democratic voters around Wisconsin. Id., at 28-30, ¶¶ 5-7. As they explained:
"Cracking means dividing a party's supporters among multiple districts so that they fall short of a majority in each one. Packing means concentrating one party's backers in a few districts that they win by overwhelming margins."Id., at 29, ¶ 5.
Four of the plaintiffs-Mary Lynne Donohue, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, and Jerome Wallace-alleged that they lived in State Assembly districts where Democrats have been cracked or packed. Id., at 34-36, ¶¶ 20, 23, 24, 26; see id., at 50-53, ¶¶ 60-70 (describing packing and cracking in Assembly Districts 22, 26, 66, and 91). All of the plaintiffs also alleged that, regardless of "whether they themselves reside in a district that has been packed or cracked," they have been "harmed by the manipulation of district boundaries" because Democrats statewide "do not have the same opportunity provided to Republicans to elect representatives of their choice to the Assembly." Id., at 33, ¶ 16.
The plaintiffs argued that, on a statewide level, the degree to which packing and cracking has favored one party over another can be measured by a single calculation: an "efficiency gap" that compares each party's respective "wasted" votes across all legislative districts. "Wasted" votes are those cast for a losing candidate or for a winning candidate in excess of what that candidate needs to win. Id., at 28-29, ¶ 5. The plaintiffs alleged that Act 43 resulted in an unusually large efficiency gap that favored Republicans. Id., at 30, ¶ 7. They also submitted a "Demonstration Plan" that, they asserted, met all of the legal criteria for apportionment, but was at the same time "almost perfectly balanced in its partisan consequences." Id., at 31, ¶ 10. They argued that because Act 43 generated a large and unnecessary efficiency gap in favor of Republicans, it violated the First Amendment right of association of Wisconsin Democratic voters and their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. The plaintiffs named several members of the state election commission as defendants in the action. Id., at 36, ¶¶ 28-30.
The election officials moved to dismiss the complaint. They argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of Act 43 as a whole because, as individual voters, their legally protected interests extend only to the makeup of the legislative districts in which they vote. A three-judge panel of the District Court, see 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), denied the defendants' motion. In the District Court's view, the plaintiffs "identif[ied] their injury as not simply their inability to elect a representative in their own districts, but also their reduced opportunity to be represented by Democratic legislators across the state." Whitford v. Nichol, 151 F.Supp.3d 918, 924 (W.D.Wis.2015). It therefore followed, in the District Court's opinion, that "[b]ecause plaintiffs' alleged injury in this case relates to their statewide representation,... they should be permitted to bring a statewide claim." Id., at 926.
The case proceeded to trial, where the plaintiffs presented testimony from four fact witnesses. The first was lead plaintiff William Whitford, a retired law professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Whitford testified that he lives in Madison in the 76th Assembly District, and acknowledged on cross-examination that this is, under any plausible circumstances, a heavily Democratic district. Under Act 43, the Democratic share of the Assembly vote in Whitford's district is 81.9%; under the plaintiffs' ideal map-their Demonstration Plan-the projected Democratic share of the Assembly vote in Whitford's district would be 82%. 147 Record 35-36. Whitford therefore conceded that Act 43 had not "affected [his] ability to vote for and elect a Democrat in [his] district."Id., at 37. Whitford testified that he had nevertheless suffered a harm "relate[d] to [his] ability to engage in campaign activity to achieve a majority in the Assembly and the Senate." Ibid. As he explained, "[t]he only practical way to accomplish my policy objectives is to get a majority of the Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate ideally in order to get the legislative product I prefer." Id., at 33.
The plaintiffs also presented the testimony of legislative aides Adam Foltz and Tad Ottman, as well as that of Professor Ronald Gaddie, a political scientist who helped design the Act 43 districting map, regarding how that map was designed and adopted. In particular, Professor Gaddie testified about his creation of what he and the District Court called "S curves": color-coded tables of the estimated partisan skew of different draft redistricting maps. See 218 F.Supp.3d, at 850, 858. The colors corresponded with assessments regarding whether different districts tilted Republican or Democratic under various statewide political scenarios. The S curve for the map that was eventually adopted projected that "Republicans would maintain a majority under any likely voting scenario," with Democrats needing 54% of the statewide vote to secure a majority in the legislature. Id., at 852.
Finally, the parties presented testimony from four expert witnesses. The plaintiffs' experts, Professor Kenneth Mayer and Professor Simon Jackman, opined that-according to their efficiency-gap analyses-the Act 43 map would systematically favor Republicans for the duration of the decade. See id., at 859-861. The defendants' experts, Professor Nicholas Goedert and Sean Trende, opined that efficiency gaps alone are unreliable measures of durable partisan advantage, and that the political geography of Wisconsin currently favors Republicans because Democrats-who tend to be clustered in large cities-are inefficiently distributed in many parts of Wisconsin for purposes of winning elections. See id., at 861-862.
At the close of evidence, the District Court concluded-over the dissent of Judge Griesbach-that the plaintiffs had proved a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court set out a three-part test for identifying unconstitutional gerrymanders: A redistricting map violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it "(1) is intended to place a severe impediment on the effectiveness of the votes of individual citizens on the basis of their political affiliation, (2) has that effect, and (3) cannot be justified on other, legitimate legislative grounds." Id., at 884.
The court went on to find, based on evidence concerning the manner in which Act 43 had been adopted, that "one of the purposes of Act 43 was to secure Republican control of the Assembly under any likely future electoral scenario for the remainder of the decade." Id., at 896. It also found that the "more efficient distribution of Republican voters has allowed the Republican Party to translate its votes into seats with significantly greater ease and to achieve-and preserve-control of the Wisconsin legislature." Id., at 905. As to the third prong of its test, the District Court concluded that the burdens the Act 43 map imposed on Democrats could not be explained by "legitimate state prerogatives [or] neutral factors." Id., at 911. The court recognized that "Wisconsin's political geography, particularly the high concentration of Democratic voters in urban centers like Milwaukee and Madison, affords the Republican Party a natural, but modest, advantage in the districting process," but found that this inherent geographic disparity did not account for the magnitude of the Republican advantage. Id., at 921, 924.
Regarding standing, the court held that the plaintiffs had a "cognizable equal protection right against state-imposed barriers on [their] ability to vote effectively for the party of [their] choice." Id., at 928. It concluded that Act 43 "prevent[ed] Wisconsin Democrats from being able to translate their votes into seats as effectively as Wisconsin Republicans," and that "Wisconsin Democrats, therefore, have suffered a personal injury to their Equal Protection rights." Ibid. The court turned away the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' injury was not sufficiently particularized by finding that "[t]he harm that the plaintiffs have experienced... is one shared by Democratic voters in the State of Wisconsin. The dilution of their votes is both personal and acute." Id., at 930.
Judge Griesbach dissented. He wrote that, under this Court's existing precedents, "partisan intent" to benefit one party rather than the other in districting "is not illegal, but is simply the consequence of assigning the task of redistricting to the political branches." Id., at 939. He observed that the plaintiffs had not attempted to prove that "specific districts... had been gerrymandered," but rather had "relied on statewide data and calculations." Ibid. And he argued that the plaintiffs' proof, resting as it did on statewide data, had "no relevance to any gerrymandering injury alleged by a voter in a single district." Id., at 952. On that basis, Judge Griesbach would have entered judgment for the defendants.
The District Court enjoined the defendants from using the Act 43 map in future elections and ordered them to have a remedial districting plan in place no later than November 1, 2017. The defendants appealed directly to this Court, as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. We stayed the District Court's judgment and postponed consideration of our jurisdiction. 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2268, 198 L.Ed.2d 698 (2017).
II
A
Over the past five decades this Court has been repeatedly asked to decide what judicially enforceable limits, if any, the Constitution sets on the gerrymandering of voters along partisan lines. Our previous attempts at an answer have left few clear landmarks for addressing the question. What our precedents have to say on the topic is, however, instructive as to the myriad competing considerations that partisan gerrymandering claims involve. Our efforts to sort through those considerations have generated conflicting views both of how to conceive of the injury arising from partisan gerrymandering and of the appropriate role for the Federal Judiciary in remedying that injury.
Our first consideration of a partisan gerrymandering claim came in Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973). There a group of plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Connecticut redistricting plan that "consciously and overtly adopted and followed a policy of 'political fairness,' which aimed at a rough scheme of proportional representation of the two major political parties." Id., at 738, 93 S.Ct. 2321. To that end, the redistricting plan broke up numerous towns, "wiggl[ing] and joggl[ing]" district boundary lines in order to "ferret out pockets of each party's strength." Id., at 738, and n. 3, 752, n. 18, 93 S.Ct. 2321.
The plaintiffs argued that, notwithstanding the rough population equality of the districts, the plan was unconstitutional because its consciously political design was "nothing less than a gigantic political gerrymander." Id., at 752, 93 S.Ct. 2321. This Court rejected that claim. We reasoned that it would be "idle" to hold that "any political consideration taken into account in fashioning a reapportionment plan is sufficient to invalidate it," because districting "inevitably has and is intended to have substantial political consequences." Id., at 752-753, 93 S.Ct. 2321.
Thirteen years later came Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 106 S.Ct. 2797, 92 L.Ed.2d 85 (1986). Unlike the bipartisan gerrymander at issue in Gaffney, the allegation in Bandemer was that Indiana Republicans had gerrymandered Indiana's legislative districts "to favor Republican incumbents and candidates and to disadvantage Democratic voters" through what the plaintiffs called the "stacking" (packing) and "splitting" (cracking) of Democrats. 478 U.S., at 116-117, 106 S.Ct. 2797 (plurality opinion). A majority of the Court agreed that the case before it was justiciable. Id., at 125, 127, 106 S.Ct. 2797. The Court could not, however, settle on a standard for what constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
Four Justices would have required the Bandemer plaintiffs to "prove both intentional discrimination against an identifiable political group and an actual discriminatory effect on that group." Id., at 127, 106 S.Ct. 2797. In that plurality's view, the plaintiffs had failed to make a sufficient showing on the latter point because their evidence of unfavorable election results for Democrats was limited to a single election cycle. See id., at 135, 106 S.Ct. 2797.
Three Justices, concurring in the judgment, would have held that the "Equal Protection Clause does not supply judicially manageable standards for resolving purely political gerrymandering claims." Id., at 147, 106 S.Ct. 2797 (opinion of O'Connor, J.). Justice O'Connor took issue, in particular, with the plurality's focus on factual questions concerning "statewide electoral success." Id., at 158, 106 S.Ct. 2797. She warned that allowing district courts to "strike down apportionment plans on the basis of their prognostications as to the outcome of future elections or future apportionments invites 'findings' on matters as to which neither judges nor anyone else can have any confidence." Id., at 160, 106 S.Ct. 2797.
Justice Powell, joined by Justice Stevens, concurred in part and dissented in part. In his view, the plaintiffs' claim was not simply that their "voting strength was diluted statewide," but rather that "certain key districts were grotesquely gerrymandered to enhance the election prospects of Republican candidates." Id., at 162, 169, 106 S.Ct. 2797. Thus, he would have focused on the question "whether the boundaries of the voting districts have been distorted deliberately and arbitrarily to achieve illegitimate ends." Id., at 165, 106 S.Ct. 2797.
Eighteen years later, we revisited the issue in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 124 S.Ct. 1769, 158 L.Ed.2d 546 (2004). In that case the plaintiffs argued that Pennsylvania's Legislature had created "meandering and irregular" congressional districts that "ignored all traditional redistricting criteria, including the preservation of local government boundaries," in order to provide an advantage to Republican candidates for Congress. Id., at 272-273, 124 S.Ct. 1769 (plurality opinion) (brackets omitted).
The Vieth Court broke down on numerous lines. Writing for a four-Justice plurality, Justice Scalia would have held that the plaintiffs' claims were nonjusticiable because there was no "judicially discernible and manageable standard" by which to decide them. Id., at 306, 124 S.Ct. 1769. On those grounds, the plurality affirmed the dismissal of the claims. Ibid. Justice KENNEDY concurred in the judgment. He noted that "there are yet no agreed upon substantive principles of fairness in districting," and that, consequently, "we have no basis on which to define clear, manageable, and politically neutral standards for measuring the particular burden" on constitutional rights. Id., at 307-308, 124 S.Ct. 1769. He rejected the principle advanced by the plaintiffs-that "a majority of voters in [Pennsylvania] should be able to elect a majority of [Pennsylvania's] congressional delegation"-as a "precept" for which there is "no authority." Id., at 308, 124 S.Ct. 1769. Yet Justice KENNEDY recognized the possibility that "in another case a standard might emerge that suitably demonstrates how an apportionment's de facto incorporation of partisan classifications burdens" representational rights. Id., at 312, 124 S.Ct. 1769.
Four Justices dissented in three different opinions. Justice Stevens would have permitted the plaintiffs' claims to proceed on a district-by-district basis, using a legal standard similar to the standard for racial gerrymandering set forth in Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996). See 541 U.S., at 335-336, 339, 124 S.Ct. 1769. Under this standard, any district with a "bizarre shape" for which the only possible explanation was "a naked desire to increase partisan strength" would be found unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 339, 124 S.Ct. 1769. Justice Souter, joined by Justice GINSBURG, agreed that a plaintiff alleging unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering should proceed on a district-by-district basis, as "we would be able to call more readily on some existing law when we defined what is suspect at the district level." See id., at 346-347, 124 S.Ct. 1769.
Justice BREYER dissented on still other grounds. In his view, the drawing of single-member legislative districts-even according to traditional criteria-is "rarely... politically neutral." Id., at 359, 124 S.Ct. 1769. He therefore would have distinguished between gerrymandering for passing political advantage and gerrymandering leading to the "unjustified entrenchment" of a political party. Id., at 360-361, 124 S.Ct. 1769.
The Court last took up this question in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 126 S.Ct. 2594, 165 L.Ed.2d 609 (2006) (LULAC ). The plaintiffs there challenged a mid-decade redistricting map passed by the Texas Legislature. As in Vieth, a majority of the Court could find no justiciable standard by which to resolve the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims. Relevant to this case, an amicus brief in support of the LULAC plaintiffs proposed a "symmetry standard" to "measure partisan bias" by comparing how the two major political parties "would fare hypothetically if they each... received a given percentage of the vote." 548 U.S., at 419, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). Justice KENNEDY noted some wariness at the prospect of "adopting a constitutional standard that invalidates a map based on unfair results that would occur in a hypothetical state of affairs." Id., at 420, 126 S.Ct. 2594. Aside from that problem, he wrote, the partisan bias standard shed no light on "how much partisan dominance is too much." Ibid. Justice KENNEDY therefore concluded that "asymmetry alone is not a reliable measure of unconstitutional partisanship." Ibid.
Justice Stevens would have found that the Texas map was a partisan gerrymander based in part on the asymmetric advantage it conferred on Republicans in converting votes to seats. Id., at 466-467, 471-473, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Justice Souter, writing for himself and Justice GINSBURG, noted that he would not "rule out the utility of a criterion of symmetry," and that "further attention could be devoted to the administrability of such a criterion at all levels of redistricting and its review." Id., at 483-484, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
B
At argument on appeal in this case, counsel for the plaintiffs argued that this Court can address the problem of partisan gerrymandering because it must : The Court should exercise its power here because it is the "only institution in the United States" capable of "solv[ing] this problem." Tr. of Oral Arg. 62. Such invitations must be answered with care. "Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies." Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 449, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). Our power as judges to "say what the law is," Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), rests not on the default of politically accountable officers, but is instead grounded in and limited by the necessity of resolving, according to legal principles, a plaintiff's particular claim of legal right.
Our considerable efforts in Gaffney, Bandemer, Vieth, and LULAC leave unresolved whether such claims may be brought in cases involving allegations of partisan gerrymandering. In particular, two threshold questions remain: what is necessary to show standing in a case of this sort, and whether those claims are justiciable. Here we do not decide the latter question because the plaintiffs in this case have not shown standing under the theory upon which they based their claims for relief.
To ensure that the Federal Judiciary respects "the proper-and properly limited-role of the courts in a democratic society," Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), a plaintiff may not invoke federal-court jurisdiction unless he can show "a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy." Baker, 369 U.S., at 204, 82 S.Ct. 691. A federal court is not "a forum for generalized grievances," and the requirement of such a personal stake "ensures that courts exercise power that is judicial in nature." Lance, 549 U.S., at 439, 441, 127 S.Ct. 1194. We enforce that requirement by insisting that a plaintiff satisfy the familiar three-part test for Article III standing: that he "(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). Foremost among these requirements is injury in fact-a plaintiff's pleading and proof that he has suffered the "invasion of a legally protected interest" that is "concrete and particularized," i.e., which "affect [s] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, and n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).
We have long recognized that a person's right to vote is "individual and personal in nature." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). Thus, "voters who allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals have standing to sue" to remedy that disadvantage. Baker, 369 U.S., at 206, 82 S.Ct. 691. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that they suffered such injury from partisan gerrymandering, which works through "packing" and "cracking" voters of one party to disadvantage those voters. 1 App. 28-29, 32-33, Complaint ¶¶ 5, 15. That is, the plaintiffs claim a constitutional right not to be placed in legislative districts deliberately designed to "waste" their votes in elections where their chosen candidates will win in landslides (packing) or are destined to lose by closer margins (cracking). Id., at 32-33, ¶ 15.
To the extent the plaintiffs' alleged harm is the dilution of their votes, that injury is district specific. An individual voter in Wisconsin is placed in a single district. He votes for a single representative. The boundaries of the district, and the composition of its voters, determine whether and to what extent a particular voter is packed or cracked. This "disadvantage to [the voter] as [an] individual[ ]," Baker, 369 U.S., at 206, 82 S.Ct. 691 therefore results from the boundaries of the particular district in which he resides. And a plaintiff's remedy must be "limited to the inadequacy that produced [his] injury in fact." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). In this case the remedy that is proper and sufficient lies in the revision of the boundaries of the individual's own district.
For similar reasons, we have held that a plaintiff who alleges that he is the object of a racial gerrymander-a drawing of district lines on the basis of race-has standing to assert only that his own district has been so gerrymandered. See United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 744-745, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995). A plaintiff who complains of gerrymandering, but who does not live in a gerrymandered district, "assert[s] only a generalized grievance against governmental conduct of which he or she does not approve." Id., at 745, 115 S.Ct. 2431. Plaintiffs who complain of racial gerrymandering in their State cannot sue to invalidate the whole State's legislative districting map; such complaints must proceed "district-by-district." Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1257, 1265, 191 L.Ed.2d 314 (2015).
The plaintiffs argue that their claim of statewide injury is analogous to the claims presented in Baker and Reynolds, which they assert were "statewide in nature" because they rested on allegations that "districts throughout a state [had] been malapportioned." Brief for Appellees 29. But, as we have already noted, the holdings in Baker and Reynolds were expressly premised on the understanding that the injuries giving rise to those claims were "individual and personal in nature," Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 561, 84 S.Ct. 1362 because the claims were brought by voters who alleged "facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals," Baker, 369 U.S., at 206, 82 S.Ct. 691.
The plaintiffs' mistaken insistence that the claims in Baker and Reynolds were "statewide in nature" rests on a failure to distinguish injury from remedy. In those malapportionment cases, the only way to vindicate an individual plaintiff's right to an equally weighted vote was through a wholesale "restructuring of the geographical distribution of seats in a state legislature." Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 561, 84 S.Ct. 1362 ; see, e.g., Moss v. Burkhart, 220 F.Supp. 149, 156-160 (W.D.Okla.1963) (directing the county-by-county reapportionment of the Oklahoma Legislature), aff'd sub nom. Williams v. Moss, 378 U.S. 558, 84 S.Ct. 1907, 12 L.Ed.2d 1026 (1964) (per curiam ).
Here, the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims turn on allegations that their votes have been diluted. That harm arises from the particular composition of the voter's own district, which causes his vote-having been packed or cracked-to carry less weight than it would carry in another, hypothetical district. Remedying the individual voter's harm, therefore, does not necessarily require restructuring all of the State's legislative districts. It requires revising only such districts as are necessary to reshape the voter's district-so that the voter may be unpacked or uncracked, as the case may be. Cf. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, 575 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1265. This fits the rule that a "remedy must of course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established." Lewis, 518 U.S., at 357, 116 S.Ct. 2174.
The plaintiffs argue that their legal injury is not limited to the injury that they have suffered as individual voters, but extends also to the statewide harm to their interest "in their collective representation in the legislature," and in influencing the legislature's overall "composition and policymaking." Brief for Appellees 31. But our cases to date have not found that this presents an individual and personal injury of the kind required for Article III standing. On the facts of this case, the plaintiffs may not rely on "the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past." Lance, 549 U.S., at 442, 127 S.Ct. 1194. A citizen's interest in the overall composition of the legislature is embodied in his right to vote for his representative. And the citizen's abstract interest in policies adopted by the legislature on the facts here is a nonjusticiable "general interest common to all members of the public." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937) (per curiam ).
We leave for another day consideration of other possible theories of harm not presented here and whether those theories might present justiciable claims giving rise to statewide remedies. Justice KAGAN's concurring opinion endeavors to address "other kinds of constitutional harm," see post, at 1938, perhaps involving different kinds of plaintiffs, see post, at 1938 - 1939, and differently alleged burdens, see ibid. But the opinion of the Court rests on the understanding that we lack jurisdiction to decide this case, much less to draw speculative and advisory conclusions regarding others. See Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 90, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947) (noting that courts must "respect the limits of [their] unique authority" and engage in "[j]udicial exposition... only when necessary to decide definite issues between litigants"). The reasoning of this Court with respect to the disposition of this case is set forth in this opinion and none other. And the sum of the standing principles articulated here, as applied to this case, is that the harm asserted by the plaintiffs is best understood as arising from a burden on those plaintiffs' own votes. In this gerrymandering context that burden arises through a voter's placement in a "cracked" or "packed" district.
C
Four of the plaintiffs in this case-Mary Lynne Donohue, Wendy Sue Johnson, Janet Mitchell, and Jerome Wallace-pleaded a particularized burden along such lines. They alleged that Act 43 had "dilut[ed] the influence" of their votes as a result of packing or cracking
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether a district court may impose summary contempt punishment under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 42 (a) when a witness who has been granted immunity, refuses on Fifth Amendment grounds to testify. The Court of Appeals held that in such circumstances a judge cannot dispose of the contempt summarily, but must proceed under Rule 42 (b), which calls for disposition only after notice and hearing, and “a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense.”
I
Respondents Wilson and Bryan, along with one Robert Anderson, were charged in separate indictments with separate bank robberies. Respondent Wilson, and Anderson, were charged with armed robbery of a bank in Tuxedo, N. Y. Respondent Bryan, and Anderson, were charged with armed robbery of a bank in Mount Ivy, N. Y. Prior to Anderson’s trial both respondents pleaded guilty to charges against them, but neither was immediately given a final sentence. Sentencing of Wilson was deferred, and, pending a presentence report, Bryan was given a provisional 25-year sentence, as required by 18 U. S. C. §§4208 (b), (c).
At Anderson’s trial for the two robberies, respondents were summoned as witnesses for the prosecution. When questioned, however, each refused to testify, contending that his answers might incriminate him. The judge then granted them immunity, 18 U. S. C. §§ 6002-6003, and, relying on Goldberg v. United States, 472 F. 2d 513 (CA2 1973), ordered them to answer forthwith. He informed them that as long as they did not lie under oath they could not be prosecuted by reason of any testimony, but that if they continued to refuse to answer he would hold them in contempt. Respondents nevertheless persisted in their refusals, and the judge summarily held them in contempt. Counsel for Wilson, who acted for both respondents, argued for lenient sentences; however, trial counsel made no objection to the summary nature of the contempt citation, nor was any claim made that more time was needed to prepare a defense to the contempt citation.
Both respondents were then sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to any sentences imposed for the bank robberies. The judge made it clear that he would consider reducing the contempt sentences, or eliminating them completely, if respondents decided to testify. When counsel pointed out that a presentence study was being prepared on Bryan the judge responded: “I am going to impose the maximum . . . with the deliberate intention of revising that sentence to what might be appropriate in light of the very study that is going to be made.” App. 33.
The trial proceeded, but without Bryan’s testimony the evidence against Anderson on the Mount Ivy robbery was such that at the end of the Government’s case the judge granted Anderson’s motion for acquittal. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the Tuxedo robbery. At a later trial Anderson was convicted of that robbery.
Respondents appealed their contempt convictions. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim that their Fifth Amendment rights would have been violated by compelling them to testify after they had been granted immunity, but it accepted their contention that use of the summary contempt power was improper, and it remanded for proceedings under Rule 42 (b). 488 F. 2d 1231 (CA2 1973). The court reasoned that “[i]f . . . counsel had been given ‘a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense,’ Fed. R. Crim P. Rule 42 (h), she might have marshalled and presented facts in mitigation of the charge.” Id., at 1234.
In requiring Rule 42 (b) disposition the Court of Appeals considered itself bound by its own previous decisions, and by this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162 (1965). In a previous case the Court of Appeals had held:
“Summary disposition is thus available only when immediate punishment is necessary to put an end to acts disrupting the proceedings, such as threats to the judge, disturbances in the courtroom or insolence before the court. It is not a remedy to be used in a case like this where the contempt consists of no more than orderly refusal in the absence of the jury to answer a question on Fifth Amendment grounds . . . .” United States v. Pace, 371 F. 2d 810, 811 (CA2 1967).
In another case the Court of Appeals had interpreted the language of our Harris decision to require that “[a]bsent . . . disruptive conduct, which affronts the dignity of the court, a hearing pursuant to Rule 42 (b) is required to explore possible exculpatory or mitigating circumstances.” United States v. Marra, 482 F. 2d 1196, 1200 (CA2 1973). In the Court of Appeals’ view only a disorderly or obstreperous interference with court proceedings provides an occasion for use of the summary contempt power. -. Id., at 1201-1202.
Because of the importance of this issue in the conduct of criminal trials, and because the view of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit apparently conflicts with that of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Baker v. Eisenstadt, 456 F. 2d 382, cert. denied, 409 U. S. 846 (1972), we granted certiorari. 416 U. S. 981 (1974). We reverse.
II
Respondents’ refusals to answer, although not delivered disrespectfully, plainly fall within the express language of Rüle 42 (a), and constitute contemptuous conduct. Rule 42 (a) was never intended to be limited to situations where a witness uses scurrilous language, or threatens or creates overt physical disorder and thereby disrupts a trial. All that is necessary is that the judge certify that he “saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court.” Respondents do not contest that these requirements are met here. Indeed, here each refusal was in the context of a face-to-face encounter between the judge and respondents. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337 (1970); Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517 (1925).
The refusals were contemptuous of judicial authority because they were intentional obstructions of court proceedings that literally disrupted the progress of the trial and hence the orderly administration of justice. Yates v. United States, 227 F. 2d 844 (CA9 1955). Respondents’ contumacious silence, after a valid grant of immunity followed by an explicit, unambiguous order to testify, impeded the due course of Anderson’s trial perhaps more so than violent conduct in the courtroom. Violent disruptions can be cured swiftly by bodily removing the offender from the courtroom, or by physical restraints, Illinois v. Allen, supra; see Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289 (1888), and the trial may proceed. But as this case demonstrates, a contumacious refusal to answer not only frustrates the inquiry but can destroy a prosecution. Here it was a prosecution; the same kind of contumacious conduct could, in another setting, destroy a defendant’s ability to establish a case.
The face-to-face refusal to comply with the court’s order itself constituted an affront to the court, and when that kind of refusal disrupts and frustrates an ongoing proceeding, as it did here, summary contempt must be available to vindicate the authority of the court as well as to provide the recalcitrant witness with some incentive to testify. In re Chiles, 22 Wall. 157, 168 (1875). Whether such incentive is necessary in a particular case is a matter the Rule wisely leaves to the discretion of the trial court.
Our conclusion that summary contempt is available under the circumstances here is supported by the fact that Rule 42 has consistently been recognized to be no more than a restatement of the law existing when the Rule was adopted, Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194, 209 (1968); Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rule 42 (a), 18 U. S. C. App. p. 4513; Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517 (1925), and the law at that time allowed summary punishment for refusals to testify, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 (1906); Nelson v. United States, 201 U. S. 92 (1906); Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273 (1919). See Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, 382 (1919); Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 (1896), and cases cited therein, cf. Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38 (1822); In re Savin, 131 U. S. 267 (1889).
Ill
The Court of Appeals considered itself bound by language in Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162 (1965), to hold Rule 42 (a) inapplicable to the facts here. The crucial difference between the cases, however, is that Harris did not deal with a refusal to testify which obstructed an ongoing trial. In Harris a witness before a grand jury had been granted immunity, 18 U. S. C. § 6002, and nevertheless refused to answer certain questions. The witness was then brought before a District Judge and asked the same questions again. When he still refused to answer, the court summarily held him in contempt. We held in that case that summary contempt was inappropriate because there was no compelling reason for an immediate remedy.
A grand jury ordinarily deals with many inquiries and cases at one time, and it can rather easily suspend action on any one, and turn to another while proceedings under Rule 42 (b) are completed. We noted in Harris that “swiftness was not a prerequisite of justice .... Delay necessary for a hearing would not imperil the grand jury proceedings.” 382 U. S., at 164. Trial courts, on the contrary, cannot be expected to dart from case to case on their calendars any time a witness who has been granted immunity decides not to answer questions. In a trial, the court, the parties, witnesses, and jurors are assembled in the expectation that it will proceed as scheduled. Here the District Judge pointed out this problem when defense counsel asked for a continuance; he said: “I think we cannot delay this trial. I cannot delay it. I have many other matters that are equally important to the people concerned in those cases which are following.” Delay under Rule 42 (b) may be substantial, and all essential participants in the trial may no longer be readily available when a trial reconvenes. In Harris this Court recognized these problems in noting that summary punishment may be necessary where a “refusal [is] ... an open, serious threat to orderly procedure.” 382 U. 8., at 165. A refusal to testify during a trial may be such an open, serious threat, and here it plainly constituted a literal “breakdown” in the prosecution’s case.
IV
In an ongoing trial, with the judge, jurors, counsel, and witnesses all waiting, Rule 42 (a) provides an appropriate remedial tool to discourage witnesses from contumacious refusals to comply with lawful orders essential to prevent a breakdown of the proceedings. Where time is not of the essence, however, the provisions of Rule 42 (b) may be more appropriate to deal with contemptuous conduct. We adhere to the principle that only “ ‘[t]he least possible power adequate to the end proposed’ ” should be used in contempt cases, Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231 (1821). See Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U. S. 488, 498 (1974). As with all power, the authority under Rule 42 (a) to punish summarily can be abused; the courts of appeals, however, can deal with abuses of discretion without restricting the Rule in contradiction of its express terms, and without unduly limiting the power of the trial judge to act swiftly and firmly to prevent contumacious conduct from disrupting the orderly progress of a criminal trial.
Reversed.
Rule 42 (a) provides:
“(a) Summary Disposition.
“A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.”
Rule 42 (b) provides:
“(b) Disposition Upon Notice and Hearing.
“A criminal contempt except as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. The notice shall be given orally by the judge in open court in the presence of the defendant or, on application of the United States attorney or of an attorney appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause or an order of arrest. The defendant is entitled to a trial by jury in any case in which an act of Congress so provides. He is entitled to admission to bail as provided in these rules. If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant’s consent. Upon a verdict or finding of guilt the court shall enter an order fixing the punishment.”
In the Court of Appeals respondents contended that the immunity granted was not coextensive with the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 449 (1972). The Court of Appeals ruled that respondents had not raised the claim in a proper fashion, and respondents did not seek review of that conclusion. Thus no issue concerning the scope of immunity is before us.
Earlier in the proceeding counsel had requested a continuance to study whether respondents could be compelled to testify after a grant of immunity. App. 5. The trial judge did not allow a continuance. Id., at 6. The Court of Appeals, however, considered that for purposes of appeal the request was sufficient objection to the summary contempt citation. The Government does not contest that ruling so we do not address it.
For example, the court mentioned that respondent Wilson’s experience suggested the possibility of a psychiatric defense. With time to prepare, the Court of Appeals said, counsel might have "enlarged on the issue of [Wilson’s] mental health, and perhaps shown a relationship between any psychological difficulties and the refusal to serve as a witness.” 488 F. 2d, at 1234r-1235. The record does not support such a defense. On order of the District Court, Wilson had been given a psychiatric examination to determine his competency to stand trial. 18 U. S. C. §4244. He was found competent; however, at the Anderson trial his lawyer argued that the examination revealed family difficulties that may have been a reason for his antisocial behavior. App. 12-13. The District Court agreed that further investigation of Wilson’s psychiatric problems might be helpful for sentencing purposes. Id., at 12, 17. The record does not show that either counsel or the District Court considered for a moment that further psychiatric investigation might provide a defense to the contempt charge. The psychiatric investigation was to determine whether Wilson might more appropriately be placed on probation with psychiatric treatment rather than confined in a prison. Id., at 13, 17.
Rule 42 applies the contempt power defined in 18 U. S. C. § 401. See Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 326-327 (1904); Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510 (1874). That statute provides that a federal court has the power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority as “[m]isbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice.” The predecessor of the statute was enacted to limit the broad power granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73. Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, 45, 50 (1941). Courts had indiscriminately used the summary contempt power to punish persons for acts that occurred far from the court’s view and which, in truth, could not be considered direct affronts to its dignity, and obstructions of justice. Thus the phrase “in its presence or so near thereto” was intended to apply a geographical limitation on the power. Id., at 50. Misbehavior actually in the face of the court remained punishable summarily, and this Court made it clear that contemptuous actions “actually interrupting the court in the conduct of its business,” id., at 52, were summarily punishable just as “misbehavior in the vicinity of the court disrupting to quiet and order.”. Ibid.
The trial judge explained to respondents the protection accorded by the grant of immunity and that if they continued in their refusals he would hold them in contempt. He also offered them an opportunity to speak in their own behalf. Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U. S. 496, 501 (1972). Moreover, the judge made it clear that he would consider reducing the sentences if respondents did testify. App. 19-20, 21, 33. In view of this their continued refusals to testify can only be termed intentional.
In order to constitute an affront to the dignity of the court the judge himself need not be personally insulted. Here the judge indicated he was not personally affronted by respondents’ actions. He said: “I am not angry at Mr. Wilson because he refuses to testify. That is up to him.” App. 14. He also said: “I don’t consider [Bryan] to have a chip on his shoulder towards the Court or towards me.” Id., at 33.
In Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 371 n. 9 (1966), we said:
“[T]he trial judge [should] first consider the feasibility of coercing testimony through the imposition of civil contempt. The judge should resort to criminal sanctions only after he determines, for good reason, that the civil remedy would be inappropriate.”
Here, of course, that admonition carries little weight because at the time they.acted contemptuously both respondents were incarcerated due to their own guilty pleas. Under the circumstances here the threat of immediate confinement for civil contempt would have provided little incentive for them to testify. Contrast, Anglin v. Johnston, 504 F. 2d 1165 (CA7 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 962 (1975). Nevertheless, the careful trial judge made it clear to respondents that if they relented and obeyed his order he would consider reducing their sentences; and he also explained that he would consider other factors in deciding whether to reduce the sentences. Supra, at 312.
Sources contemporaneous with the adoption of this Rule uniformly indicate that subsection (a) is substantially a restatement of existing law, 6 N. Y. U. School of Law, Institute Proceedings — ' Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 73 (1946); Dessión, The New Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: II, 56 Yale L. J. 197, 244 n. 268 (1947); Orfield, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 26 Neb. L. Rev. 570, 613 n. 189 (1947), and was not intended to alter the circumstances in which notice and a hearing are required.
App. 6.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Respondent, owner of various patents for hop-picking, sold ,a machine to each of the petitioners for a flat sum and issued a license for its use. Under that license there is payable a minimum royalty of $500 for each’ hop-picking season or $3.33% per 200 pounds of • dried hops harvested by the machine, whichever is greater. The licenses by their terms may not be assigned nor may the machines be removed from Yakima County. The licenses issued to petitioners listed 12 patents relating to hop-picking machines; but only seven were incorporated into the machines sold to and licensed for use by petitioners. Of those seven all expired on or before 1957. But the licenses issued by respondent to them continued for terms beyond that date.
Petitioners refused to make royalty payments accruing both before and after the expiration of the patents. This suit followed. One defense was misuse of the patents through extension of the license agreements beyond the expiration date of the patents. The trial court rendered judgment for respondent and the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed. 62 Wash. 2d 284, 382 P. 2d 271. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 376 U. S. 905.
We conclude that the judgment below must be reversed insofar as it allows royalties to be collected which accrued after the last of the patents incorporated into the machines had expired.
The Constitution by Art. I, § 8 authorizes Congress to secure “for limited times” to inventors “the exclusive right” to their discoveries. Congress exercised that power by 35 U. S. C. § 154 which provides in part as follows:
“Every patent shall contain a short title of the invention and a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention throughout the United States, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof. ...”
The right to make, the right to sell, and the right to use “may be granted or conferred separately by the patentee.” Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453, 456. But these fights become public property once the 17-year period expires. See Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U. S. 169, 185; Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U. S. 111, 118. As stated by Chief. Justice Stone, speaking for the Court in Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Co., 326 U. S. 249, 256:
“. . . any attempted reservation or continuation in the patentee or' those claiming, under him of. the patent monopoly, after the patent expires, whatever the legal device employed, runs counter to the policy and purpose of the patent laws.”.
The Supreme Court of Washington held that in the present case the period during which royalties were required was only “a reasonable amount of time over which to spread the payments for the use of the patent.” 62 Wash. 2d, at 291, 382 P. 2d, at, 275. But there is intrinsic evidence that the agreements were not designed with that limited view. As we have seen, the purchase price in each case was a flat sum, the annual payments not being part of the purchase price but royalties for use of the' machine during that year. The royalty payments due for the post-expiration period are by their terms for use during that period, and are not deferred payments for use during the pre-expiration period. Nor is the case like the hypothetical ones put to us where non-patented articles are marketed at prices based on use. The machines in issue here were patented articles and the royalties exacted were the same for the post-expiration period as they were for the period of the patent. That is peculiarly significant in this ease in view of other provisions of the license agreements. The license agreements prevent assignment of the machines or their removal from Yakima County after, as well as before, the expiration of the patents.
Those restrictions are apt and pertinent to protection of the patent monopoly; and their applicability to the post-expiration period is a telltale sign that the licensor was using the licenses to project its monopoly beyond the patent period. They forcefully negate the suggestion that we have here a bare arrangement for a sale or a lease at an undetermined price, based on use. The sale or lease of unpatented machines on long-term payments based on a deferred purchase price or on use would present wholly different considerations. Those arrangements seldom rise to the level of a federal question. But patents are in the federal domain; and “whatever the legal device employed” (Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Co., supra, at 256) a projection of the patent monopoly after the patent expires is not enforceable. The present licenses draw no line between the term of the patent and the post-exp'iration period. The same provisions as respects both use and royalties are applicable to each. The contracts are, therefore, on their face a bald attempt to exact the same terms and conditions for the period after the patents have expired as they do for the monopoly period. We are, therefore, unable to conjecture what the bargaining position of the parties might have been and what resultant arrangement might have emerged had the provision for post-expiration royalties been divorced from the patent and nowise subject to its leverage.
In light of those considerations, we conclude that a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of. the patent is unlawful per se. If that device were available to patentees, the free market visualized for the post-expiration period would be subject to monopoly influences that have no proper place there.
Automatic Radio Co. v. Hazeltine, 339 U. S. 827, is not in point. While some of the patents under that license apparently had expired, the royalties claimed were not for a period when all of them had expired. That license covered several hundred patents and the royalty was based on the licensee’s sales, even when no patents were used. The Court held that the computation of royalty payments by that formula was a convenient and reasonable device. We decline the invitation to extend it so as to project the patent monopoly beyond the 17-year period.
A patent empowers the owner to exact.royalties as high as he can negotiate with the leverage of that monopoly. But to use that leverage to project those royalty payments beyond the life of the patent is analogous to an effort to enlarge the monopoly of the patent by tieing the sale or use of the patented article to the purchase or use of unpatented ones. See Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U. S. 436; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co., 320 U. S. 661, 664—665, and cases cited. The exaction of royalties for use of a machine after the patent has expired is an assertion of monopoly power in the post-expiration period when, as we have seen, the patent has entered the public domain. We share the views of the Court of Appeals in Ar-Tik Systems, Inc. v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 302 F. 2d 496, 510, that after expiration of the last of the patents incorporated in the machines “the grant of patent, monopoly was spent” and that an attempt to project it into another term by continuation of the licensing agreement is unenforceable.
Reversed.
One petitioner paid $3,125 for “title” to a machine, the other petitioner, $3,300.
All but one of the 12 expired prior to the expiration of the license agreements. The exception was a patent whose mechanism was not incorporated in these machines.
Petitioners purchased their machines from prior purchasers under transfer agreements to which respondent was a party.
Note 1, supra.
The petition for certiorari did not in the questions presented raise the question of the effect of the expiration of any of the patents on the royalty agreement. Also, the Hazeltine license, which covered many patents, exacted royalties for patents never used. But that aspect of the case is likewise not apposite here for the present licensees are farmers using the machines, not manufacturers buying the right to incorporate patents into their manufactured products.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
Prisoners sentenced to death in the State of Oklahoma filed an action in federal court under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that the method of execution now used by the State violates the Eighth Amendment because it creates an unacceptable risk of severe pain. They argue that midazolam, the first drug employed in the State's current three-drug protocol, fails to render a person insensate to pain. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied four prisoners' application for a preliminary injunction, finding that they had failed to prove that midazolam is ineffective. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed and accepted the District Court's finding of fact regarding midazolam's efficacy.
For two independent reasons, we also affirm. First, the prisoners failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain, a requirement of all Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claims. See Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 61, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008) (plurality opinion). Second, the District Court did not commit clear error when it found that the prisoners failed to establish that Oklahoma's use of a massive dose of midazolam in its execution protocol entails a substantial risk of severe pain.
I
A
The death penalty was an accepted punishment at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In that era, death sentences were usually carried out by hanging. The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies 4 (H. Bedau ed. 1997). Hanging remained the standard method of execution through much of the 19th century, but that began to change in the century's later years. See Baze, supra, at 41-42, 128 S.Ct. 1520. In the 1880's, the Legislature of the State of New York appointed a commission to find " 'the most humane and practical method known to modern science of carrying into effect the sentence of death in capital cases.' " In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 444, 10 S.Ct. 930, 34 L.Ed. 519 (1890).
The commission recommended electrocution, and in 1888, the Legislature enacted a law providing for this method of execution. Id., at 444-445, 10 S.Ct. 930. In subsequent years, other States followed New York's lead in the " 'belief that electrocution is less painful and more humane than hanging.' " Baze, 553 U.S., at 42, 128 S.Ct. 1520 (quoting Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180, 185, 35 S.Ct. 507, 59 L.Ed. 905 (1915)).
In 1921, the Nevada Legislature adopted another new method of execution, lethal gas, after concluding that this was "the most humane manner known to modern science." State v. Jon, 46 Nev. 418, 437, 211 P. 676, 682 (1923). The Nevada Supreme Court rejected the argument that the use of lethal gas was unconstitutional, id., at 435-437, 211 P., at 681-682, and other States followed Nevada's lead, see, e.g., Ariz. Const., Art. XXII, § 22 (1933); 1937 Cal. Stats. ch. 172, § 1; 1933 Colo. Sess. Laws ch. 61, § 1; 1955 Md. Laws ch. 625, § 1, p. 1017; 1937 Mo. Laws p. 222, § 1. Nevertheless, hanging and the firing squad were retained in some States, see, e.g., 1961 Del. Laws ch. 309, § 2 (hanging); 1935 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 155, § 1 (hanging); Utah Code Crim. Proc. § 105-37-16 (1933) (hanging or firing squad), and electrocution remained the predominant method of execution until the 9-year hiatus in executions that ended with our judgment in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). See Baze, supra, at 42, 128 S.Ct. 1520.
After Gregg reaffirmed that the death penalty does not violate the Constitution, some States once again sought a more humane way to carry out death sentences. They eventually adopted lethal injection, which today is "by far the most prevalent method of execution in the United States." Baze, supra, at 42, 128 S.Ct. 1520. Oklahoma adopted lethal injection in 1977, see 1977 Okla. Sess. Laws p. 89, and it eventually settled on a protocol that called for the use of three drugs: (1) sodium thiopental, "a fast-acting barbiturate sedative that induces a deep, comalike unconsciousness when given in the amounts used for lethal injection," (2) a paralytic agent, which "inhibits all muscular-skeletal movements and, by paralyzing the diaphragm, stops respiration," and (3) potassium chloride, which "interferes with the electrical signals that stimulate the contractions of the heart, inducing cardiac arrest." Baze, supra, at 44, 128 S.Ct. 1520; see also Brief for Respondents 9. By 2008, at least 30 of the 36 States that used lethal injection employed that particular three-drug protocol. 553 U.S., at 44, 128 S.Ct. 1520.
While methods of execution have changed over the years, "[t]his Court has never invalidated a State's chosen procedure for carrying out a sentence of death as the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment." Id., at 48, 128 S.Ct. 1520. In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 134-135, 25 L.Ed. 345 (1879), the Court upheld a sentence of death by firing squad. In In re Kemmler, supra, at 447-449, 10 S.Ct. 930, the Court rejected a challenge to the use of the electric chair. And the Court did not retreat from that holding even when presented with a case in which a State's initial attempt to execute a prisoner by electrocution was unsuccessful. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463-464, 67 S.Ct. 374, 91 L.Ed. 422 (1947) (plurality opinion). Most recently, in Baze, supra, seven Justices agreed that the three-drug protocol just discussed does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Our decisions in this area have been animated in part by the recognition that because it is settled that capital punishment is constitutional, "[i]t necessarily follows that there must be a [constitutional]
means of carrying it out." Id., at 47, 128 S.Ct. 1520. And because some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, we have held that the Constitution does not require the avoidance of all risk of pain. Ibid. After all, while most humans wish to die a painless death, many do not have that good fortune. Holding that the Eighth Amendment demands the elimination of essentially all risk of pain would effectively outlaw the death penalty altogether.
B
Baze cleared any legal obstacle to use of the most common three-drug protocol that had enabled States to carry out the death penalty in a quick and painless fashion. But a practical obstacle soon emerged, as anti-death-penalty advocates pressured pharmaceutical companies to refuse to supply the drugs used to carry out death sentences. The sole American manufacturer of sodium thiopental, the first drug used in the standard three-drug protocol, was persuaded to cease production of the drug. After suspending domestic production in 2009, the company planned to resume production in Italy. Koppel, Execution Drug Halt Raises Ire of Doctors, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 25, 2011, p. A6. Activists then pressured both the company and the Italian Government to stop the sale of sodium thiopental for use in lethal injections in this country. Bonner, Letter from Europe: Drug Company in Cross Hairs of Death Penalty Opponents, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 2011; Koppel, Drug Halt Hinders Executions in the U.S., Wall Street Journal, Jan. 22, 2011, p. A1. That effort proved successful, and in January 2011, the company announced that it would exit the sodium thiopental market entirely. See Hospira, Press Release, Hospira Statement Regarding Pentothal ™ (sodium thiopental) Market Exit (Jan. 21, 2011).
After other efforts to procure sodium thiopental proved unsuccessful, States sought an alternative, and they eventually replaced sodium thiopental with pentobarbital, another barbiturate. In December 2010, Oklahoma became the first State to execute an inmate using pentobarbital. See Reuters, Chicago Tribune, New Drug Mix Used in Oklahoma Execution, Dec. 17 2010, p. 41. That execution occurred without incident, and States gradually shifted to pentobarbital as their supplies of sodium thiopental ran out. It is reported that pentobarbital was used in all of the 43 executions carried out in 2012. The Death Penalty Institute, Execution List 2012, online at www.deathpenalty info.org/execution-list-2012 (all Internet materials as visited June 26, 2015, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). Petitioners concede that pentobarbital, like sodium thiopental, can "reliably induce and maintain a comalike state that renders a person insensate to pain" caused by administration of the second and third drugs in the protocol. Brief for Petitioners 2. And courts across the country have held that the use of pentobarbital in executions does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Jackson v. Danberg, 656 F.3d 157 (C.A.3 2011); Beaty v. Brewer, 649 F.3d 1071 (C.A.9 2011); DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (C.A.11 2011); Pavatt v. Jones, 627 F.3d 1336 (C.A.10 2010).
Before long, however, pentobarbital also became unavailable. Anti-death-penalty advocates lobbied the Danish manufacturer of the drug to stop selling it for use in executions. See Bonner, supra. That manufacturer opposed the death penalty and took steps to block the shipment of pentobarbital for use in executions in the United States. Stein, New Obstacle to Death Penalty in U.S., Washington Post, July 3, 2011, p. A4. Oklahoma eventually became unable to acquire the drug through any means. The District Court below found that both sodium thiopental and pentobarbital are now unavailable to Oklahoma. App. 67-68.
C
Unable to acquire either sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, some States have turned to midazolam, a sedative in the benzodiazepine family of drugs. In October 2013, Florida became the first State to substitute midazolam for pentobarbital as part of a three-drug lethal injection protocol. Fernandez, Executions Stall As States Seek Different Drugs, N.Y. Times, Nov. 9, 2013, p. A1. To date, Florida has conducted 11 executions using that protocol, which calls for midazolam followed by a paralytic agent and potassium chloride. See Brief for State of Florida as Amicus Curiae 2-3; Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, 742 F.3d 1267, 1269 (C.A.11 2014). In 2014, Oklahoma also substituted midazolam for pentobarbital as part of its three-drug protocol. Oklahoma has already used this three-drug protocol twice: to execute Clayton Lockett in April 2014 and Charles Warner in January 2015. (Warner was one of the four inmates who moved for a preliminary injunction in this case.)
The Lockett execution caused Oklahoma to implement new safety precautions as part of its lethal injection protocol. When Oklahoma executed Lockett, its protocol called for the administration of 100 milligrams of midazolam, as compared to the 500 milligrams that are currently required. On the morning of his execution, Lockett cut himself twice at " 'the bend of the elbow.' " App. 50. That evening, the execution team spent nearly an hour making at least one dozen attempts to establish intravenous (IV) access to Lockett's cardiovascular system, including at his arms and elsewhere on his body. The team eventually believed that it had established intravenous access through Lockett's right femoral vein, and it covered the injection access point with a sheet, in part to preserve Lockett's dignity during the execution. After the team administered the midazolam and a physician determined that Lockett was unconscious, the team next administered the paralytic agent (vecuronium bromide) and most of the potassium chloride. Lockett began to move and speak, at which point the physician lifted the sheet and determined that the IV had "infiltrated," which means that "the IV fluid, rather than entering Lockett's blood stream, had leaked into the tissue surrounding the IV access point." Warner v. Gross, 776 F.3d 721, 725 (C.A.10 2015) (case below). The execution team stopped administering the remaining potassium chloride and terminated the execution about 33 minutes after the midazolam was first injected. About 10 minutes later, Lockett was pronounced dead.
An investigation into the Lockett execution concluded that "the viability of the IV access point was the single greatest factor that contributed to the difficulty in administering the execution drugs." App. 398. The investigation, which took five months to complete, recommended several changes to Oklahoma's execution protocol, and Oklahoma adopted a new protocol with an effective date of September 30, 2014. That protocol allows the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to choose among four different drug combinations. The option that Oklahoma plans to use to execute petitioners calls for the administration of 500 milligrams of midazolam followed by a paralytic agent and potassium chloride.
The paralytic agent may be pancuronium bromide, vecuronium bromide, or rocuronium bromide, three drugs that, all agree, are functionally equivalent for purposes of this case. The protocol also includes procedural safeguards to help ensure that an inmate remains insensate to any pain caused by the administration of the paralytic agent and potassium chloride. Those safeguards include: (1) the insertion of both a primary and backup IV catheter, (2) procedures to confirm the viability of the IV site, (3) the option to postpone an execution if viable IV sites cannot be established within an hour, (4) a mandatory pause between administration of the first and second drugs, (5) numerous procedures for monitoring the offender's consciousness, including the use of an electrocardiograph and direct observation, and (6) detailed provisions with respect to the training and preparation of the execution team. In January of this year, Oklahoma executed Warner using these revised procedures and the combination of midazolam, a paralytic agent, and potassium chloride.
II
A
In June 2014, after Oklahoma switched from pentobarbital to midazolam and executed Lockett, 21 Oklahoma death row inmates filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the State's new lethal injection protocol. The complaint alleged that Oklahoma's use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
In November 2014, four of those plaintiffs-Richard Glossip, Benjamin Cole, John Grant, and Warner-filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. All four men had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by Oklahoma juries. Glossip hired Justin Sneed to kill his employer, Barry Van Treese. Sneed entered a room where Van Treese was sleeping and beat him to death with a baseball bat. See Glossip v. State, 2007 OK CR 12, 157 P.3d 143, 147-149. Cole murdered his 9-month-old daughter after she would not stop crying. Cole bent her body backwards until he snapped her spine in half. After the child died, Cole played video games. See Cole v. State, 2007 OK CR 27, 164 P.3d 1089, 1092-1093. Grant, while serving terms of imprisonment totaling 130 years, killed Gay Carter, a prison food service supervisor, by pulling her into a mop closet and stabbing her numerous times with a shank. See Grant v. State, 2002 OK CR 36, 58 P.3d 783, 789. Warner anally raped and murdered an 11-month-old girl. The child's injuries included two skull fractures, internal brain injuries, two fractures to her jaw, a lacerated liver, and a bruised spleen and lungs. See Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, 144 P.3d 838, 856-857.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder conviction and death sentence of each offender. Each of the men then unsuccessfully sought both state postconviction and federal habeas corpus relief. Having exhausted the avenues for challenging their convictions and sentences, they moved for a preliminary injunction against Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol.
B
In December 2014, after discovery, the District Court held a 3-day evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction motion. The District Court heard testimony from 17 witnesses and reviewed numerous exhibits. Dr. David Lubarsky, an anesthesiologist, and Dr. Larry Sasich, a doctor of pharmacy, provided expert testimony about midazolam for petitioners, and Dr. Roswell Evans, a doctor of pharmacy, provided expert testimony for respondents.
After reviewing the evidence, the District Court issued an oral ruling denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court first rejected petitioners' challenge under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), to the testimony of Dr. Evans. It concluded that Dr. Evans, the Dean of Auburn University's School of Pharmacy, was well qualified to testify about midazolam's properties and that he offered reliable testimony. The District Court then held that petitioners failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment. The court provided two independent reasons for this conclusion. First, the court held that petitioners failed to identify a known and available method of execution that presented a substantially less severe risk of pain than the method that the State proposed to use. Second, the court found that petitioners failed to prove that Oklahoma's protocol "presents a risk that is'sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering,' amounting to 'an objectively intolerable risk of harm.' " App. 96 (quoting Baze, 553 U.S., at 50, 128 S.Ct. 1520). The court emphasized that the Oklahoma protocol featured numerous safeguards, including the establishment of two IV access sites, confirmation of the viability of those sites, and monitoring of the offender's level of consciousness throughout the procedure.
The District Court supported its decision with findings of fact about midazolam. It found that a 500-milligram dose of midazolam "would make it a virtual certainty that any individual will be at a sufficient level of unconsciousness to resist the noxious stimuli which could occur from the application of the second and third drugs." App. 77. Indeed, it found that a 500-milligram dose alone would likely cause death by respiratory arrest within 30 minutes or an hour.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 776 F.3d 721. The Court of Appeals explained that our decision in Baze requires a plaintiff challenging a lethal injection protocol to demonstrate that the risk of severe pain presented by an execution protocol is substantial " 'when compared to the known and available alternatives.' " Id., at 732 (quoting Baze, supra, at 61, 128 S.Ct. 1520). And it agreed with the District Court that petitioners had not identified any such alternative. The Court of Appeals added, however, that this holding was "not outcome-determinative in this case" because petitioners additionally failed to establish that the use of midazolam creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. 776 F.3d, at 732. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by relying on Dr. Evans' testimony, and it concluded that the District Court's factual findings about midazolam were not clearly erroneous. It also held that alleged errors in Dr. Evans' testimony did not render his testimony unreliable or the District Court's findings clearly erroneous.
Oklahoma executed Warner on January 15, 2015, but we subsequently voted to grant review and then stayed the executions of Glossip, Cole, and Grant pending the resolution of this case. 574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1173, 190 L.Ed.2d 929 (2015).
III
"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The parties agree that this case turns on whether petitioners are able to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
The Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments." The controlling opinion in Baze outlined what a prisoner must establish to succeed on an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim. Baze involved a challenge by Kentucky death row inmates to that State's three-drug lethal injection protocol of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. The inmates conceded that the protocol, if properly administered, would result in a humane and constitutional execution because sodium thiopental would render an inmate oblivious to any pain caused by the second and third drugs. 553 U.S., at 49, 128 S.Ct. 1520. But they argued that there was an unacceptable risk that sodium thiopental would not be properly administered. Ibid. The inmates also maintained that a significant risk of harm could be eliminated if Kentucky adopted a one-drug protocol and additional monitoring by trained personnel. Id., at 51, 128 S.Ct. 1520.
The controlling opinion in Baze first concluded that prisoners cannot successfully challenge a method of execution unless they establish that the method presents a risk that is "'sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering,' and give rise to'sufficiently imminent dangers.' " Id., at 50, 128 S.Ct. 1520 (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 34-35, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993)). To prevail on such a claim, "there must be a'substantial risk of serious harm,' an 'objectively intolerable risk of harm' that prevents prison officials from pleading that they were'subjectively blameless for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.' " 553 U.S., at 50, 128 S.Ct. 1520 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846, and n. 9, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). The controlling opinion also stated that prisoners "cannot successfully challenge a State's method of execution merely by showing a slightly or marginally safer alternative." 553 U.S., at 51, 128 S.Ct. 1520. Instead, prisoners must identify an alternative that is "feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduce[s] a substantial risk of severe pain." Id., at 52, 128 S.Ct. 1520.
The controlling opinion summarized the requirements of an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim as follows: "A stay of execution may not be granted on grounds such as those asserted here unless the condemned prisoner establishes that the State's lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. [And] [h]e must show that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives." Id., at 61, 128 S.Ct. 1520. The preliminary injunction posture of the present case thus requires petitioners to establish a likelihood that they can establish both that Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain and that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives.
The challenge in Baze failed both because the Kentucky inmates did not show that the risks they identified were substantial and imminent, id., at 56, 128 S.Ct. 1520, and because they did not establish the existence of a known and available alternative method of execution that would entail a significantly less severe risk, id., at 57-60, 128 S.Ct. 1520. Petitioners' arguments here fail for similar reasons. First, petitioners have not proved that any risk posed by midazolam is substantial when compared to known and available alternative methods of execution. Second, they have failed to establish that the District Court committed clear error when it found that the use of midazolam will not result in severe pain and suffering. We address each reason in turn.
IV
Our first ground for affirmance is based on petitioners' failure to satisfy their burden of establishing that any risk of harm was substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method of execution. In their amended complaint, petitioners proffered that the State could use sodium thiopental as part of a single-drug protocol. They have since suggested that it might also be constitutional for Oklahoma to use pentobarbital. But the District Court found that both sodium thiopental and pentobarbital are now unavailable to Oklahoma's Department of Corrections. The Court of Appeals affirmed that finding, and it is not clearly erroneous. On the contrary, the record shows that Oklahoma has been unable to procure those drugs despite a good-faith effort to do so.
Petitioners do not seriously contest this factual finding, and they have not identified any available drug or drugs that could be used in place of those that Oklahoma is now unable to obtain. Nor have they shown a risk of pain so great that other acceptable, available methods must be used. Instead, they argue that they need not identify a known and available method of execution that presents less risk. But this argument is inconsistent with the controlling opinion in Baze, 553 U.S., at 61, 128 S.Ct. 1520, which imposed a requirement that the Court now follows.
Petitioners contend that the requirement to identify an alternative method of execution contravenes our pre-Baze decision in Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006), but they misread that decision. The portion of the opinion in Hill on which they rely concerned a question of civil procedure, not a substantive Eighth Amendment question. In Hill, the issue was whether a challenge to a method of execution must be brought by means of an application for a writ of habeas corpus or a civil action under § 1983. Id., at 576, 126 S.Ct. 2096. We held that a method-of-execution claim must be brought under § 1983 because such a claim does not attack the validity of the prisoner's conviction or death sentence. Id., at 579-580, 126 S.Ct. 2096. The United States as amicus curiae argued that we should adopt a special pleading requirement to stop inmates from using § 1983 actions to attack, not just a particular means of execution, but the death penalty itself. To achieve this end, the United States proposed that an inmate asserting a method-of-execution claim should be required to plead an acceptable alternative method of execution. Id., at 582, 126 S.Ct. 2096. We rejected that argument because "[s]pecific pleading requirements are mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not, as a general rule, through case-by-case determinations of the federal courts." Ibid. Hill thus held that § 1983 alone does not impose a heightened pleading requirement. Baze, on the other hand, addressed the substantive elements of an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim, and it made clear that the Eighth Amendment requires a prisoner to plead and prove a known and available alternative. Because petitioners failed to do this, the District Court properly held that they did not establish a likelihood of success on their Eighth Amendment claim.
Readers can judge for themselves how much distance there is between the principal dissent's argument against requiring prisoners to identify an alternative and the view, now announced by Justices BREYER and GINSBURG, that the death penalty is categorically unconstitutional. Post, p. 2759 (BREYER, J., dissenting). The principal dissent goes out of its way to suggest that a State would violate the Eighth Amendment if it used one of the methods of execution employed before the advent of lethal injection. Post, at 2770 - 2772. And the principal dissent makes this suggestion even though the Court held in Wilkerson that this method (the firing squad) is constitutional and even though, in the words of the principal dissent, "there is some reason to think that it is relatively quick and painless." Post, at 2796. Tellingly silent about the methods of execution most commonly used before States switched to lethal injection (the electric chair and gas chamber), the principal dissent implies that it would be unconstitutional to use a method that "could be seen as a devolution to a more primitive era." Ibid. If States cannot return to any of the "more primitive" methods used in the past and if no drug that meets with the principal dissent's approval is available for use in carrying out a death sentence, the logical conclusion is clear. But we have time and again reaffirmed that capital punishment is not per se unconstitutional. See, e.g., Baze, 553 U.S., at 47, 128 S.Ct. 1520; id., at 87-88, 128 S.Ct. 1520 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment); Gregg, 428 U.S., at 187, 96 S.Ct. 2909 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); id., at 226, 96 S.Ct. 2909 (White, J., concurring in judgment); Resweber, 329 U.S., at 464, 67 S.Ct. 374; In re Kemmler, 136 U.S., at 447, 10 S.Ct. 930; Wilkerson, 99 U.S., at 134-135. We decline to effectively overrule these decisions.
V
We also affirm for a second reason: The District Court did not commit clear error when it found that midazolam is highly likely to render a person unable to feel pain during an execution. We emphasize four points at the outset of our analysis.
First, we review the District Court's factual findings under the deferential "clear error" standard. This standard does not entitle us to overturn a finding "simply because [we are] convinced that [we] would have decided the case differently." Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).
Second, petitioners bear the burden of persuasion on this issue. Baze, supra, at 41, 128 S.Ct. 1520. Although petitioners expend great effort attacking peripheral aspects of Dr. Evans' testimony, they make little attempt to prove what is critical, i.e., that the evidence they presented to the District Court establishes that the use of midazolam is sure or very likely to result in needless suffering.
Third, numerous courts have concluded that the use of midazolam as the first drug in a three-drug protocol is likely to render an inmate insensate to pain that might result from administration of the paralytic agent and potassium chloride. See, e.g., 776 F.3d 721 (case below affirming the District Court); Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, 742 F.3d 1267 (affirming the District Court); Banks v. State, 150 So.3d 797 (Fla.2014) (affirming the lower court); Howell v. State, 133 So.3d 511 (Fla.2014) (same); Muhammad v. State, 132 So.3d 176 (Fla.2013) (same). (It is noteworthy that one or both of the two key witnesses in this case-Dr. Lubarsky for petitioners and Dr. Evans for respondents-were witnesses in the Chavez, Howell, and Muhammad cases.) "Where an intermediate court reviews, and affirms, a trial court's factual findings, this Court will not 'lightly overturn' the concurrent findings of the two lower courts." Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001). Our review is even more deferential where, as here, multiple trial courts have reached the same finding, and multiple appellate courts have affirmed those findings. Cf. Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U.S. 830, 841, 116 S.Ct. 1813, 135 L.Ed.2d 113 (1996) (explaining that this Court " 'cannot undertake to review concurrent findings of fact by two courts below in the absence of a very obvious and exceptional showing of error' " (quoting Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U.S. 271, 275, 69 S.Ct. 535, 93 L.Ed. 672 (1949))).
Fourth, challenges to lethal injection protocols test the boundaries of the authority and competency of federal courts. Although we must invalidate a lethal injection protocol if it violates the Eighth Amendment, federal courts should not "embroil [themselves] in ongoing scientific controversies beyond their expertise." Baze, supra, at 51, 128 S.Ct. 1520. Accordingly, an inmate challenging a protocol bears the burden to show, based on evidence presented to the court, that there is a substantial risk of severe pain.
A
Petitioners attack the District Court's findings of fact on two main grounds. First,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 motion of the American Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted. The petition for certiorari in No. 523, Albanese v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats., is also granted.
We believe that the judgment of the Court of Appeals setting aside the judgment for petitioner Albanese on the ground that the trial court incorrectly charged the jury on the issue of negligence is erroneous. Gutierrez v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 373 U. S. 206.
In its opinion the Court of Appeals also stated that the District Court incorrectly instructed the jury as to the applicability of the Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring on the question of the shipowner’s liability. But we do not read that court’s opinion as making this an independent ground for ordering a new trial. So we not only reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the case of Albanese but reinstate the District Court’s judgment in his favor.
The petitions in No. 557, International Terminal Operating Co. v. N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats.; and No. 654, N. V. Nederl. Amerik Stoomv. Maats. v. Albanese, are denied.
It is so ordered.
29 CFR §9.1 et seg. (1963), now 29 CFR § 1504.1 (1965), promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the authority of Public Law 85-742, 72 Stat. 835, 33 U. S. C. §941 (1964 ed.).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Through the Interstate Commerce Act and its amendments, Congress has granted to the Interstate' Commerce Commission authority to regulate various activities of interstate rail carriers, including their decisions to cease service on their branch lines. Under Iowa state law, a shipper by rail who is injured as the result of a common carrier’s.failure to provide adequate rail service has available several causes of action for damages. In this case we are called upon to decide whether these state-law actions may be asserted against a regulated carrier when the Commission has approved its decision to abandon the line in question.
I
Petitioner, an interstate common carrier by rail, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. For some time prior to April 1973, petitioner operated a 5.6-mile railroad branch line between the towns of Kalo and Fort Dodge in Iowa. Respondent operated a brick manufacturing plant near Kalo, and used petitioner’s railroad cars and branch line to transport its products to Fort Dodge and outward in interstate commerce.
During the 1960’s, the tracks on the Kalo-Fort Dodge branch line were damaged by three mud slides. Petitioner made repairs after the first two slides, but following the last slide in 1967, when portions of the embankment wholly vanished under the waters of the Des Moines River, petitioner decided to stop using the branch line. Petitioner instead leased part of another railroad’s parallel branch line to connect Kalo with Fort Dodge. In April 1973, the leased line was also damaged by a mud slide. By that time, respondent was the only shipper using the Kalo-Fort Dodge line. After inspecting the damage to the leased line, petitioner decided not to repair it. Petitioner then notified respondent that it would no longer provide service on the Kalo-Fort Dodge line, although it would continue to make cars available at Fort Dodge if respondent would ship its goods there by truck. Respondent determined that shipment by truck was not economically feasible, and notified its customers that it would complete existing contracts and then go out of business.
In November 1973, petitioner filed with the Commission an application for a certificate declaring that the public convenience and necessity permitted it to abandon the Kalo-Fort Dodge branch line. The United States Government intervened in support of petitioner’s application. Respondent was the sole party appearing in opposition to the request, but failed to perfect its filing before the Commission. In a decision issued in April 1976, the Commission found that petitioner had abandoned the line due to conditions beyond its control and granted the request for a certificate. Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co. Abandonment, AB1, Sub. No. 24 (Jan. 11, 1976), App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a. Respondent made no attempt to comply with the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act regarding judicial review of the Commission’s decision. Instead, while the abandonment request was still pending before the Commission, respondent filed this damages action against petitioner in state court. The complaint alleged that petitioner had violated Iowa Code §§ 479.3, 479.122 (1971) and state common law by refusing to provide cars on the branch line, by negligently failing to maintain the roadbed, and by tortiously interfering with respondent’s contractual relations with its customers. The state trial court, holding that the Interstate Commerce Act wholly preempted state law as to the matters in contention, dismissed the action. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that state abandonment law was not pre-empted and that the state and federal schemes represented “complimentary [sic], alternative means of relief for injured parties.” 295 N. W. 2d 467, 469 (1979). After the Supreme Court of Iowa denied petitioner’s application for review, we granted certiorari, 446 U. S. 951 (1980). We reverse.
II
Pre-emption of state law by federal statute or regulation is not favored “in the absence of persuasive reasons — either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained.” Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142 (1963). See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351, 356 (1976). The underlying rationale of the preemption doctrine, as stated more than a century and a half ago, is that the Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws that “interfere with or are contrary to, the laws of congress....” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 211 (1824). The doctrine does not and could not in our federal system withdraw from the States either the “power to regulate where the activity regulated [is] a merely peripheral concern” of federal law, San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 243 (1959), or the authority to legislate when Congress could have regulated “a distinctive part of a subject which is peculiarly adapted to local regulation,... but did not,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 68, n. 22 (1941). But when Congress has chosen to legislate pursuant to its constitutional powers, then a court must find local law pre-empted by federal regulation whenever the “challenged state statute'stands! as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ ” Perez v. Campbell, 402 U. S. 637, 649 (1971), quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, supra, at 67. Making this determination “is essentially a two-step process of first ascertaining the construction of the two statutes and then determining the constitutional question whether they are in conflict.” Perez v. Campbell, supra, at 644. And in deciding whether any conflict is present, a court’s concern is necessarily with “the nature of the activities which the States have sought to regulate, rather than on the method of regulation adopted.” San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, supra, at 243.
The Interstate Commerce Act is among the most pervasive and comprehensive of federal regulatory schemes and has consequently presented recurring pre-emption questions from the time of its enactment. Since the turn of the century, we have frequently invalidated attempts by the States to impose on common carriers obligations that are plainly inconsistent with the plenary authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission or with congressional policy as reflected in the Act. These state regulations have taken many forms. For example, as early as 1907, the Court struck down a State’s common-law cause of action to challenge as unreasonable a rail common carrier’s rates because rate regulation was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission, and a state-court action “would be absolutely inconsistent with the provisions of the act.” Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 446. Similarly, in Transit Comm’n v. United States, 289 U. S. 121, 129 (1933), we held that the Interstate Commerce Commission’s statutory authority to regulate extensions of service was exclusive and therefore stripped a similar state commission of all power to act in the same area. More recently, in Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S. 77 (1958), we held that a city ordinance requiring a license from a municipal authority before a railroad could transfer passengers, an activity also subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce Act, was facially invalid as applied to an interstate carrier. “[I]t would be inconsistent with [federal] policy,” we observed, “if local authorities retained the power to decide” whether the carriers could do what the Act authorized them to do. Id., at 87. The common rationale of these cases is easily stated: “[T]here can be no divided authority over interstate commerce, and... the acts of Congress on that subject are supreme and exclusive.” Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Stroud, 267 U. S. 404, 408 (1925). Consequently, state efforts to regulate commerce must fall when they conflict with or interfere with federal authority over the same activity.
Ill
In deciding whether respondent’s state-law damages action is pre-empted, we must determine what Congress has said about a carrier’s ability to abandon a line, what Iowa state law provides on the same subject, and whether the two are inconsistent. To these tasks we now turn.
A
The Interstate Commerce Commission has been endowed by Congress with broad power to regulate a carrier’s permanent or temporary cessation of service over lines used for interstate commerce. Under §§ 1 (4) and 1 (11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, recodified at 49 U. S. C. §§ 11101 (a) and 11121 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. HI), the Commission is empowered both to pass on the reasonableness of a carrier’s temporary suspension of its service and, if necessary, to order it resumed. See ICC v. Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co., 533 F. 2d 1025, 1027, n. 2 (CA8 1976); ICC v. Maine Central R. Co., 505 F. 2d 590, 593-594 (CA2 1974). In addition, and most relevant here, the Act endows the Commission with broad authority over abandonments, or permanent cessations of service.
The Commission’s power to regulate abandonments by rail carriers stems from the Transportation Act of 1920, ch. 91,
41 Stat. 477-478, which added to the Interstate Commerce Act a new § 1 (18), recodified at 49 U. S. C. § 10903 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. III). That section stated in pertinent part:
“[N]o carrier by railroad subject to this chapter shall abandon all or any portion of a line of railroad, or the operation thereof, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity permit of such abandonment.”
This section, we have said, must be “construed to make federal authority effective to the full extent that it has been exerted and with a view of eliminating the evils that Congress intended to abate.” Transit Comm’n v. United States, supra, at 128. Among those evils is “[m]ultiple control in respect of matters affecting [interstate railroad] transportation,” because such control, in the judgment of Congress, has proved “detrimental to the public interest.” 289 U. S., at 127. See Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., supra, at 87. Consequently, we have in the past concluded that the authority of the Commission to regulate abandonments is exclusive. Alabama Public Service Comm’n v. Southern R. Co., 341 U. S. 341, 346, n. 7 (1951). See Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153, 164-166 (1926). The Commission’s authority over abandonments is also plenary. So broad is this power that it extends even to approval of abandonment of purely local lines operated by regulated carriers when, in the Commission’s judgment, “the over-riding interests of interstate commerce requirfe] it.” Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 85 (1939). The broad scope of the Commission’s authority under § 1 (18) has been clear since the Court first interpreted that provision in Colorado v. United States, supra. There, the Court rejected a challenge by the State of Colorado to the power of the Commission to grant a certificate permitting an abandonment of a wholly intrastate branch line operated' by an interstate carrier. Justice Bran-déis wrote for the Court:
“Congress has power to assume not only some control, but paramount control, insofar as interstate commerce is involved. It may determine to what extent and in what manner intrastate service must be subordinated in order that interstate service may be adequately rendered. The power to make the determination inheres in the United States as an incident of its power over interstate commerce. The making of this determination involves an exercise of judgment upon the facts of the particular case. The authority to find the facts and to exercise thereon the judgment whether abandonment is consistent with public convenience and necessity, Congress conferred upon the Commission.” 271 U. S., at 165-166.
The exclusive and plenary nature of the Commission’s authority to rule on carriers’ decisions to abandon lines is critical to the congressional scheme, which contemplates comprehensive administrative regulation of interstate commerce. In deciding whether to permit an abandonment, the Commission must balance “the interests of those now served by the present line on the one hand, and the interests of the carrier and the transportation system on the other.” Purcell v. United States, 315 U. S. 381, 384 (1942). Once the Commission has struck that balance, its conclusion is entitled to considerable deference. “The weight to be given to cost of a relocated line as against the adverse effects upon those served by the abandoned line is a matter which the experience of the Commission qualifies it to decide. And, under the statute, it is not a matter for judicial redecision.” Id., at 385.
The breadth of the Commission’s statutory discretion suggests a congressional intent to limit judicial interference with the agency’s work. The Act in fact spells out with considerable precision the remedies available to a shipper who is injured either by the Commission’s approval of an abandonment or by a carrier’s abandoning a line without securing Commission approval. A shipper objecting to an abandonment may ask the Commission to investigate the carrier’s action. § 13 (1), recodified at 49 U. S. C. § 11701 (b) (1976 ed., Supp. III). A shipper may also oppose any request for abandonment filed before the Commission. 49 CFR § 1121.36 (1980). If ultimately dissatisfied with the Commission’s action, a shipper may seek review of its action in the appropriate court of appeals, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2321 (a), 2342 (5). In addition, at the time that this action was filed in state court, § 1 (20) of the Act expressly provided that a shipper believing a carrier’s abandonment was unlawful could seek an injunction against it. There is no provision in the Act for a civil damages action against a carrier for an abandonment that has been approved by the Commission. The structure of the Act thus makes plain that Congress intended that an aggrieved shipper should seek relief in the first instance from the Commission.
In sum, the construction of the applicable federal law is straightforward and unambiguous. Congress granted to the Commission plenary authority to regulate, in the interest of interstate commerce, rail carriers’ cessations of service on their lines. And at least as to abandonments, this authority is exclusive.
Equally clear are the meanings of the state statutory and common-law obligations that petitioner seeks to challenge. The Iowa Court of Appeals held that Iowa Code §§ 479.3 and 479.122 (1971) “impos[e] on the railroads the unqualified and unconditional duty to furnish car service and transportation to all persons who apply,” and that this state-law duty was not pre-empted by the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act imposing a similar duty. 295 N. W. 2d, at 469. According to respondent’s complaint in the state court, petitioner’s failure to carry out these “duties of a common carrier” injured it in the amount of $350,000. App. 78. The state court also held that respondent could maintain its causes of action for common-law negligence based on petitioner’s alleged failure to maintain the roadbed and for common-law tort for purported interference with contractual relations with respondent's customers. 295 N. W. 2d, at 471-472. The negligence count as outlined in respondent’s complaint claimed $150,000 in damages based on petitioner’s alleged failure “to maintain the track in a proper manner” and “to properly maintain the railroad right-of-way.” App. 79-80. The tort count alleged that “at all times material hereto, it was the avowed and publicized purpose of [petitioner] to close all unproductive lines under its control,” and that this plan interfered with respondent’s contracts and damaged it in the amount of $100,000. Id., at 81. These, then, are the claims that the Iowa Court of Appeals held properly cognizable in the state courts.
B
Armed with these authoritative constructions of both the federal regulatory scheme and the state law, we must next determine whether they conflict. The Iowa Court of Appeals held that the two remedies for abandonment merely complemented one another. We disagree. Both the letter and the spirit of the Interstate Commerce Act are inconsistent with Iowa law as construed by that court. The decision below amounts to a holding that a State can impose sanctions upon a regulated carrier for doing that which only the Commission, acting pursuant to the will of Congress, has the power to declare unlawful or unreasonable. Cf. Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 357 U. S., at 87. It is true that not one of the three counts of respondent’s state-court complaint mentions the word “abandonment,” but compliance with the intent of Congress cannot be avoided by mere artful pleading. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the instant litigation represents little more than an attempt by a disappointed shipper to gain from the Iowa courts the relief it was denied by the Commission.
Respondent’s main cause of action alleges an improper failure to furnish cars on the Kalo-Fort Dodge branch line. In Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Stroud, 267 U. S. 404 (1925), this Court confronted the precise question whether a state-court damages action would lie for a carrier’s failure to furnish cars to carry a shipper’s goods in interstate commerce. The Court held that because the lumber shipped by the carrier moved in interstate, rather than intrastate, commerce, “[t]he state law has no application... Id., at 408. In the instant case, the bricks that respondent here shipped in petitioner’s cars, like the lumber in Missouri Pacific, were moving in interstate commerce. Respondent in essence seeks to use state law to compel petitioner to furnish cars in spite of the congressional decision to leave regulation of car service to the Commission. But “[t]he duty to provide cars is not absolute,” and the law “ 'exacts only what is reasonable of the railroads under the existing circumstances.’ ” Milmine Grain Co. v. Norfolk & Western R. Co., 352 I. C. C. 575, 585 (1976), citing Elgin Coal Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 277 F. Supp. 247, 250 (ED Tenn. 1967). See Midland Valley R. Co. v. Barkley, 276 U. S. 482, 484 (1928). The judgment as to what constitutes reasonableness belongs exclusively to the Commission. Cf. Purcell v. United States, 315 U. S., at 384-385. It would vitiate the overarching congressional intent of creating “an efficient and nationally integrated railroad system,” ICC v. Railway Labor Executives Assn., 315 U. S. 373, 376 (1942), to permit the State of Iowa to use the threat of damages to require a carrier to do exactly what the Commission is empowered to excuse. A system under which each State could, through its courts, impose on railroad carriers its own version of reasonable service requirements could hardly be more at odds with the uniformity contemplated by Congress in enacting the Interstate Commerce Act.
The conclusion that a suit under state law conflicts with the purposes of the Act is merely bolstered when, as here, the Commission has actually approved the abandonment. In reaching its decision, the Commission expressly found that “the cessation of service occurred because of conditions over which [petitioner] had no control.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. Because Congress granted the exclusive discretion to make such judgments to the Commission,, there is no further role that the state court could play. Even though the approval did not come until after respondent filed its civil suit, it would be contrary to the language of the statute to permit litigation challenging the lawfulness of the carrier’s actions to go forward when the Commission has expressly found them to be reasonable. See 49 U. S. C. § 1 (17)(a), recodified at 49 U. S. C. § 10501 (c) (1976 ed., Supp. III). We therefore hold that Iowa’s statutory cause of action for failure to furnish cars cannot be asserted against an interstate rail carrier on the facts of this case.
The same reasoning applies to respondent’s other asserted causes of action, because they, too, are essentially attempts to litigate the issues underlying petitioner’s abandonment of the Kalo-Fort Dodge line. The questions respondent seeks to raise in the state court — whether roadbed maintenance was negligent or reasonable and whether petitioner abandoned its line with some tortious motive — are precisely the sorts of concerns that Congress intended the Commission to address in weighing abandonment requests from the carriers subject to its regulation. See Purcell v. United States, supra, at 385; Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 35, 42 (1931). That alone might be enough to prohibit respondent from raising them in a state court. Cf. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Clark Bros. Coal Mining Co., 238 U. S. 456, 469 (1915) (no damages action may be brought for car distribution practices until Commission has ruled them unlawful).
But we need not decide whether a state-court suit is barred when the Commission is empowered to rule on the underlying issues, because here the Commission has actually addressed the matters respondent wishes to raise in state court. The Commission’s order approving the abandonment application found that after the first two landslides, petitioner “made necessary repairs to enable continuation of service,” that further repairs after the 1967 slide would not have been “sufficient to insure continuous operations,” that the abandonment was not “willful,” that respondent has no right to “insist that a burdensome line be maintained solely for its own use,” and that “continued operation of the line would be an unnecessary burden on [petitioner] and on interstate commerce.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a-36a. These findings by the Commission, made pursuant to the authority delegated by Congress, simply leave no room for further litigation over the matters respondent seeks to raise in state court. Consequently, we hold that on the facts of this case, the Interstate Commerce Act. also pre-empts Iowa’s common-law causes of action for damages stemming from a carrier’s negligence and tort when the judgments of fact and of reasonableness necessary to the decision have already been made by the Commission.
Nothing in our decision in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Puritan Coal Mining Co., 237 U. S. 121 (1915), compels a contrary-result. But because both respondents and the Iowa Court of Appeals rely heavily on its language, we discuss the case in some detail. In Puritan, this Court was called upon for the first time to interpret what was then § 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act as it related to a carrier’s duty to furnish cars. That section, which survives without substantive change in the Act as recodified, provided that nothing in the Act “shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this act are in addition to such remedies.” Relying on this language, this Court held that a shipper could pursue its state common-law remedies for failure to provide cars when the carrier had previously agreed to provide them, as long as “there is no administrative question involved.” Id., at 131-132. Without this provision, the opinion explained, “it might have been claimed that, Congress having entered the field, the whole subject of liability of carrier to shippers in interstate commerce had been withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the state courts,” so § 22 was added to make plain that the Act “was not intended to deprive the state courts of their general and concurrent jurisdiction.” Id., at 130. The Iowa Court of Appeals relied on this broad-sounding language in concluding that respondent’s causes of action survived the enactment of and the various amendments to the Interstate Commerce Act. Respondent urges essentially the same point in this Court.
This analysis fails to take into account the fact that the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction over abandonments arises from the Transportation Act of 1920, and its authority over car service from the Esch Car Service Act, ch. 23, 40 Stat. 101. Our decision in Puritan preceded these amendments to the Interstate Commerce Act, so it can hardly be viewed as an authoritative construction of the Act as amended. And even assuming for the sake of argument the continuing validity of that opinion’s reasoning, it does not control the disposition of the instant case. The Court in Puritan expressly noted that the matters presented to the state courts for decision involved no questions of law or questions calling for an administrative judgment, and, in particular, no issue as to the reasonableness of the carrier’s policies. 237 U. S., at 131-132. Instead, the state court was called upon to decide only the factual question whether the railroad had carried out the duties that it had agreed to undertake. The Court’s opinion in Puritan recognized the importance of this distinction:
“[I]t must be borne in mind that there are two forms of discrimination, — one in the rule and the other in the manner of its enforcement; one in promulgating a discriminatory rule, the other in the unfair enforcement of a reasonable rule. In a suit where the rule of practice itself is attacked as unfair or discriminatory, a question is raised which calls for the exercise of the judgment and discretion of the administrative power which has been vested by Congress in the Commission.... Until that body has declared the practice to be discriminatory and unjust, no court has jurisdiction of a suit against an interstate carrier for damages occasioned by its enforcement....
“But if the carrier’s rule, fair on its face, has been unequally applied, and the suit is for damages, occasioned by its violation or discriminatory enforcement, there is no administrative question involved, the courts being called upon to decide a mere question of fact.” Ibid.
Here, we face the reverse of the situation that gave rise to the Puritan case. The questions presented to the state court in the instant litigation all involve evaluations of the reasonableness of petitioner’s abandonment of the branch line. These issues call for the type of administrative evaluations and conclusions that Congress has entrusted to the informed discretion of the Commission. See Midland Valley R. Co., v. Barkley, 276 U. S., at 484-486; Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U. S. 285, 291 (1922). Under the Puritan analysis, “no court has jurisdiction” of a suit such as respondent’s until the Commission “has declared the practice to be... unjust.” 237 U. S., at 131. And the Commission, in an exercise of its discretion, has done precisely the opposite; it has decided that the abandonment was proper. Respondent has chosen not to seek judicial review of the Commission’s judgment through the means provided by Congress. For all of these reasons, to the extent that the Puritan analysis has any application here, it supports petitioner’s and the Commission’s arguments that the Iowa courts lack jurisdiction to entertain respondent’s suit for damages arising from petitioner’s abandonment of the Kalo-Fort Dodge branch line.
Our decision today does not leave a shipper in respondent’s position without a remedy if it is truly harmed. On the contrary, an aggrieved shipper is still free to pursue the avenues for relief set forth in the statute. Respondent could have gone to the Commission and challenged petitioner’s refusal to provide service before any abandonment application was filed, but it did not. After petitioner filed its request for a certificate, respondent had the opportunity to present evidence to the Commission in support of its allegation, but failed to do so. Having lost its battle there, respondent could have followed the congressionally prescribed path by seeking review in the appropriate United States court of appeals. This, too, respondent failed to do. The Act creates no other express remedies for a shipper who is damaged by a carrier’s abandonment of a line. In particular, nothing in the Act suggests that Congress contemplated permitting a shipper to bring a civil damages action in state court. And such a right to sue, with its implied threat of sanctions for failure to comply with what the courts of each State consider reasonable policies, is plainly contrary to the purposes of the Act. We are thus not free to assume that it has been preserved.
IV
We hold that the Interstate Commerce Act precludes a shipper from pressing a state-court action for damages against a regulated carrier when the Interstate Commerce Commission, in approving the carrier’s application for abandonment, reaches the merits of the matters the shipper seeks to raise in state court. We reserve for another day the question whether such a cause of action lies when no application is made to the Commission. The judgment of the Iowa Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Respondent used petitioner’s branch line only for the shipment of bricks that were traveling in interstate commerce. All of the bricks that respondent shipped intrastate traveled by truck.
It is undisputed that at this time, petitioner had not made a decision whether to abandon the Kalo-Fort Dodge branch line. An abandonment “is characterized by an intention of the carrier to cease permanently or indefinitely all transportation service on the relevant line.” ICC v. Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co., 533 F. 2d 1025, 1028 (CA8 1976). See ICC v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 501 F. 2d 908, 911 (CA8 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 972 (1975). An embargo, by contrast, is a temporary emergency suspension of service initiated by filing of a notice with the Commission. ICC v. Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co., supra, at 1027, n. 2.
In particular, respondent “did not file a verified statement in opposition as required,” and was therefore “deemed to be in default and entitled to no further formal proceedings.” Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co. Abandonment, AB1, Sub. No. 24 (Jan. 11, 1976), App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a-35a..The reason for this default, according to respondent, was that it had gone out of business and therefore had no continuing interest in forcing petitioner to continue its service on the branch line.
See 28 U. S. C. §§ 2321 (a), 2342 (5), 2343, 2344.
Iowa Code §479.3 (1971) provides in relevant part:
“Every railway corporation shall upon reasonable notice, and within a reasonable time, furnish suitable cars to any and all persons who may apply therefor, for the transportation of any and all kinds of freight, and receive and transport such freight with all reasonable dispatch....” Iowa Code §479.122 (1971) provides:
“Every corporation operating a railway shall be liable for all damages sustained by any person, including employees of such corporation, in consequence of the neglect of the agents, or by any mismanagement of the engineers, or other employees thereof, and in consequence of the willful wrongs, whether of commission or omission, of such agents, engineers, or other employees, when such wrongs are in any manner connected with the use and operation of any railway on or about which they shall be employed, and no contract which restricts such liability shall be legal or binding.”
The conclusion that these statutes create a state-court damages action for failure to provide proper service is not a new one under Iowa law. See, e. g., Baird Bros. v. Minneapolis & St. L. B., 181 Iowa 1104, 165 N. W. 412 (1917).
After respondent filed its state-court action, petitioner sought to remove the case to federal court, but the federal court, finding that diversity of citizenship was lacking, remanded the case to state court. The Iowa Court of Appeals correctly held that this federal-court ruling had no relevance to its inquiry into whether the pre-emption doctrine barred the state courts from exercising their jurisdiction. 295 N. W. 2d 467, 468-469 (1979). See Brancadora v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn., 344 F. 2d 933, 935 (CA9 1965); Alaska v. K & L Distributors, Inc., 318 F. 2d 498, (CA9 1963).
The Iowa court also held the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, in the sense of initial deferral to the expertise of the Commission, had no application to this litigation. 295 N. W. 2d, at 471-472. Petitioner, as well as the United States and the Commission as amici curiae, argues that the primary-jurisdiction doctrine precludes respondent’s suit on the facts of this case, but we have no occasion to address that question. Although we agree with petitioner and amici that the Commission has special expertise in the matters respondent wishes to raise in state court, see infra, at 326-327, and n. 14, we do not rely on the primary-jurisdiction doctrine. As we have stated in interpreting another provision of the Interstate Commerce Act: “[T]he survival of a judicial remedy... cannot be determined on the presence or absence in the Commission of primary jurisdiction to decide the basic question on which relief depends. Survival depends on the effect of the exercise of the remedy upon the statutory scheme of regulation.” Hewitt-Robins Inc. v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc., 371 U. S. 84, 89 (1962). Even if the primary-jurisdiction doctrine were applicable here, it would at best require the state courts to postpone any action until the Commission had an opportunity to address the administrative questions raised in the civil damages action. But here, the Commission has actually ruled, and the state trial on liability and damages has not yet taken place. Consequently, the requirements of the doctrine have been complied with in spirit, even if not through any intent of respondent. We save for a later case a decision on the proper application of the primary-jurisdiction doctrine when the Commission has not yet ruled.
Under Pub. L. 95-473, 92 Stat. 1337, the Interstate Commerce Act and its various amendments have been completely recodified as Subtitle IV of Title 49 of the United States Code. In the main, this recodi-fication is without substantive change. In this opinion, we cite to the original Act for ease in referring to the decision below and to our precedents. Where appropriate, we also give parallel cites to the Act as recodified.
A carrier who files an application for a certificate permitting abandonment must make reasonable efforts to give notice to all shippers who have used the line in the past 12 months. 49 U. S. C. § 10904 (a) (3) (D) (1976 ed., Supp. III). See In re Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 611 F. 2d 662, 668 (CA7 1979).
Section 1 (20), which was, like § 1 (18), added by the Transportation Act of
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner brought a wrongful death action against respondent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. The jury returned a verdict for petitioner in the amount of $25,000, and the trial court denied respondent’s motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury and remanded the case to the District Court "with directions to enter a judgment for the defendant unless plaintiff . . . makes a satisfactory showing that on another trial evidence of sufficient probative force to justify submission of the cause to the jury will be offered, in which event the judgment shall be for a new trial.” 262 F. 2d 754, 761. The court also held that there were prejudicial errors in the conduct of the trial which would have required a new trial even if there had been sufficient evidence. 262 F. 2d, at 758-759. At that stage in the litigation, this Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. 359 U. S. 983.
Petitioner then submitted to the District Court additional evidence in support of a motion for a new trial. The district judge, regarding himself bound by the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient, denied the motion on the ground that the additional “evidence, while persuasive, would be inadmissible in a new trial under the hearsay rule.” The Court of Appeals sitting en banc, over the dissent of four judges, affirmed the denial of a new trial. 316 F. 2d 635. Petitioner then sought, and we granted, a writ of certiorari. 375 U. S. 920.
We now “consider all of the substantial federal questions determined in the earlier stages of the litigation . . . ,” Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85, 87, for it is settled that we may consider questions raised on the first appeal, as well as “those that were before the Court of Appeals upon the second appeal.” Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 U. S. 251, 257. Cf. Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163, 171-173; Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 436, 444.
We consider first the alleged errors in the conduct of the trial. The Court of Appeals deemed the trial court’s instruction regarding circumstantial evidence to be “highly prejudicial error” because it included a statement that “[tjhe testimony of all of the witnesses for the plaintiff has made out what we call in law a circumstantial case . . . .” 262 F. 2d, at 758. But as soon as this was called to the court’s attention, the following instruction was given:
“What I meant to say was that the witnesses for the Plaintiff . . . have sought to make out . . . through their evidence a circumstantial case. The question as to whether or not the case of the Plaintiff has been proved is for the Jury to determine.”
There was no objection to this re-instruction. We conclude that it properly stated the law and that it would have remedied any erroneous impression the jury may have received from the first instruction. The Court of Appeals also held that the trial judge committed a “grievous” error by permitting the introduction of certain hearsay evidence. Id., at 757. Counsel for the respondent did not object to this evidence but in fact elicited the same evidence in his examination of the witness. On this record, the admission of the evidence cannot be deemed a deprivation of “substantial justice.” Rule 61, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the inflammatory nature of the opening statement of petitioner’s counsel required a new trial. Counsel told the jury that he would establish that respondent “was a hit-and-run driver,” with “a complete disregard for . . . life.” Id., at 758. In the context of this case, however, those remarks do not seem significantly outside the bounds of permissible advocacy. If respondent knowingly struck the deceased, then he was a hit-and-run driver with little regard for human life, for it was undisputed that the driver of the automobile that hit the decedent did not stop to render aid or to report the accident.
Our examination of the trial record reveals not only that there were no errors affecting substantial justice, but also that the trial judge conducted the trial with scrupulous regard for the litigants’ rights.
We must consider next the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial. Our examination of the record indicates that the jury could reasonably have found the following facts: Decedent’s body was discovered on an island on the right side of a black top road; the body was two or three feet off the edge of the road; near the body tire marks ran off the road for some distance; death resulted from a violent blow; the time of death was fixed at about 7:30 p. m. ; the road was the only highway leading from the island to the respondent’s home; the respondent had spent that afternoon at a bar on the island and had consumed between 8 and 10 drinks of whiskey; he left the bar at about 7:30 p. m. and drove toward his home on the road on which decedent was killed; at the time of decedent’s death, few people were traveling that highway; on the day following the accident respondent’s automobile was without a right headlight rim and bore marks of a recent blow to the right headlight and to the right front of the hood; some blue coloring which “had an appearance that it could have been done by clothing ...” was on the hood; the decedent was wearing blue coveralls when he was struck; a towel with red stains which appeared to be blood was found concealed between the driver’s seat and seat cover; particles which looked like hair were found underneath the right side of the car; and the automobile was covered with a white substance which appeared to be a film of soap left after a washing.
We believe that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that this evidence was insufficient to support the jury-verdict. The evidence was sufficient under any standard which might be appropriate — state or federal. See Dick v. New York Life Ins. Co., 359 U. S. 437, 444-445. The jury’s verdict, therefore, should not have been disturbed. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.
It is so ordered.
Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary for us to consider the correctness of the trial court’s disposition of the motion for a new trial.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We have held today that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination must be deemed fully applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. Hogan, ante, p. 1. This case presents a related issue: whether one jurisdiction within our federal structure may compel a witness, whom it has immunized from prosecution under its laws, to give testimony which might then be used to convict him of a crime against another such jurisdiction.
Petitioners were subpoenaed to testify at a hearing conducted by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor concerning a work stoppage at the Hoboken, New Jersey, piers. After refusing to respond to certain questions about the stoppage on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate them, petitioners were granted immunity from prosecution under the laws of New Jersey and New York. Notwithstanding this grant of immunity, they still refused to respond to the questions on the ground that the answers might tend to incriminate them under federal law, to which the grant of immunity did not purport to extend. Petitioners were thereupon held in civil and criminal contempt of court. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the criminal contempt conviction on procedural grounds but, relying on this Court’s decisions in Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U. S. 371; Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487; and United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, affirmed the civil contempt judgments on the merits. The court held that a State may constitutionally compel a witness to give testimony which might be used in a federal prosecution against him. 39 N. J. 436, 452-458, 189 A. 2d 36, 46-49.
Since a grant of immunity is valid only if it is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, we must now decide the fundamental constitutional question of whether, absent an immunity provision, one jurisdiction in our federal structure may compel a witness to give testimony which might incriminate him under the laws of another jurisdiction. The answer to this question must depend, of course, on whether such an application of the privilege promotes or defeats its policies and purposes.
I. The Policies op the Privilege.
The privilege against self-incrimination “registers an important advance in the development of our liberty- — • ‘one of the great landmarks in man’s struggle to make himself civilized.’ ” Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422, 426. It 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 accusatorial 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,” 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton rev., 1961), 317; 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,” United States v. Grunewald, 233 F. 2d 556, 581-582 (Frank, J., dissenting), rev’d 353 U. S. 391; 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.” Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 162.
Most, if not all, of these policies and purposes are defeated when a witness “can be whipsawed into incriminating himself under both state and federal law even though” the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable to each. Cf. Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U. S. 371, 385 (dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Black). This has become especially true in our age of “cooperative federalism,” where the Federal and State Governments are waging a united front against many types of criminal activity.
Respondent contends, however, that we should adhere to the “established rule” that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not protect a witness in one jurisdiction against being compelled to give testimony which could be used to convict him in another jurisdiction. This “rule” has three decisional facets: United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, held that the Federal Government could compel a witness to give testimony which might incriminate him under state law; Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U. S. 371, held that a State could compel a witness to give testimony which might incriminate him under federal law; and Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487, held that testimony thus compelled by a State could be introduced into evidence in the federal courts.
Our decision today in Malloy v. Hogan, supra, necessitates a reconsideration of this rule. Our review of the pertinent cases in this Court and of their English antecedents reveals that Murdock did not adequately consider the relevant authorities and has been significantly weakened by subsequent decisions of this Court, and, further, that the legal premises underlying Feldman and Knapp have since been rejected.
II. The Early English and American Cases.
A. The English Cases Before the Adoption of the Constitution.
In 1749 the Court of Exchequer decided East India Co. v. Campbell, 1 Ves. sen. 246, 27 Eng. Rep. 1010. The defendant in that case refused to “discover” certain information in a proceeding in an English court on the ground that it might subject him to punishment in the courts of India. The court unanimously held that the privilege against self-incrimination protected a witness in an English court from being compelled to give testimony which could be used to convict him in the courts of another jurisdiction. The court stated the rule to be:
“that this court shall not oblige one to discover that, which, if he answers in the affirmative, will subject him to the punishment of a crime... and that he is punishable appears from the case of Omichund v. Barker, [1 Atk. 21.] as a jurisdiction is erected in Calcutta for criminal facts: where he may be sent to government and tried, though not punishable here; like the case of one who was concerned in a rape in Ireland, and sent over there by the government to be tried, although the court of B. R. here refused to do it... for the government may send persons to answer for a crime wherever committed, that he may not involve his country; and to prevent reprisals.” 1 Yes. sen., at 247, 27 Eng. Rep., at 1011.
In the following year, this rule was applied in a case involving separate systems of courts and law located within the same geographic area. The defendant in Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Ves. sen. 243,28 Eng. Rep. 157, refused to “discover, whether she was lawfully married” to a certain individual, on the ground that if she admitted to the marriage she would be confessing to an act which, although legal under the common law, would render her “liable to prosecution in ecclesiastical court.” The Lord Chancellor said:
“This appears a very plain case, in which defendant may protect herself from making a discovery of her marriage; and I am afraid, if the court should over-rule such a plea, it would be setting up the oath ex officio; which then the parliament in the time of Charles I. would in vain have taken away, if the party might come into this court for it. The general rule is, that no one is bound to answer so as to subject himself to punishment, whether that punishment arises by the ecclesiastical law of the land.” 2 Ves. sen., at 24A-245, 28 Eng. Rep., at 158.
B. The Saline Bank Case.
It was against this background of English case law that this Court in 1828 decided United States v. Saline Bank of Virginia, 1 Pet. 100. The Government, seeking to recover certain bank deposits, brought suit in the District Court against the bank and a number of its stockholders. The defendants resisted discovery of “any matters, whereby they may impeach or accuse themselves of any offence or crime, or be liable by the laws of the commonwealth of Virginia, to penalties and grievous fines....” Id., at 102. The unanimous opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, reads as follows:
“This is a bill in equity for a discovery and relief. The defendants set up a plea in bar, alleging that the discovery would subject them to penalties under the statute of Virginia.
“The Court below decided in favour of the validity of the plea, and dismissed the bill.
“It is apparent that in every step of the suit, the facts required to be discovered in support of this suit would expose the parties to danger. The rule clearly is, that a party is not bound to make any discovery which would expose him to penalties, and this case falls within it.
“The decree of the Court below is therefore affirmed.” Id., at 104.
This case squarely holds that the privilege against self-incrimination protects a witness in a federal court from being compelled to give testimony which could be used against him in a state court.
C. Subsequent Development of the English Rule.
In 1851, the English Court of Chancery decided King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 301, 61 Eng. Rep. 116, a case which this Court in United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, erroneously cited as representing the settled “English rule” that a witness is not protected “against disclosing offenses in violation of the laws of another country.” Id., at 149. Defendants in that case resisted discovery of information, which, they asserted, might subject them to prosecution under the laws of Sicily. In denying their claim, the Vice Chancellor said:
“The rule relied on by the Defendants, is one which exists merely by virtue of our own municipal law, and must, I think, have reference, exclusively, to matters penal by that law: to matters as to which, if disclosed, the Judge would be able to say, as matter of law, whether it could or could not entail penal consequences.” 1 Sim. (N. S.), at 329, 61 Eng. Rep., at 128.
Two reasons were given in support of this statement: (1) “The impossibility of knowing, as matter of law, to what cases the objection, when resting on the danger of incurring penal consequences in a foreign country, may extend...,” id., at 331, 61 Eng. Rep., at 128; and (2) the fact that “in such a case, in order to make the disclosure dangerous to the party who objects, it is essential that he should first quit the protection of our laws, and wilfully go within the jurisdiction of the laws he has violated,” ibid., 61 Eng. Rep., at 128.
Within a few years, the pertinent part of King of the Two Sicilies, was specifically overruled by the Court of Chancery Appeal in United States of America v. McRae, L. R., 3 Ch. App. 79 (1867), a case not mentioned by this Court in United States v. Murdock, supra. In McRae, the United States sued in an English court for an accounting and payment of moneys allegedly received by the defendant as agent for the Confederate States during the Civil War. The defendant refused to answer questions on the ground that to do so would subject him to penalties under the laws of the United States. The United States argued that the “protection from answering applies only where a person might expose himself to the peril of a penal proceeding in this country [England], and not to the case where the liability to penalty or forfeiture is incurred by the breach of the laws of a foreign country [the United States].” L. R., 3 Ch. App., at 83-84. The United States relied on King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, supra. The Lord Chancellor sustained the claim of privilege and limited King of the Two Sicilies to its facts. He said:
“I quite agree in the general principles stated by Lord Cranworth, and in their application to the particular case before him.... [The defendants there] did not furnish the least information what the foreign law was upon the subject, though it was necessary for the Judge to know this with certainty before he could say whether the acts done by the persons who objected to answer had rendered them amenable to punishment by that law or not.... [Moreover,] it was doubtful whether the Defendants would ever be within the reach of a prosecution, and their being so depended on their voluntary return to [Sicily].” L. R., 3 Ch. App., at 84-87.
In refusing to follow King of the Two Sicilies beyond its particular facts, the court said:
“But in giving judgment Lord Cranworth went beyond the particular case, and expressed his opinion that the rule upon which the Defendants relied to protect them from answering was one which existed merely by virtue of our own municipal law, and which must have reference exclusively to matters penal by that law. It was unnecessary to lay down so broad a proposition to support the judgment which he pronounced.... What would have been Lord Cranworth’s opinion upon [the present] state of circumstances it is impossible for me to conjecture; but it is very different from that which was before his mind in that case, and I cannot feel that there is any judgment of his which ought to influence my decision upon the present occasion.” Id., at 85.
The court then concluded that under the circumstances it could not “distinguish the case in principle from one where a witness is protected from answering any question which has a tendency to expose him to forfeiture for a breach of our own municipal law.” Id., at 87. This decision, not King of the Two Sicilies, represents the settled “English rule” regarding self-incrimination under foreign law. See Heriz v. Riera, 11 Sim. 318, 59 Eng. Rep. 896.
III. The Recent Supreme Court Cases.
In 1896, in Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, this Court, for the first time, sustained the constitutionality of a federal immunity statute. Appellant in that case argued, inter alia, that:
“while the witness is granted immunity from prosecution by the Federal government, he does not obtain such immunity against prosecution in the state courts.” Id., at 606.
The Court construed the applicable statute, however, to prevent prosecutions either in state or federal courts.
Shortly thereafter, the Court decided Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372, in which the state court had held plaintiff in error in contempt for his refusal to answer certain questions on the ground that they would subject him to possible incrimination under federal law. In rejecting plaintiff’s claim, this Court said that the Fifth Amendment “has no application in a proceeding like this,” and hence “the sole question in the case” is whether “the denial of his claim of right to refuse to answer the questions was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution Id., at 380. The Court stated that it did “not believe that in such case there is any real danger of a Federal prosecution, or that such evidence would be availed of by the Government for such purpose.” Id., at 382. Then, without citing any authority, the Court added the following cryptic dictum: “We think the legal immunity is in regard to a prosecution in the same jurisdiction, and when that is fully given it is enough.” Ibid.
That this dictum related solely to the “legal immunity” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is apparent from the fact that it was regarded, five weeks later in Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186, as wholly inapplicable to cases decided under the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Ballmann had been held in contempt of a federal court for refusing to answer certain questions before a federal grand jury. He claimed that his answers might expose him “to the criminal law of the State in which the grand jury was sitting.” Id., at 195. Justice Holmes, writing for a Court which included the author of Jack v. Kansas, supra, squarely held that “[ajccording to United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Peters, 100, he was exonerated from disclosures which would have exposed him to the penalties of the state law. See Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372, decided this term.” 200 U. S., at 195.
A few months after Ballmann, the Court decided Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43. Appellant had been held in contempt of a federal court for refusing to answer certain questions and produce certain documents. His refusal was based in part on the argument that the federal immunity statute did not protect him from state prosecution. The Government argued, on the authority of Brown v. Walker, supra, that the statute did protect him from state prosecution. The Government assumed that it was settled that a valid federal immunity statute would have to protect against state prosecution. It never suggested, therefore, that immunity from federal prosecution was all that was required. Appellant similarly assumed, without argument, that the Constitution required immunity from state conviction as a condition of requiring incriminating testimony in a federal court. Thus the critical constitutional issue — whether the Fifth Amendment protects a federal witness from incriminating himself under state law — was not briefed or argued in Hale v. Henkel. Nor was its resolution necessary to the decision of the case, for the Court could have decided the relevant point on the authority of Brown v. Walker, supra, which had held that a similar federal immunity statute protected against state prosecution. Nevertheless, the Court went on to say:
“The question has been fully considered in England, and the conclusion reached by the courts of that country that the only danger to be considered is one arising within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty. Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311; King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, 7 State Trials (N. S.), 1049, 1068; State v. March, 1 Jones (N. Car.), 526; State v. Thomas, 98 N. Car. 599.
“The case of United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100, is not in conflict with this. That was a bill for discovery, filed by the United States against the cashier of the Saline Bank, in the District Court of the Virginia District, who pleaded that the emission of certain unlawful bills took place, within the State of Virginia, by the law whereof penalties were inflicted for such emissions. It was held that defendants were not bound to answer and subject themselves to those penalties. It is sufficient to say that the prosecution was under a state law which imposed the penalty, and that the Federal court was simply administering the state law, and no question arose as to a prosecution under another jurisdiction.” 201 U. S., at 69.
This dictum, subsequently relied on in United States v. Murdock, supra, was not well founded.
The settled English rule was exactly the opposite of that stated by the Court. The most recent authoritative announcement of the English rule had been that made in 1867 in United States of America v. McRae, supra, where the Court of Chancery Appeals held that where there is a real danger of prosecution in a foreign country, the case could not be distinguished “in principle from one where a witness is protected from answering any question which has a tendency to expose him to forfeiture for a breach of our own municipal law.” Supra, at 63. The dictum from King of the Two Sicilies cited by the Court in Hale v. Henkel had been rejected in McRae. Moreover, the two factors relied on by the English court in King of the Two Sicilies were wholly inapplicable to federal-state problems in this country. The first — “The impossibility of knowing, as matter of law, to what cases the [danger of incrimination] may extend...,” supra, at 60 — has no force in our country where the federal and state courts take judicial notice of each other’s law. The second — that “in order to make the disclosure dangerous to the party who objects, it is essential that he should first quit the protection of our laws, and wilfully go within the jurisdiction of the laws he has violated,” supra, at 60-61 — is equally inapplicable in our country where the witness is generally within “the jurisdiction” of the State under whose law he claims danger of incrimination, and where, if he is not, the State may demand his extradition. The second case relied on in Hale v. Henkel, supra — The Queen v. Boyes, supra — was irrelevant to the issue there presented. The Queen v. Boyes did not involve different jurisdictions or systems of law. It merely held that the danger of prosecution “must be real and appreciable... not a danger of an imaginary and unsubstantial character....” It in no way suggested that the danger of prosecution under foreign law could be ignored if it was “real and appreciable.”
Thus, the authorities relied on by the Court in Hale v. Henkel provided no support for the conclusion that under the Fifth Amendment “the only danger to be considered is one arising within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty.” Nor was its attempt to distinguish Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in United States v. Saline Bank of Virginia, supra, more successful. The Court’s reading of Saline Bank suggests that the state, rather than the federal, privilege against self-incrimination applies to federal courts when they are administering state substantive law. The most reasonable reading of that case, however, and the one which was plainly accepted by Justice Holmes in Ballmann v. Fagin, supra, is that the privilege against self-incrimination precludes a federal court from requiring an answer to a question which might incriminate the witness under state law. This reading is especially compelling in light of the English antecedents of the Saline Bank case. See East India Co. v. Campbell, discussed, supra, at 58; and Brownsword v. Edwards, discussed, supra, at 58-59.
The weakness of the Hale v. Henkel dictum was immediately recognized both by lower federal courts and by this Court itself. In Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, decided in 1927 by a unanimous Court, appellant refused to answer certain questions put to him in a deportation proceeding on the ground that they “might have tended to incriminate him under the Illinois Syndicalism Law... Id., at 112. Instead of deciding the issue on the authority of the Hale v. Henkel dictum, the Court held that the privilege had been waived. The Court then said:
“This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the extent to which the Fifth Amendment guarantees immunity from self-incrimination under state statutes or whether this case is to be controlled by Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 691, 608; compare United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100; Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186, 195.” 273 U. S., at 113.
In a subsequent case, decided in 1933, this Court said that the question — whether “one under examination in a federal tribunal could not refuse to answer on account of probable incrimination under state law” — was “specifically reserved in Vajtauer v. Comm’r of Immigration,” and was not “definitely settled” until 1931. United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389, 396.
In 1931, the Court decided United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, the case principally relied on by respondent here. Appellee had been indicted for failing to supply certain information to federal revenue agents. He claimed that his refusal had been justified because it rested on the fear of federal and state incrimination. The Government argued that the record supported only a claim of state, not federal, incrimination, and that the Fifth Amendment does not protect against a claim of state incrimination. Appellee did not respond to the latter argument, but instead rested his entire case on the claim that his refusals had in each instance been based on federal as well as state incrimination. In support of its constitutional argument, the Government cited the same two English cases erroneously relied on in the Hale v. Henkel dictum — King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, supra, which had been overruled, and The Queen v. Boyes, supra, which was wholly inapposite. An examination of the briefs and summary of argument indicates that neither the Government nor the appellee informed the Court that King of the Two Sicilies had been overruled by United States of America v. McRae, supra.
This Court decided that appellee’s refusal to answer rested solely on a fear of state prosecution, and then concluded, in one brief paragraph, that such a fear did not justify a refusal to answer questions put by federal officers.
The Court gave three reasons for this conclusion. The first was that:
“Investigations for federal purposes may not be prevented by matters depending upon state law. Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.” 284 U. S., at 149.
This argument, however, begs the critical question. No one would suggest that state law could prevent a proper federal investigation; the Court had already held that the Federal Government could, under the Supremacy Clause, grant immunity from state prosecution, and that, accordingly, state law could not prevent a proper federal investigation. The critical issue was whether the Federal Government, without granting immunity from state prosecution, could compel testimony which would incriminate under state law. The Court’s first “reason” was not responsive to this issue.
The second reason given by the Court was that:
“The English rule of evidence against compulsory self-incrimination, on which historically that contained in the Fifth Amendment rests, does not protect witnesses against disclosing offenses in violation of the laws of another country. King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, 7 State Trials (N. S.) 1050, 1068. Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311, 330.” 284 U. S., at 149.
As has been demonstrated, the cases cited were in one instance overruled and in the other inapposite, and the English rule was the opposite from that stated in this Court's opinion: The rule did “protect witnesses against disclosing offenses in violation of the laws of another country.” United States of America v. McRae, supra.
The third reason given by the Court in Murdock was that:
“This court has held that immunity against state prosecution is not essential to the validity of federal statutes declaring that a witness shall not be excused from giving evidence on the ground that it will incriminate him, and also that the lack of state power to give witnesses protection against federal prosecution does not defeat a state immunity statute. The principle established is that full and complete immunity against prosecution by the government compelling the witness to answer is equivalent to the protection furnished by the rule against compulsory self-incrimination. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547. Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 606. Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372, 381. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 68.” 284 U. S., at 149.
This argument — that the rule in question had already been “established” by the past decisions of the Court — is not accurate. The first case cited by the Court — Coun-selman v. Hitchcock — said nothing about the problem of incrimination under the law of another sovereign. The second case — Brown v. Walker — merely held that the federal immunity statute there involved did protect against state prosecution. The third case — Jack v. Kansas — held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent a State from compelling an answer to a question which presented no “real danger of a Federal prosecution.” 199 U. S., at 382. The final case — Hale v. Henkel — contained dictum in support of the rule announced which was without real authority and which had been questioned by a unanimous Court in Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, supra. Moreover, the Court subsequently said, in no uncertain terms, that the rule announced in Murdock had not been previously “established” by the decisions of the Court. When Murdock appealed his subsequent conviction on the ground, inter alia, that an instruction on willfulness should have been given, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of his conviction and said that:
“Not until this court pronounced judgment in United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, had it been definitely settled that one under examination in a federal tribunal could not refuse to answer on account of probable incrimination under state law. The question was involved, but not decided, in Ball-mann v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186, 195, and specifically reserved in Vajtauer v. Comm’r of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103, 113.” United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389, 396.
Thus, neither the reasoning nor the authority relied on by the Court in United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, supports its conclusion that the Fifth Amendment permits the Federal Government to compel answers to questions which might incriminate under state law.
In 1944 the Court, in Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487, was confronted with the situation where evidence compelled by a State under a grant of state immunity was “availed of by the [Federal] Government” and introduced in a federal prosecution. Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S., at 382. This was the situation which the Court had earlier said it did “not believe” would occur. Ibid. Nevertheless, the Court, in a 4-to~3 decision, upheld this practice, but did so on the authority of a principle which is no longer accepted by this Court. The Feldman reasoning was essentially as follows:
“[T]he Fourth and Fifth Amendments, intertwined as they are, [express] supplementing phases of the same constitutional purpose....” 322 U. S. 489-490.
“[O]ne of the settled principles of our Constitution has been that these Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the [Federal] Government whose conduct they alone limit.” Id., at 490.
“And so, while evidence secured through unreasonable search and seizure by federal officials is inadmissible in a federal prosecution, Weeks v. United States, supra;... incriminating documents so secured by state officials without participation by federal officials but turned over for their use are admissible in a federal prosecution. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465.” 322 U. S., at 492.
The Court concluded, therefore, by analogy to the then extant search and seizure rule, that evidence compelled by a state grant of immunity could be used by the Federal Government. But the legal foundation upon which that 4-to-3 decision rested no longer stands. Evidence illegally seized by state officials may not now be received in federal courts. In Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, the Court held, over the dissent of the writer of the Feldman decision, that “evidence obtained by state officers 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 is inadmissible over the defendant’s timely objection in a federal criminal trial.” 364 U. S., at 223. Thus, since the fundamental assumption underlying Feldman is no longer valid, the constitutional question there decided must now be regarded as an open one.
The relevant cases decided by this Court since Feldman fall into two categories. Those involving a federal immunity statute — exemplified by Adams v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 179 — in which the Court suggested that the Fifth Amendment bars use by the States of evidence obtained by the Federal Government under the threat of contempt. And those involving a state immunity statute — exemplified by Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U. S. 371 — where the Court, applying a rule today rejected, held the Fifth Amendment inapplicable to the States.
In Adams v. Maryland, supra, petitioner had testified before a United States Senate Committee investigating crime, and his testimony had later been used to convict him of a state crime. A federal statute at that time provided that no testimony given by a witness in congressional inquiries “shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court....” 62 Stat. 833. The State questioned the application of the statute to petitioner’s testimony and the constitutionality of the statute if construed to apply to state courts. The Court, in an opinion joined by seven members, made the following significant statement: “a witness does not need any statute to protect him from the use of self-incriminating testimony he is compelled to give over his objection. The Fifth Amendment takes care of that without a statute.” 347 U. S., at 181. This statement suggests that any testimony elicited under threat of contempt by a government to whom the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable (at the time of that decision it was deemed applicable only to the Federal Government) may not constitutionally be admitted into evidence against him in any criminal trial conducted by a government to whom the privilege is also applicable. This statement, read in light of today’s decision in Malloy v. Hogan, ante, at 1, draws into question the continuing authority of the statements to the contrary in United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141, and Feldman v. United States, supra.
Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U. S. 371, involved a state contempt conviction for a witness’ refusal to answer questions, under a grant of state immunity, on the ground that his answers might subject him to prosecution under federal law. Petitioner claimed that “the Fifth Amendment gives him the privilege, which he can assert against either a State or the National Government, against giving testimony that might tend to implicate him in a violation” of federal law. Id., at 374. The Court, applying the rule then in existence, denied petitioner’s claim and declared that:
“It is plain that the [Fifth Amendment] can no more be thought of as restricting action by the States than as restricting the conduct of private citizens. The sole — although deeply valuable — purpose of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is the security of the individual against the exertion of the power of the Federal Government to compel incriminating testimony with a view to enabling that same Government to convict a man out of his own mouth.” Id., at 380.
The Court has today rejected that rule, and with it, all the earlier cases resting on
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we decide whether the temporary detention of a motorist who the police have probable cause to believe has committed a civil traffic violation is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures unless a reasonable officer would have been motivated to stop the car by a desire to enforce the traffic laws.
I
On the evening of June 10, 1993, plainclothes vice-squad officers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department were patrolling a “high drug area” of the city in an unmarked car. Their suspicions were aroused when they passed a dark Pathfinder truck with temporary license plates and youthful occupants waiting at a stop sign, the driver looking down into the lap of the passenger at his right. The truck remained stopped at the intersection for what seemed an unusually long time — more than 20 seconds. When the police car executed a U-turn in order to head back toward the truck, the Pathfinder turned suddenly to its right, without signaling, and sped off at an “unreasonable” speed. The policemen followed, and in a short while overtook the Pathfinder when it stopped behind other traffic at a red light. They pulled up alongside, and Officer Ephraim Soto stepped out and approached the driver’s door, identifying himself as a police officer and directing the driver, petitioner Brown, to put the vehicle in park. When Soto drew up to the driver’s window, he immediately observed two large plastic bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine in petitioner Whren’s hands. Petitioners were arrested, and quantities of several types of illegal drugs were retrieved from the vehicle.
Petitioners were charged in a four-count indictment with violating various federal drug laws, including 21 U. S. C. §§ 844(a) and 860(a). At a pretrial suppression hearing, they challenged the legality of the stop and the resulting seizure of the drugs. They argued that the stop had not been justified by probable cause to believe, or even reasonable suspicion, that petitioners were engaged in illegal drug-dealing activity; and that Officer Soto’s asserted ground for approaching the vehicle—to give the driver a warning concerning traffic violations—was pretextual. The District Court denied the suppression motion, concluding that “the facts of the stop were not controverted,” and “[t]here was nothing to really demonstrate that the actions of the officers were contrary to a normal traffic stop.” App. 5.
Petitioners were convicted of the counts at issue here. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding with respect to the suppression issue that, “regardless of whether a police officer subjectively believes that the occupants of an automobile may be engaging in some other illegal behavior, a traffic stop is permissible as long as a reasonable officer in the same circumstances could have stopped the car for the suspected traffic violation.” 53 F. 3d 371, 374-375 (CADC 1995). We granted certiorari. 516 U. S. 1036 (1996).
II
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a “seizure” of “persons” within the meaning of this provision. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975). An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be “unreasonable” under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam).
Petitioners accept that Officer Soto had probable cause to believe that various provisions of the District of Columbia traffic code had been violated. See 18 D. C. Mun. Regs. §§2213.4 (1995) (“An operator shall . . . give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle”); 2204.3 (“No person shall turn any vehicle ... without giving an appropriate signal”); 2200.3 (“No person shall drive a vehicle ... at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions”). They argue, however, that “in the unique context of civil traffic regulations” probable cause is not enough. Since, they contend, the use of automobiles is so heavily and minutely regulated that total compliance with traffic and safety rules is nearly impossible, a police officer will almost invariably be able to catch any given motorist in a technical violation. This creates the temptation to use traffic stops as a means of investigating other law violations, as to which no probable cause or even articulable suspicion exists. Petitioners, who are both black, further contend that police officers might decide which motorists to stop based on decidedly impermissible factors, such as the race of the car’s occupants. To avoid this danger, they say, the Fourth Amendment test for traffic stops should be, not the normal one (applied by the Court of Appeals) of whether probable cause existed to justify the stop; but rather, whether a police officer, acting reasonably, would have made the stop for the reason given.
A
Petitioners contend that the standard they propose is consistent with our past cases’ disapproval of police attempts to use valid bases of action against citizens as pretexts for pursuing other investigatory agendas. We are reminded that in Florida v. Wells, 495 U. S. 1, 4 (1990), we stated that “an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence”; that in Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U. S. 367, 372 (1987), in approving an inventory search, we apparently thought it significant that there had been “no showing that the police, who were following standardized procedures, acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation”; and that in New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 716-717, n. 27 (1987), we observed, in upholding the constitutionality of a warrantless administrative inspection, that the search did not appear to be “a 'pretext’ for obtaining evidence of . . . violation of . . . penal laws.” But only an undiscerning reader would regard these cases as endorsing the principle that ulterior motives can invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred. In each case we were addressing the validity of a search conducted in the absence of probable cause. Our quoted statements simply explain that the exemption from the need for probable cause (and warrant), which is accorded to searches made for the purpose of inventory or administrative regulation, is not accorded to searches that are not made for those purposes. See Bertine, supra, at 371-372; Burger, supra, at 702-703.
Petitioners also rely upon Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U. S. 1 (1980) (per curiam), a case which, like this one, involved a traffic stop as the prelude to a plain-view sighting and arrest on charges wholly unrelated to the basis for the stop. Petitioners point to our statement that “[tjhere was no evidence whatsoever that the officer’s presence to issue a traffic citation was a pretext to confirm any other previous suspicion about the occupants” of the car. Id., at 4, n. 4. That dictum at most demonstrates that the Court in Bannister found no need to inquire into the question now under discussion; not that it was certain of the answer. And it may demonstrate even less than that: If by “pretext” the Court meant that the officer really had not seen the car speeding, the statement would mean only that there was no reason to doubt probable cause for the traffic stop.
It would, moreover, be anomalous, to say the least, to treat a statement in a footnote in the per curiam Bannister opinion as indicating a reversal of our prior law. Petitioners’ difficulty is not simply a lack of affirmative support for their position. Not only have we never held, outside the context of inventory search or administrative inspection (discussed above), that an officer’s motive invalidates objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment; but we have repeatedly held and asserted the contrary. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U. S. 579, 584, n. 3 (1983), we held that an otherwise valid warrantless boarding of a vessel by customs officials was not rendered invalid “because the customs officers were accompanied by a Louisiana state policeman, and were following an informant’s tip that a vessel in the ship channel was thought to be carrying marihuana.” We flatly dismissed the idea that an ulterior motive might serve to strip the agents of their legal justification. In United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), we held that a traffic-violation arrest (of the sort here) would not be rendered invalid by the fact that it was “a mere pretext for a narcotics search,” id., at 221, n. 1; and that a lawful post-arrest search of the person would not be rendered invalid by the fact that it was not motivated by the officer-safety concern that justifies such searches, see id., at 236. See also Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U. S. 260, 266 (1973). And in Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 138 (1978), in rejecting the contention that wiretap evidence was subject to exclusion because the agents conducting the tap had failed to make any effort to comply with the statutory requirement that unauthorized acquisitions be minimized, we said that “[sjubjective intent alone ... does not make otherwise lawful conduct illegal or unconstitutional.” We described Robinson as having established that “the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.” 436 U. S., at 136, 138.
We think these cases foreclose any argument that the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops depends on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved. We of course agree with petitioners that the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.
B
Recognizing that we have been unwilling to entertain Fourth Amendment challenges based on the actual motivations of individual officers, petitioners disavow any intention to make the individual officer’s subjective good faith the touchstone of “reasonableness.” They insist that the standard they have put forward — whether the officer’s conduct deviated materially from usual police practices, so that a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would not have made the stop for the reasons given — is an “objective” one.
But although framed in empirical terms, this approach is plainly and indisputably driven by subjective considerations. Its whole purpose is to prevent the police from doing under the guise of enforcing the traffic code what they would like to do for different reasons. Petitioners’ proposed standard may not use the word-“pretext,” but it is designed to combat nothing other than the perceived “danger” of the pretextual stop, albeit only indirectly and over the run of cases. Instead of asking whether the individual officer had the proper state of mind, the petitioners would have us ask, in effect, whether (based on general police practices) it is plausible to believe that the officer had the proper state of mind.
Why one would frame a test designed to combat pretext in such fashion that the court cannot take into account actual and admitted pretext is a curiosity that can only be explained by the fact that our cases have foreclosed the more sensible option. If those cases were based only upon the evidentiary difficulty of establishing subjective intent, petitioners’ attempt to root out subjective vices through objective means might make sense. But they were not based only upon that, or indeed even principally upon that. Their principal basis — which applies equally to attempts to reach subjective intent through ostensibly objective means — is simply that the Fourth Amendment’s concern with “reasonableness” allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent. See, e. g., Robinson, supra, at 236 (“Since it is the fact of custodial arrest which gives rise to the authority to search, it is of no moment that [the officer] did not indicate any subjective fear of the [arrestee] or that he did not himself suspect that [the arrestee] was armed”) (footnotes omitted); Gustafson, supra, at 266 (same). But even if our concern had been only an evidentiary one, petitioners’ proposal would by no means assuage it. Indeed, it seems to us somewhat easier to figure out the intent of an individual officer than to plumb the collective consciousness of law enforcement in order to determine whether a “reasonable officer” would have been moved to act upon the traffic violation. While police manuals and standard procedures may sometimes provide objective assistance, ordinarily one would be reduced to speculating about the hypothetical reaction of a hypothetical constable — an exercise that might be called virtual subjectivity.
Moreover, police enforcement practices, even if they could be practicably assessed by a judge, vary from place to place and from time to time. We cannot accept that the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment are so variable, cf. Gustafson, supra, at 265; United States v. Caceres, 440 U. S. 741, 755-756 (1979), and can be made to turn upon such trivialities. The difficulty is illustrated by petitioners’ arguments in this case. Their claim that a reasonable officer would not have made this stop is based largely on District of Columbia police regulations which permit plainclothes officers in unmarked vehicles to enforce traffic laws “only in the case of a violation that is so grave as to pose an immediate threat to the safety of others.” Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D. C., General Order 303.1, pt. 1, Objectives and Policies (A)(2)(4) (Apr. 30, 1992), reprinted as Addendum to Brief for Petitioners. This basis of invalidation would not apply in jurisdictions that had a different practice. And it would not have applied even in the District of Columbia, if Officer Soto had been wearing a uniform or patrolling in a marked police cruiser.
Petitioners argue that our cases support insistence upon police adherence to standard practices as an objective means of rooting out pretext. They cite no holding to that effect, and dicta in only two cases. In Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217 (1960), the petitioner had been arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), on the basis of an administrative warrant that, he claimed, had been issued on pretextual grounds in order to enable the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search his room after his arrest. We regarded this as an allegation of “serious misconduct,” but rejected Abel’s claims on the ground that “[a] finding of bad faith is ... not open to us on th[e] record” in light of the findings below, including the finding that “ ‘the proceedings taken by the [INS] differed in no respect from what would have been done in the case of an individual concerning whom [there was no pending FBI investigation],’” id., at 226-227. But it is a long leap from the proposition that following regular procedures is some evidence of lack of pretext to the proposition that failure to follow regular procedures proves (or is an operational substitute for) pretext. Abel, moreover, did not involve the assertion that pretext could invalidate a search or seizure for which there was probable cause — and even what it said about pretext in other contexts is plainly inconsistent with the views we later stated in Robinson, Gustafson, Scott, and Villamonte-Marquez. In the other case claimed to contain supportive dicta, United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), in approving a search incident to an arrest for driving without a license, we noted that the arrest was “not a departure from established police department practice.” Id., at 221, n. 1. That was followed, however, by the statement that “[w]e leave for another day questions which would arise on facts different from these.” Ibid. This is not even a dictum that purports to provide an answer, but merely one that leaves the question open.
f — i hH t — 4
In what would appear to be an elaboration on the "reasonable officer” test, petitioners argue that the balancing inherent in any Fourth Amendment inquiry requires us to weigh the governmental and individual interests implicated in a traffic stop such as we have here. That balancing, petitioners claim, does not support investigation of minor traffic infractions by plainclothes police in unmarked vehicles; such investigation only minimally advances the government’s interest in traffic safety, and may indeed retard it by producing motorist confusion and alarm — a view said to be supported by the Metropolitan Police Department’s own regulations generally prohibiting this practice. And as for the Fourth Amendment interests of the individuals concerned, petitioners point out that our cases acknowledge that even ordinary traffic stops entail “a possibly unsettling show of authority”; that they at best "interfere with freedom of movement, are inconvenient, and consume time” and at worst “may create substantial anxiety,” Prouse, 440 U. S., at 657. That anxiety is likely to be even more pronounced when the stop is conducted by plainclothes officers in unmarked cars.
It is of course true that in principle every Fourth Amendment case, since it turns upon a “reasonableness” determination, involves a balancing of all relevant factors. With rare exceptions not applicable here, however, the result of that balancing is not in doubt where the search or seizure is based upon probable cause. That is why petitioners must rely upon cases like Prouse to provide examples of actual “balancing” analysis. There, the police action in question was a random traffic stop for the purpose of checking a motorist’s license and vehicle registration, a practice that — like the practices at issue in the inventory search and administrative inspection cases upon which petitioners rely in making their “pretext” claim — involves police intrusion without the probable cause that is its traditional justification. Our opinion in Prouse expressly distinguished the case from a stop based on precisely what is at issue here: “probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations.” Id., at 661. It noted approvingly that “[t]he foremost method of enforcing traffic and vehicle safety regulations ... is acting upon observed violations,” id., at 659, which afford the “‘quantum of individualized suspicion’ ” necessary to ensure that police discretion is sufficiently constrained, id., at 654-655 (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 560). What is true of Prouse is also true of other cases that engaged in detailed “balancing” to decide the constitutionality of automobile stops, such as Martinez-Fuerte, which upheld checkpoint stops, see 428 U. S., at 556-562, and Brignoni-Ponce, which disallowed so-called “roving patrol” stops, see 422 U. S., at 882-884: The detailed “balancing” analysis was necessary because they involved seizures without probable cause.
Where probable cause has existed, the only cases in which we have found it necessary actually to perform the “balancing” analysis involved searches or seizures conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to an individual’s privacy or even physical interests — such as, for example, seizure by means of deadly force, see Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985), unannounced entry into a home, see Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927 (1995), entry into a home without a warrant, see Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S. 740 (1984), or physical penetration of the body, see Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985). The making of a traffic stop out of uniform does not remotely qualify as such an extreme practice, and so is governed by the usual rule that probable cause to believe the law has been broken “outbalances” private interest in avoiding police contact.
Petitioners urge as an extraordinary factor in this case that the “multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations” is so large and so difficult to obey perfectly that virtually everyone is guilty of violation, permitting the police to single out almost whomever they wish for a stop. But we are aware of no principle that would allow us to decide at what point a code of law becomes so expansive and so commonly violated that infraction itself can no longer be the ordinary measure of the lawfulness of enforcement. And even if we could identify such exorbitant codes, we do not know by what standard (or what right) we would decide, as petitioners would have us do, which particular provisions are sufficiently important to merit enforcement.
For the run-of-the-mine case, which this surely is, we think there is no realistic alternative to the traditional common-law rule that probable cause justifies a search and seizure.
* * *
Here the District Court found that the officers had probable cause to believe that petitioners had violated the traffic code. That rendered the stop reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the evidence thereby discovered admissible, and the upholding of the convictions by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit correct. The judgment is
Affirmed.
1 An inventory search is the search of property lawfully seized and detained, in order to ensure that it is harmless, to secure valuable items (such as might be kept in a towed car), and to protect against false claims of loss or damage. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, 369 (1976).
An administrative inspection is the inspection of business premises conducted by authorities responsible for enforcing a pervasive regulatory scheme — for example, unannounced inspection of a mine for compliance with health and safety standards. See Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U. S. 594, 599-605 (1981).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This original action presents a dispute between the United States and the State of Alaska over the ownership of submerged lands along Alaska’s Arctic Coast. In 1979, with leave of the Court, 442 U. S. 937, the United States filed a bill of complaint setting out a dispute over the right to offer lands in the Beaufort Sea for mineral leasing. Alaska counterclaimed, seeking a decree quieting its title to coastal submerged lands within two federal reservations, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Range (now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). The Court appointed a Special Master. 444 U. S. 1065 (1980). Between 1980 and 1986, the Special Master oversaw extensive hearings and briefing. Before us now are the report of the Special Master and the exceptions of the parties. We overrule Alaska’s exceptions and sustain that of the United States.
I
Alaska and the United States dispute ownership of lands underlying tidal waters off Alaska’s North Slope. The region is rich in oil, and each sovereign seeks the right to grant leases for offshore exploration and to share in oil and gas revenues from the contested lands.
Several general principles govern our analysis of the parties’ claims. Ownership of submerged lands — which carries with it the power to control navigation, fishing, and other public uses of water — is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Utah Div. of State Lands v. United States, 482 U. S. 193, 195 (1987). Under the doctrine of Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 228-229 (1845), new States are admitted to the Union on an “equal footing” with the original 13 Colonies and succeed to the United States’ title to the beds of navigable waters within their boundaries. Although the United States has the power to divest a future State of its equal footing title to submerged lands, we do not “lightly infer” such action. Utah Div. of State Lands, supra, at 197.
In United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947) (California I), we distinguished between submerged lands located shoreward of the low-water line along the State’s coast and submerged lands located seaward of that line. Only lands shoreward of the low-water line — that is, the periodically submerged tidelands and inland navigable waters — pass to a State under the equal footing doctrine. The original 13 Colonies had no right to lands seaward of the coastline, and newly created States therefore cannot claim them on an equal footing rationale. Id., at 30-33. Accordingly, the United States has paramount sovereign rights in submerged lands seaward of the low-water line. Id., at 33-36. In 1953, following the California I decision, Congress enacted the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq. That Act “confirmed” and “established” States’ title to and interest in “lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States.” § 1311(a). The Act defines “lands beneath navigable waters” to include both lands that would ordinarily pass to a State under the equal footing doctrine and lands over which the United States has paramount sovereign rights, beneath a 3-mile belt of the territorial sea. § 1301(a). The Act essentially confirms States’ equal footing rights to tidelands and submerged lands beneath inland navigable waters; it also establishes States’ title to submerged lands beneath a 3-mile belt of the territorial sea, which would otherwise be held by the United States. California ex rel. State Lands Comm’n v. United States, 457 U. S. 273, 283 (1982). The Alaska Statehood Act expressly provides that the Submerged Lands Act applies to Alaska. Pub. L. 85-508, §6(m), 72 Stat. 343 (1958). As a general matter, then, Alaska is entitled under both the equal footing doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act to submerged lands beneath tidal and inland navigable waters, and under the Submerged Lands Act alone to submerged lands extending three miles seaward of its coastline.
In hearings before the Special Master, the parties identified 15 specific issues for resolution, which we treat in three groups. First, the parties disputed the legal principles governing Alaska’s ownership of submerged lands near certain barrier islands along the Arctic Coast. Second, the parties contested the proper legal characterization of particular coastal features, including a gravel and ice formation in the Flaxman Island chain known as Dinkum Sands. Third, the parties disputed whether, when Alaska became a State, the United States retained ownership of certain submerged lands located within two federal reservations, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in the northwest and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northeast. For each reservation, the Master considered both whether the seaward boundary encompassed certain disputed waters and whether particular executive and congressional actions prevented the lands beneath tidally influenced waters from passing to Alaska at statehood.
Alaska excepts to three of the Master’s recommendations. First, it claims that the Master erred in concluding that waters between the Alaskan mainland and certain barrier islands were not “inland waters,” the limits of which would form a portion of the State’s coastline for purposes of measuring the State’s 3-mile Submerged Lands Act grant. Alaska argues that, at the time of its statehood, the United States had a clear policy of enclosing waters behind near-fringing islands as “inland waters.” In abandoning that policy in 1971, Alaska argues, the Federal Government impermissibly “contracted” Alaska’s recognized territory. Second, the State challenges the Master’s conclusion that Dinkum Sands is not an “island.” Under the Master’s approach, the low-water line on Dinkum Sands is not part of Alaska’s coastline, and the State cannot claim ownership of submerged lands, covering an area of 28 square miles, surrounding the feature. Alaska argues that the Master erred in construing the relevant definition of an “island” and in applying that definition to Dinkum Sands. Third, the State claims that the Master erred in determining that the United States retained ownership of certain submerged lands within the boundaries of the National Petroleum Reserve at Alaska’s statehood. Alaska argues both that the Executive lacked authority to prevent submerged lands from passing to Alaska, and that any attempt to include submerged lands within the Reserve was not sufficiently clear to defeat Alaska’s title under the equal footing doctrine or under the Submerged Lands Act.
The United States excepts to the Master’s recommendation concerning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Master concluded, among other things, that an administrative application for the Refuge was insufficient to “set apart” submerged lands within the proposed boundaries. As a result, the Master concluded, submerged lands within the Refuge passed to Alaska at statehood.
We consider these exceptions in turn.
By applying the Submerged Lands Act to Alaska through the Alaska Statehood Act, see Pub. L. 85-508, § 6(m), 72 Stat. 343 (1958), Congress granted the State title to submerged lands beneath a 3-mile belt of the territorial sea, measured from the State’s “coast line.” 43 U. S. C. §§ 1301(a)(2), 1311(a). The Act defines the term “coast line” as “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.” § 1301(c). Alaska’s first exception requires us to consider how the presence of barrier islands along its northern shore affects the delimitation of its coastline. The issue is of primary relevance in the Beaufort Sea, between the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A joint federal-state sale of mineral leases covering this so-called Leased Area, conducted in December 1979, yielded large sums now held in escrow awaiting the outcome of this suit.
In cases in which the Submerged Lands Act does not expressly address questions that might arise in locating a coastline, we have relied on the definitions and principles of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, [1964] 15 U. S. T. 1606 (Convention). See United States v. California, 381 U. S. 139, 166 (1965) (California II). Specifically, the coastline from which a State measures its Submerged Lands Act grant corresponds to the “baseline” from which the United States measures its territorial sea under the Convention. The Government argued before the Special Master that the United States measures its territorial sea from a “normal baseline” — the low-water line along the coast, Art. 3, supplemented by closing lines drawn across bays and mouths of rivers, see Arts. 7, 13, Under Article 10(2) of the Convention, each island has its own belt of territorial sea, measured outward from a baseline corresponding to the low-water line along the island’s coast.
Although the United States now claims a territorial sea belt of 12 nautical miles, see Presidential Proclamation No. 5928, 3 CFR 547 (1988 Comp.), note following 43 U. S. C. § 1331, we are concerned in this case only with the 3-mile belt of the territorial sea that determines a State’s Submerged Lands Act grant. Under Article 6 of the Convention, the outer limit of that territorial sea belt is a line every point of which is three miles from the nearest point of the baseline. This means of measuring the outer limit of the belt is also known as the “arcs-of-circles” method.
Alaska objected to application of the Article 3 “normal baseline” approach to its Arctic Coast. In the Leased Area of the Beaufort Sea, some offshore islands are more than six miles apart or more than six miles from the mainland. If Alaska owns only those offshore submerged lands beneath each 3-mile belt of territorial sea, the United States will own “enclaves” of submerged lands, wholly or partly surrounded by state-owned submerged lands, beneath waters more than three miles from the mainland but not within three miles of an island. Two such federal enclaves exist in the Leased Area between the mainland and the Flaxman Island chain, beneath the waters of Stefansson Sound. To eliminate these enclaves, Alaska offered alternative theories for determining the seaward limit of its submerged lands in the vicinity of barrier islands. Alaska principally contended that the United States should be required to draw “straight baselines” connecting the barrier islands and to measure the territorial sea from those baselines. Article 4 of the Convention permits a nation to use straight baselines to measure its territorial sea “[i]n localities where the coast line is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity.” The parties agree that Alaska’s coastline satisfies this description. Under this approach, waters landward of the baseline would be treated as “inland” waters, and Alaska would own all submerged lands beneath those waters.
The Master rejected this approach, finding that the use of straight baselines under Article 4 is permissive, not mandatory, and that the decision whether to use straight baselines is normally one for the Federal Government. Report of the Special Master 45 (hereinafter Report). The United States has never opted to draw straight baselines under Article 4. See California II, supra, at 167-169; United States v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 11, 72-73 (1969) (Louisiana Boundary Case); United States v. Louisiana, 470 U. S. 93, 99 (1985) (Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case); United States v. Maine, 475 U. S. 89, 94, n. 9 (1986) (Massachusetts Boundary Case). As a variant of its straight baselines argument, Alaska claimed that the United States has historically treated waters between the mainland and fringing islands as “inland waters,” so long as the openings between the off-lying islands are no more than 10 miles wide. Alaska did not argue that the United States had ever specifically asserted, in its dealings with foreign nations, that the waters of Stefansson Sound are inland waters. Rather, Alaska attempted to identify a general but consistent “10-mile rule” invoked by the United States in its domestic and international affairs. If applied to Alaska’s Arctic Coast, the State argued, this rule would require treating the waters of Ste-fansson Sound as inland waters.
The Master examined the boundary delimitation practices of the United States and concluded that the United States did not have a well-established rule for treating waters between the mainland and fringing islands as inland waters. The Master recognized that, in the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, we suggested that between 1903 and 1961 the United States had “enclosed] as inland waters those areas between the mainland and off-lying islands that were so closely grouped that no entrance exceeded 10 geographical miles.” 470 U. S., at 106-107. Observing that this statement was not “strictly necessary” to the decision in the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, the Master declined to rely on it here. The Master therefore concluded that, for purposes of measuring Alaska’s submerged lands, the State’s coastline should correspond to a normal baseline under Article 3 of the Convention.
For the reasons discussed below, we find no error in the Master’s approach.
A
Under the Convention, a nation’s past boundary delimitation practice is relevant in a narrow context: specifically, when a nation claims that certain waters are “historic” inland waters under Article 7(6) of the Convention. If certain geographic criteria are met, Article 7(4) of the Convention permits a nation to draw a “closing line” across the mouth of a bay and to measure its territorial sea outward from that line. Waters enclosed by the line are considered internal waters. Article 7(6) also permits a nation to enclose “historic” bays, even if those waters do not satisfy the geographic criteria of Article 7(4). For a body of water to qualify as a historic bay, the coastal nation “must have effectively exercised sovereignty over the area continuously during a time sufficient to create a usage and have done so under the general toleration” of the community of nations. Id., at 102 (citing Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, Including Historic Bays 56, U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/143 (1962)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, where a State within the United States wishes to claim submerged lands based on an area’s status as historic inland waters, the State must demonstrate that the United States: (1) exercises authority over the area; (2) has done so continuously; and (3) has done so with the acquiescence of foreign nations. See Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, supra, at 101-102.
Recognizing these strict evidentiary requirements, Alaska does not contend that the waters of Stefansson Sound are historic inland waters. Alaska does not purport to show any specific assertion by the United States that the waters of Stefansson Sound are inland waters. Rather, Alaska argues that, at the time it was admitted to the Union, the United States had a general, publicly stated policy of enclosing as inland waters areas between the mainland and closely-grouped fringing islands. If this general formula is applied to the Alaska’s Arctic Coast, the State argues, the waters of Stefansson Sound qualify as inland waters. Alaska maintains that this policy was in effect from the early 1900’s to 1971, when the United States published a set of charts strictly applying the arcs-of-circles method to Stefansson Sound. In Alaska’s view, relying solely on the Convention’s normal baseline approach to delimit the State’s submerged lands impermissibly contracts the State’s recognized territory from that which existed at the time of statehood.
Since adopting the Convention’s definitions to give content to the Submerged Lands Act, we have never sustained a State’s claim to submerged lands based solely on an assertion that the United States had adhered to a certain general boundary delimitation practice at the time of statehood. In the Louisiana Boundary Case, we left open the possibility that Louisiana could claim ownership of certain submerged lands by demonstrating a “firm and continuing international policy” of enclosing waters between the mainland and island fringes as “inland waters.” 394 U. S., at 74, n. 97. Had that been the United States’ “consistent official international stance,” the Government “arguably could not abandon that stance solely to gain advantage in a lawsuit to the detriment of Louisiana.” Ibid. In that litigation, the State ultimately failed to demonstrate any firm and continuing international policy of enclosing waters behind island fringes as inland waters. See United States v. Louisiana, 420 U. S. 529, 529-530 (1975) (per curiam) (decree) (accepting Master’s recommendation that certain actions by the United States did not establish a general policy of applying straight baselines to near-fringing islands); Report of Special Master in United States v. Louisiana, O. T. 1974, No. 9 Orig., pp. 7-13. Alaska nevertheless claims that in the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case the Court identified a “firm and continuing” 10-mile rule for fringing islands. Alaska first contends that the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case precludes the Government from claiming that the waters of Stefansson Sound are not inland waters. The State then argues in the alternative that independent evidence supports its formulation of the rule. We address Alaska’s points in turn.
B
In the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, the Court considered the States’ claim that the waters of Mississippi Sound constituted “historic” inland waters under Article 7(6) of the Convention. In discussing whether the States had shown that the United States had continuously asserted the inland water status of Mississippi Sound, the Court identified a general policy “of enclosing as inland waters those areas between the mainland and off-lying islands that were so closely grouped that no entrance exceeded 10 geographical miles.” 470 U. S., at 106.
Alaska argues that the Government is estopped from questioning application of this general coastline delimitation practice to its Arctic Coast. Alaska recognizes the rule that the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel is generally unavailable in litigation against the United States, see United States v. Mendoza, 464 U. S. 154, 160-163 (1984), but suggests that the policy considerations underlying this rule do not apply to cases arising under the Court’s original jurisdiction, where the Court acts as factfinder and the United States has an incentive to fully litigate all essential issues.
We have not had occasion to consider application of nonmu-tual collateral estoppel in an original jurisdiction case, and we see no reason to develop an exception to Mendoza here. Even if the doctrine applied against the Government in an original jurisdiction case, it could only preclude relitigation of issues of fact or law necessary to a court’s judgment. Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 153 (1979); Mendoza, supra, at 158. A careful reading of the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case makes clear that the Court, did not attach controlling legal significance to any general delimitation formula.
The Master in that case recited a series of statements and precedents following Mississippi’s admission to the Union supporting the view that the Federal Government had treated the waters of Mississippi Sound as inland waters. These statements included multiple references to a rule for closing gulfs, bays, and estuaries with mouths less than 10 miles wide as inland waters, Report of Special Master in Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, O. T. 1983, No. 9 Grig., pp. 40, 42, 48-49, 52, and to a rule for closing straits leading to inland waters, id., at 42, 49-50. In addition, the Master cited a 1961 letter from the Solicitor General to the Director of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey concerning coastline delimitation principles for the Gulf of Mexico, proposing to treat “ ‘[wjaters enclosed between the mainland and offiying islands... so closely grouped that no entrance exceeds ten miles’” as inland waters. Id., at 52.
In excepting to the Master’s conclusion that the waters of Mississippi Sound qualified as historic inland waters, the United States argued that the “generalized... formulations” recited by the Master could not support the States’ claim, without evidence of specific federal claims to inland waters status for Mississippi Sound. Exceptions of United States in Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, O. T. 1983, No. 9 Orig., pp. 32-33. The Court assumed that the United States’ position was correct, but concluded that the States had in fact identified “specific assertions of the status of [Mississippi] Sound as inland waters.” 470 U. S., at 107; see id., at 108-110.
In light of the Court’s assumption that specific assertions of dominion would be critical to the States’ historic title claim, we cannot conclude that any general delimitation policy identified in the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case is controlling here. The Court’s inquiry in the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case was not whether the States had demonstrated a “firm and continuing international policy” of enclosing waters between the mainland and island fringes as inland waters, sufficiently well defined to cover the waters of Mississippi Sound. Rather, the inquiry was whether the States had demonstrated that the Sound met the specific requirements for a historic inland waters claim under Article 7(6) of the Convention. In the context of that claim, the variation or imprecision in the United States’ general boundary delimitation principles might have been irrelevant because the State could point to specific federal assertions that Mississippi Sound consisted of inland waters. But variation and imprecision in general boundary de- * limitation principles become relevant where, as here, a State relies solely on such principles for its claim that certain waters were inland waters at statehood. The United States is therefore free to argue that any 10-mile rule is not sufficiently well defined to support Alaska’s claim that the waters of Stefansson Sound constitute inland waters.
C
Alaska argues that even if principles of collateral estoppel do not apply, the evidence before the Master established that the United States had a well-defined, “firm and continuing” 10-mile rule that would require treating certain areas along Alaska’s Arctic Coast as inland waters. The Master exhaustively cataloged documents and statements reflecting the United States’ views and practices on boundary delimitation, both in its international relations and in disputes with various States, between 1903 and 1971. The Master found that “the exact nature of the United States’ historic practice is a matter of some intricacy,” and concluded that any 10-mile rule was not sufficiently well defined to require treating the waters of Stefansson Sound as inland waters. Report 55. Alaska argues that the Master afforded “undue significance to minor variations in the way the United States expressed its otherwise consistent policy over time, ignoring the principle that minor uncertainties and even contradictions in a nation’s practice are legally insignificant.” Exceptions of State of Alaska 14 (Alaska Exceptions Brief). The relevant sources do not bear out Alaska’s claim.
Of particular importance for our analysis is the position of the United States in its foreign relations between 1930 and 1949. In March 1930, the United States formally proposed certain principles for delimiting inland waters to the League of Nations Conference for the Codification of International Law. See 3 Acts of the Conference for the Codification of International Law, Territorial Waters 195-201 (1930) (Acts of the Conference). As the Geographer of the Department of State later observed, where the mainland and offshore islands are assigned individual 3-mile belts of territorial sea, there will remain “small pockets of the high sea deeply indenting territorial waters.” U. S. Exh. 85-223 (Boggs, Delimitation of the Territorial Sea, 24 Am. J. Int’l L. 541, 552 (1930)). Because such pockets would “constitute no useful portion of the high sea from the viewpoint of navigation,” ibid., the United States proposed that countries “assimilate” these small enclaves of high seas to the adjacent territorial sea where a single straight line of no more than four nautical miles in length would enclose an enclave, 3 Acts of the Conference 201. At the same Conference, the United States also proposed a rule for straits. Where a strait connected “two seas having the character of high seas,” the waters of the strait would be considered territorial waters of the coastal nation, as long as both entrances of the strait were less than six nautical miles wide. Id., at 200. Where a strait was “merely a channel of communication with an inland sea,” rules regarding closing of bays would apply. Id., at 201. Under those rules, waters shoreward of closing lines less than 10 nautical miles in length would be treated as “inland” waters. Id., at 198.
The United States’ 1930 “assimilation” proposal is inconsistent with Alaska’s assertion that, since the early 1900’s, the United States had followed a firm and continuing 10-mile rule for fringing islands. If the United States’ policy had been to draw a baseline connecting islands no more than 10 miles apart, all waters between that line and the mainland would have been treated as “inland waters.” Under the 1930 formula, however, there were “small pockets of the high sea” between that line and the mainland, and those pockets would have been assimilated to territorial waters (that is, waters seaward of the coastline), not to inland waters (that is, waters enclosed by the coastline). Alaska now argues that the 1930 assimilation proposal “was at most one of the legally insignificant uncertainties or contradictions” rather than a change from a firm 10-mile rule. Alaska Exceptions Brief 25 (internal quotation marks omitted). Alaska took a different position before the Special Master, where it argued that the United States “unequivocally embraced the ‘assimilation’ practice as the official United States position” between 1930 and 1949. Brief for Alaska on Island Fringes 54, 60-61; see Alaska Exh. 85-63 (Memorandum of United States in Response to Request of Special Master in United States v. California, O. T. 1949, No. 11 Orig., p. 19); Alaska Exh. 85-82 (Aide-Mémoire from the Department of State to the Government of Norway, Sept. 29, 1949, pp. 4-5). Alaska cannot explain why the United States would have pointed to the assimilation formula as its official position between 1930 and 1949 if a 10-mile rule for islands was in effect during that time.
Nor does the United States’ proposal on straits demonstrate a policy of connecting near-fringing islands with straight baselines of less than 10 miles. If the mainland and offshore islands form the two coasts of a strait, under the United States’ proposal the strait would be treated as territorial waters (not inland waters) if it linked two areas of high seas. The distance between the fringing islands may have some bearing on whether those islands in fact form, the coast of a strait, but not on whether the waters they enclose are territorial or inland waters. In other words, under the 1930 proposal, the character of the waters to which a strait leads, not the distance between the islands forming one coast of the strait, determines the character of the strait itself.
Rather than treating the mainland and a line connecting fringing islands as the two coasts of a strait, Alaska appears to view a passageway between two offshore islands, leading to the waters between the islands and the mainland, as a strait. With this geographic configuration in mind, Alaska argues that the proposal to apply a 10-mile bay-closing rule to a strait serving as a “channel of communication with an inland sea” is “fully consistent” with a 10-mile rule. Alaska Exceptions Brief 25. But even under this approach, a rule that straits leading to an inland sea are themselves inland waters is not equivalent to a simple 10-mile rule. Again, under the United States’ 1930 proposal, the character of the strait depends on the character of the waters to which it leads. A 10-mile bay-closing rule would apply only if the waters between the strait and the mainland were inland waters under some other principle. Under the simple 10-mile rule that Alaska advocates, the fact that the islands are less than 10 miles apart itself determines that the waters behind the islands are inland waters.
In sum, although Alaska is correct that the United States’ position at the League of Nations Conference did not call for strict application of the arcs-of-circles method, ibid., neither the assimilation proposal nor the proposal for straits is fully consistent with a simple rule that islands less than 10 miles apart enclose inland waters.
The discussion above leads to the conclusion that, if the United States had a 10-mile rule at Alaska’s statehood, that rule developed after 1949. Even if a rule developed within a decade of Alaska’s statehood could be considered a “firm and continuing” one, Alaska has not shown that any such rule would encompass the islands off its Arctic Coast. For the period between 1950 and Alaska’s statehood, Alaska focuses principally on the United States’ position in a series of disputes with States over ownership of submerged lands in the vicinity of near-fringing islands, rather than on positions taken in its international relations. First, in 1950, the State Department and the Justice Department proposed a boundary between Louisiana’s inland and territorial waters for use in the Louisiana Boundary Case. That boundary, known as the Chapman Line, followed certain barrier islands along Louisiana’s southeast coast, enclosing Chandeleur and Breton Sounds and Calliou Bay as inland waters. According to Alaska, the Chapman Line shows the use of a simple 10-mile rule. Second, in 1951, the Justice Department asked the State Department to outline the United States’ approach to demarcating inland and territorial waters, for purposes of submerged lands litigation between the United States and California. A letter from the Acting Secretary of State stated that an island “was to be surrounded by its own belt of territorial waters measured in the same manner as in the case of the mainland.” Alaska Exh. 85-94 (Letter from James E. Webb to J. Howard McGrath, Attorney General, Nov. 18, 1951, p. 3). The letter also drew upon the 1930 Hague proposals for straits, noting that the waters of a strait connecting high seas were never inland waters, but that bay-closing rules should apply to a strait serving as “a channel of communication to an inland sea.” Id., at 4. Third, in a submission to the Court in 1958, the United States commented that waters behind certain islands in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama were inland waters. Brief for United States in Support of Motion for Judgment on Amended Complaint in United States v. Louisiana, O. T. 1958, No. 9 Orig., pp. 177, 254, 261.
We agree with the Special Master that the United States did not exclusively employ a simple 10-mile rule in its disputes with the Gulf States and with California. The 1951 State Department letter in the California litigation merely echoed the United States’ proposal at the Hague Conference concerning straits leading to inland waters. As discussed supra, at 18-19, a rule applying 10-mile bay-closing principles to straits leading to inland waters would not always lead to the same result as a simple 10-mile rule. Under the former approach, the critical factor is where the strait leads, not the width of the strait. Alaska does not attempt to show that Stefansson Sound is a strait leading to inland waters.
Nor does the 1950 Chapman Line reflect a “firm and continuing” policy of enclosing waters behind fringing islands as “inland waters.” The Chapman Line may be consistent with such a policy, but as the Master noted, no contemporaneous document explains the theory behind the Chapman Line in terms of a simple 10-mile rule. Report 85-88. Indeed, a 1950 draft memorandum from the State Department Geographer to the Justice Department opined that Chande-leur and Breton Sounds should be treated as inland waters not only because they were screened by a chain of islands that were less than 10 miles apart, but also because they were “not extensively traversed by foreign vessels” and because the islands covered “more than half the total arc of the territorial sea.” U. S. Exh. 85-400. These criteria go far beyond the simple 10-mile rule, and Alaska does not show how they would apply to Stefansson Sound. Finally, statements in the briefs filed by the United States in litigation with the Gulf States that certain waters behind offshore islands were inland waters do not explicitly rely on a 10-mile rule. Moreover, in our decision in United States v. Louisiana, 363 U. S. 1, 67, n. 108 (1960), we made clear that we did not take the Government’s concession that certain islands off Louisiana’s shore enclosed inland waters “to settle the location of the coastline of Louisiana or that of any other State.”
These and other documents considered by the Master support his conclusion that Alaska has not identified a firm and continuing 10-mile rule that would clearly require treating the waters of Stefansson Sound as inland waters at the time of Alaska’s statehood. Indeed, we note that the result Alaska seeks would be in tension with the outcome of the Massachusetts Boundary Case, 475 U. S. 89 (1986), where, a year after deciding the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, we concluded that the waters of Nantucket Sound are not inland waters. Following the Court’s decision in the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, Massachusetts argued that a 10-mile rule would make the waters of Nantucket Sound inland waters. The Master in that case recognized that no entrance between the islands enclosing Nantucket Sound exceeded 10 miles, but nevertheless concluded that Massachusetts had not shown that the waters of Nantucket Sound were inland waters. Report of Special Master in Massachusetts Boundary Case, O. T. 1984, No. 35 Orig., pp. 69.2-70. We rejected the Commonwealth’s claim to inland waters status for Nantucket Sound, framed in its exception to the Master’s recommendation as an “ancient title” claim. Massachusetts Boundary Case, supra, at 105. If the case could have been resolved by reference to a simple 10-mile rule for all fringing islands, we need not have entertained such a claim.
D
In sum, we conclude that Alaska’s entitlement to submerged lands along its Arctic Coast must be determined by applying the Convention’s normal baseline principles. The Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case does not foreclose this conclusion. The sources before the Master showed that, in its foreign relations, particularly in the period 1930 to 1949, the United States had advocated a rule under which objectionable pockets of high seas would be assimilated to a coastal nation’s territorial sea. Such a rule would have been inconsistent with the maintenance of a 10-mile rule for fringing islands. The United States also advocated a rule for treating the waters of a strait leading to an inland sea as inland waters, but that rule is not equivalent to Alaska’s simple 10-mile rule. Whether the waters of Stefansson Sound would be considered inland waters under the 1930 proposal for straits is unclear.
Accordingly, we overrule Alaska’s first exception.
1 — 1 H-Í
Alaska next excepts to the Master’s conclusion that a small gravel and ice formation in the Flaxman Island chain, known as Dinkum Sands, is not an island. Whether Dinkum Sands
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent confessed to stabbing a woman nine times after she refused to have sexual relations with him, and he was convicted of attempted murder. Before confessing, respondent was given warnings by the police, which included the advice that a lawyer would be appointed “if and when you go to court.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that such advice did not comply with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). We disagree and reverse.
Late on May 16, 1982, respondent contacted a Chicago police officer he knew to report that he had seen the naked body of a dead woman lying on a Lake Michigan beach. Respondent denied any involvement in criminal activity. He then took several Chicago police officers to the beach, where the woman was crying for help. When she saw respondent, the woman exclaimed: “Why did you stab me? Why did you stab me?” Respondent told the officers that he had been with .the woman earlier that night, but that they had been attacked by several men who abducted the woman in a van.
The next morning, after realizing that the crime had been committed in Indiana, the Chicago police turned the investigation over to the Hammond, Indiana, Police Department. Respondent repeated to the Hammond police officers his story that he had been attacked on the lakefront, and that the woman had been abducted by several men. After he filled out a battery complaint at a local police station, respondent agreed to go to the Hammond police headquarters for further questioning.
At about 11 a. m., the Hammond police questioned respondent. Before doing so, the police read to respondent a waiver form, entitled “Voluntary Appearance; Advice of Rights,” and they asked him to sign it. The form provided:
“Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have a right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions, and to have him with you during questioning. You have this right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court. If you wish to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering questions at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you’ve talked to a lawyer.” 843 F. 2d 1554, 1555-1556 (CA7 1988) (emphasis added).
Respondent signed the form and repeated his exculpatory explanation for his activities of the previous evening.
Respondent was then placed in the “lockup” at the Hammond police headquarters. Some 29 hours later, at about 4 p.m. on May 18, the police again interviewed respondent. Before this questioning, one of the officers read the following waiver form to respondent:
“1. Before making this statement, I was advised that I have the right to remain silent and that anything I might say may or will be used against me in a court of law.
“2. That I have the right to consult with an attorney of my own choice before saying anything, and that an attorney may be present while I am making any statement or throughout the course of any conversation with any police officer if I so choose.
“3. That I can stop and request an attorney at any time during the course of the taking of any statement or during the course of any such conversation.
“4. That in the course of any conversation I can refuse to answer any further questions and remain silent, thereby terminating the conversation.
“5. That if I do not hire an attorney, one will be provided for me.” Id., at 1556.
Respondent read the form back to the officers and signed it. He proceeded to confess to stabbing the woman. The next morning, respondent led the officers to the Lake Michigan beach where they recovered the knife he had used in the stabbing and several items of clothing.
At trial, over respondent’s objection, the state court admitted his confession, his first statement denying any involvement in the crime, the knife, and the clothing. The jury found respondent guilty of attempted murder, but acquitted him of rape. He was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Eagan v. State, 480 N. E. 2d 946 (Ind. 1985).
Respondent sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, claiming, inter alia, that his confession was inadmissible because the first waiver form did not comply with Miranda. The District Court denied the petition, holding that the record “clearly manifests adherence to Miranda . . . espe-dally as to the so-called second statement.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A52.
A divided United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 843 F. 2d 1554 (1988). The majority held that the advice that counsel would be appointed “if and when you go to court,” which was included in the first warnings given to respondent, was “constitutionally defective because it denies an accused indigent a clear and unequivocal warning of the right to appointed counsel before any interrogation,” and “link[s] an indigent’s right to counsel before interrogation with a future event.” Id., at 1557. The majority relied on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States ex rel. Williams v. Twomey, 467 F. 2d 1248, 1250 (1972), which had condemned, as “misleading and confusing,” the inclusion of “if and when you go to court” language in Miranda warnings. Turning to the admissibility of respondent’s confession, the majority thought that “as a result of the first warning, [respondent] arguably believed that he could not secure a lawyer during interrogation” and that the second warning “did not explicitly correct this misinformation.” 843 F. 2d, at 1558. It therefore remanded the case for a determination whether respondent had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to an attorney during the second interview. The dissenting judge rejected the majority’s “formalistic, technical and unrealistic application of Miranda” and argued that the first warnings passed constitutional muster. Id., at 1562., In any case, he thought that remand was not necessary because the record indicated that this case was covered by Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985). 843 F. 2d, at 1570-1571.
The Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc, with four judges dissenting from that order. App. to Pet. for Cert. A1-A2. We then granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 888 (1988), to resolve a conflict among the lower courts as to whether informing a suspect that an attorney would be appointed for him “if and when you go to court” renders Miranda warnings inádequate. We agree with the majority of the lower courts that it does not.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), the Court established certain procedural safeguards that require police to advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before commencing custodial interrogation. In now-familiar words, the Court said that the suspect must be told that “he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” Id,., at 479. The Court in Miranda “presumed that interrogation in certain custodial circumstances is inherently coercive and . . . that statements made under those circumstances are inadmissible unless the suspect is specifically warned of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights.” New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 654 (1984) (footnote omitted).
We have never insisted that Miranda warnings be given in the exact form described in that decision. In Miranda itself, the Court said that “[t]he warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant.” 384 U. S., at 476 (emphasis added). See also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 297 (1980) (referring to “the now familiar Miranda warnings ... or their equivalent”). In California v. Prysock, 453 U. S. 355 (1981) (per curiam), we stated that “the ‘rigidity’ of Miranda [does not] exten[d] to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant,” and that “no talismanic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures.” Id., at 359.
Miranda has not been limited to station house questioning, see Rhode Island v. Innis, supra (police car), and the officer in the field may not always have access to printed Miranda warnings, or he may inadvertently depart from routine practice, particularly if a suspect requests an elaboration of the warnings. The prophylactic Miranda warnings are “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to in.sure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.” Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974). Reviewing courts therefore need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably “conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.” Pry sock, supra, at 361.
We think the initial warnings given to respondent touched all of the bases required by Miranda. The police told respondent that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him in court, that he had the right to speak to an attorney before and during questioning, that he had “this right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if [he could] not afford to hire one,” and that he had the “right to stop answering at any time until [he] talked to a lawyer.” 843 F. 2d, at 1555-1556. As noted, the police also added that they could not provide respondent with a lawyer, but that one would be appointed “if and when you go to court.” The Court of Appeals thought this “if and when you go to court” language suggested that “only those accused who can afford an attorney have the right to have one present before answering any questions,” and “implie[d] that if the accused does not ‘go to court/ i. e.[,] the government does not file charges, the accused is not entitled to [counsel] at all.” Id., at 1557.
In our view, the Court of Appeals misapprehended the effect of the inclusion of “if and when you go to court” language in Miranda warnings. First, this instruction accurately described the procedure for the appointment of counsel in Indiana. Under Indiana law, counsel is appointed at the defendant’s initial appearance in court, Ind. Code § 35-33-7-6 (1988), and formal charges must be filed at or before that hearing, §35-33-7-3(a). We think it must be relatively commonplace for a suspect, after receiving Miranda warnings, to ask when he will obtain counsel. The “if and when you go to court” advice simply anticipates that question. Second, Miranda does not require that attorneys be producible on call, but only that the suspect be informed, as here, that he has the right to an attorney before and during questioning, and that an attorney would be appointed for him if he could not afford one. The Court in Miranda emphasized that it was not suggesting that “each police station must have a ‘station house lawyer’ present at all times to advise prisoners.” 384 U. S., at 474. If the police cannot provide appointed counsel, Miranda requires only that the police not question a suspect unless he waives his right to counsel. Ibid. Here, respondent did just that.
Respondent relies, Brief for Respondent 24-29, on language in California v. Prysock, where we suggested that Miranda warnings would not be sufficient “if the reference to the right to appointed counsel was linked [to a] future point in time after the police interrogation.” 453 U. S., at 360 (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals also referred to Prysock in finding deficient the initial warnings given to respondent. 843 F. 2d, at 1557. But the vice referred to in Prysock was that such warnings would not apprise the accused of his right to have an attorney present if he chose to answer questions. The warnings in this case did not suffer from that defect. Of the eight sentences in the initial warnings, one described respondent’s right to counsel “before [the police] ask[ed] [him] questions,” while another stated his right to “stop answering at any time until [he] talk[ed] to a lawyer.” Id., at 1555-1556. We hold that the initial warnings given to respondent, in their totality, satisfied Miranda, and therefore that his first statement denying his involvement in the crime, as well as the knife and the clothing, was properly admitted into evidence.
The Court of Appeals thought it necessary to remand this case for consideration of whether respondent’s second statement was tainted by the first warnings. Id., at 1557-1558. In view of our disposition of this case, we need not reach that question. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with our decision.
It is so ordered.
The remainder of the form signed by respondent provided:
“I, [Gary Eagan,] have come to the Detective Bureau of the Hammond, Indiana Police Department, of my own choice to talk with Officers ... In [sic] regard to an investigation they are conducting. I know that I am not under arrest and that I can leave this office if I wish to do so.
“Prior to any questioning, I was furnished with the above statement of my rights.... I have (read) (had read to me) this statement of my rights. I understand what my rights are. I am willing to answer questions and make a statement. I do not want a lawyer. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure of any kind has been used against me.” 843 F. 2d, at 1560, n. 2.
The majority of federal and state courts to consider the issue have held that warnings that contained “if and when you go to court” language satisfied Miranda. See Wright v. North Carolina, 483 F. 2d 405, 406-407 (CA4 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 936 (1974); Massimo v. United States, 463 F. 2d 1171, 1174 (CA2 1972), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1117 (1973); United States v. Lacy, 446 F. 2d 511, 513 (CA5 1971); State v. Sterling, 377 So. 2d 58, 62-63 (La. 1979); Harrell v. State, 357 So. 2d 643, 645-646 (Miss. 1978); Rowbotham v. State, 542 P. 2d 610, 618-619 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975); Grennier v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 204, 213-215, 234 N. W. 2d 316, 321-322 (1975); Schade v. State, 512 P. 2d 907, 915-916 (Alaska 1973); State v. Mumbaugh, 107 Ariz. 589, 596-597, 491 P. 2d 443, 450-451 (1971); People v. Campbell, 26 Mich. App. 196, 201-202, 182 N. W. 2d 4, 6-7 (1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 945 (1971); People v. Swift, 32 App. Div. 2d 183, 186-187, 300 N. Y. S. 2d 639, 643-644 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 1018 (1970). Other courts, although not using the precise “if and when you go to court” language, have held Miranda was satisfied by a warning that an attorney could not be appointed for a suspect until he appeared in court. See United States v. Contreras, 667 F. 2d 976, 979 (CA11), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 849 (1982); Coyote v. United States, 380 F. 2d 305, 308 (CA10), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 992 (1967); State v. Maluia, 56 Haw. 428, 431-435, 539 P. 2d 1200, 1205-1207 (1975); Emler v. State, 259 Ind. 241, 243-244, 286 N. E. 2d 408, 410-411 (1972); Jones v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 337, 343-345, 230 N. W. 2d 677, 682-683 (1975).
On the other hand, a minority of federal and state courts, including the Seventh Circuit in this case, have held that “if and when you go to court” language did not satisfy Miranda. See United States ex rel. Williams v. Twomey, 467 F. 2d 1248, 1249-1250 (CA7 1972); Gilpin v. United States, 415 F. 2d 638, 641 (CA5 1969); State v. Dess, 184 Mont. 116, 120-122, 602 P. 2d 142, 144-145 (1979); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 484 Pa. 349, 352-357, 399 A. 2d 111, 112-114 (1979); Square v. State, 283 Ala. 548, 550, 219 So. 2d 377, 378-379 (1969).
Petitioner does not argue, and we therefore need not decide, whether Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976), should be extended to bar relitigation on federal habeas of nonconstitutional claims under Miranda.
For example, the standard Miranda warnings used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation provide as follows:
“Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights.
“You have the right to remain silent.
“Anything you say can be used against you in court.
“You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have a lawyer with you during questioning.
“If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
“If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 1-2, n. 1.
In federal court, the defendant’s initial hearing, at which counsel is appointed, may occur before the filing of the indictment or information. Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 5(a), (e).
At oral argument, the United States said that the federal law enforcement officials do not use this language in order to avoid “unnecessary litigation.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 16.
In Miranda, the Court stated that the FBI’s then-current practice of informing suspects “of a right to free counsel if they are unable to pay, and the availability of such counsel from the Judge,” 384 U. S., at 486, was “consistent with the procedure which we delineate today,” id., at 484.
Respondent argues that the second set of Miranda warnings he received were deficient. Brief for Respondent 38-40. These specific warnings have been upheld by the Seventh Circuit, Richardson v. Duckworth, 834 F. 2d 1366 (CA7 1987), and the Indiana Supreme Court, Robinson v. State, 272 Ind. 312, 397 N. E. 2d 956 (1979), and we think they plainly comply with Miranda.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 proceedings below were brought to gain access by the press and public to pretrial suppression hearings in three separate state criminal proceedings. Access was denied and the trial judges closed all pretrial hearings and sealed and impounded all papers, documents, and records filed in the cases. The judges also prohibited the parties, their attorneys, public officials, and certain others, from disseminating information concerning the hearings. Appellants then filed petitions for writs of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. However, these were denied without opinion. Appellants, arguing that they have been denied their federal constitutional rights, now urge us to take appellate jurisdiction of these matters under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
As matters now stand, the record does not disclose whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania passed on appellants’ federal claims or whether it denied mandamus on an adequate and independent state ground. For this reason, we vacate the judgments of the Supreme Court, and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as it may deem appropriate to clarify the record. See California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972).
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A writ of certiorari was granted in this case to consider whether, in those States that entrust the sentencing responsibility to the jury, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bars the jury from rendering higher sentences on retrials following reversals of prior convictions. In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), this Court established limitations on the imposition of higher sentences by judges in similar circumstances. While we reaffirm the underlying rationale of Pearce that vindictiveness against the accused for having successfully overturned his conviction has no place in the resentencing process, whether by judge or jury, we hold today that due process of law does not require extension of Pearce-type restrictions to jury sentencing.
I
Early in 1969, petitioner was tried by a jury in a Georgia state criminal court on a charge of robbery by open force or violence, a capital offense at that time. The jury, which had been instructed that it was empowered to impose a sentence of death, life imprisonment, or a term of years, found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to 15 years in prison. He appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, claiming primarily that the trial judge had given an erroneous jury instruction as to the defendant’s burden of proving an alibi defense. His claim was rejected and his conviction was affirmed. 225 Ga. 602, 170 S. E. 2d 426 (1969). Thereafter, he renewed that claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The District Court found petitioner’s contention meritorious, granted the writ, and ordered him returned to the state court for retrial.
Upon retrial before a different judge and a new jury, petitioner was again found guilty. A comparison of the trial transcripts in the two cases indicates that the trials were similar in most respects. The case was prosecuted on both occasions by the same State’s attorney and the same prosecution witnesses testified to the facts surrounding the alleged robbery. Petitioner, however, was represented by new counsel and, in addition to repeating his alibi defense, he interposed an insanity defense not offered at the former trial. New witnesses were called to testify for both sides on this issue. Also, while petitioner took the stand and made an unsworn statement in each case, his statement at the latter trial was longer and contained autobiographical information not presented to the former jury, including an emotional discussion of his family background, an account of his religious affiliation, job history, previous physical injuries, and a rendition of several religious poems and songs he had written.
The jury instructions on the permissible range of punishment were the same at each trial and the prosecutor at the second trial urged the jury to sentence petitioner to death, as he had in his closing argument at the prior trial. This time, however, the jury returned a sentence of life imprisonment. The parties agree that the jury was not aware of the length of the sentence meted out by the former jury. And, although the jury was informed by one of petitioner’s own witnesses that he had been tried previously on the same charge, the jury was not told that petitioner had been convicted and that his conviction had been overturned on collateral attack.
Claiming primarily that it was improper for the State to allow the jury to render a harsher sentence on retrial, petitioner appealed again to the State Supreme Court. That court affirmed the lower court’s judgment and refused to alter petitioner’s sentence. 227 Ga. 327, 180 S. E. 2d 741 (1971). He then filed his second application for habeas relief in the Federal District Court, arguing that the higher sentence was invalid under Pearce. The District Court disagreed and declined to issue the writ. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the District Court’s judgment was affirmed in an opinion holding that the higher sentence received in this case was not violative of due process. 455 F. 2d 640 (1972). Because two other federal courts of appeals had held to the contrary that Pearce restrictions are applicable, we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 409 U. S. 912 (1972).
II
Georgia is one of a small number of States that entrust the sentencing function in felony cases to the jury rather than to the judge. While much has been written on the questions whether jury sentencing is desirable and whether it is compatible with the modern philosophy of criminal sentencing that “the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime,” Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 247 (1949), this Court has never expressed doubt about the constitutionality of that practice. See McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 196— 208 (1971); Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 519-520 and n. 15 (1968); Spencer v. Texas, 385 U. S. 554, 560 (1967); Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399, 405 n. 8 (1966). The States have always enjoyed “wide leeway in dividing responsibility between judge and jury in criminal cases.” Spencer v. Texas, supra, at 560. If a State concludes that jury sentencing is preferable because, for instance, it guarantees the maintenance of a “link between contemporary community values and the penal system,” Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, at 519 n. 15, or because “juries are more likely to act with compassion, fairness, and understanding than the judge,” Stubbs, Jury Sentencing in Georgia — Time For a Change?, 5 Ga. St. B. J. 421, 426 (1969), nothing in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment intrudes upon that choice.
Petitioner does not question this proposition. Instead, he contends that, although the jury may set the sentence, its range of discretion must be subjected to limitations similar to those imposed when the sentencing function on retrial is performed by the judge. While primary reliance, therefore, is placed on this Court’s recent opinion in Pearce, petitioner asserts three distinct due process claims: (A) higher sentences on retrial violate the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, made binding on the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 793-796 (1969); (B) higher sentences occasioned by vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing authority violate traditional concepts of fairness in the criminal process; and (C) the possibility of a higher sentence, even absent a reasonable fear of vindictiveness, has an impermissible “chilling effect” on the exercise of the rights to appeal and to attack collaterally a conviction. Each claim will be considered separately.
A
The question presented in Pearce, arising in the context of judicial resentencing, was framed as follows: “When at the behest of the defendant a criminal conviction has been set aside and a new trial ordered, to what extent does the Constitution limit the imposition of a harsher sentence after conviction upon retrial?” 395 U. S., at 713. In addressing first the double jeopardy claim, the Court recognized the long-accepted power of a State “to retry a defendant who has succeeded in getting his first conviction set aside,” id., at 720 (emphasis in original) ; United States v. Toteo, 377 U. S. 463 (1964), and, as a “corollary” of that power, “to impose whatever sentence may be legally authorized, whether or not it is greater than the sentence imposed after the first conviction.” 395 U. S., at 720.
The foundational precedent from which the Court’s view of resentencing discretion derives is Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15 (1919), a case which, because it involved jury resentencing, is central to the double jeopardy claim in the present case. Robert Stroud, popularly known as “The Birdman of Alcatraz,” was indicted for the murder of a federal prison guard at Leavenworth, Kansas. After being convicted and sentenced by a jury to life imprisonment, he won a retrial upon a confession of error by the Solicitor General. His retrial resulted in another verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and a sentence, again imposed by the jury, of death. On a direct appeal, a unanimous Court held that despite the harsher sentence on retrial Stroud had not been “placed in second jeopardy within the meaning of the Constitution.” Id., at 18.
The Court in Pearce reaffirmed that decision, emphasizing that it now constitutes a “ ‘well-established part of our constitutional jurisprudence’ ” which rests on the “premise that the original conviction has, at the defendant’s behest, been wholly nullified and the slate wiped clean.” 395 U. S., at 720-721. Petitioner, relying on the views of Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Harlan expressed in their separate opinions in Pearce, id., at 726, 744, urges the Court to overrule Stroud, a step which, for the reasons stated in Pearce, we again decline to take.
B
Petitioner’s second contention focuses on the problem of vindictiveness. In Pearce it was held that vindictiveness, manifesting itself in the form of increased sentences upon conviction after retrial, can have no place in the resentencing process. Under our constitutional system it would be impermissible for the sentencing authority to mete out higher sentences on retrial as punishment for those who successfully exercised their right to appeal, or to attack collaterally their conviction. Those actually subjected to harsher resentencing as a consequence of such motivation would be most directly injured, but the wrong would extend as well to those who elect not to exercise their rights of appeal because of a legitimate fear of retaliation. Thus, the Court held that fundamental notions of fairness embodied within the concept of due process required that convicted defendants be “freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation.” Id., at 725. To that end, the Court concluded that “whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for his doing so must affirmatively appear.” Id., at 726. And, as a further prophylaxis, it was stated that those reasons must be based upon “objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding.” Ibid.
Petitioner seeks the extension of the Pearce rationale to jury sentencing. That decision, as we have said, was premised on the apparent need to guard against vindictiveness in the resentencing process. Pearce was not written with a view to protecting against the mere possibility that, once the slate is wiped clean and the prosecution begins anew, a fresh sentence may be higher for some valid reason associated with the need for flexibility and discretion in the sentencing process. The possibility of a higher sentence was recognized and accepted as a legitimate concomitant of the retrial process. Id., at 723.
Subsequent cases have dispelled any doubt that Pearce was premised on the hazard of vindictiveness. In Moon v. Maryland, 398 U. S. 319 (1970), a case granted with a view to determining the retroactivity of Pearce, the Court ordered the case dismissed as improvidently granted when it became clear that there was no claim there that the higher sentence received on retrial was a product of vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing judge. Because counsel for the reconvicted defendant eschewed that contention, the Court held that “there is no claim in this case that the due process standard of Pearce was violated.” Id., at 320. A similar focus on actual vindictiveness is reflected in the decision last Term in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972). The question in that case was whether the Pearce principle applied to bar the imposition of a higher sentence after a de novo trial in those jurisdictions that employ a two-tier system of trial courts. While noting that “[i]t may often be that the [de novo “appeal” court] will impose a punishment more severe than that received from the inferior court,” id., at 117, we were shown nothing to persuade us that “the hazard of being penalized for seeking a new trial, which underlay the holding of Pearce, also inheres in the de novo trial arrangement.” Id., at 116 (emphasis supplied). In short, the Due Process Clause was not violated because the “possibility of vindictiveness” was not found to inhere in the two-tier system. Ibid.
This case, then, is controlled by the inquiry into possible vindictiveness counseled by Pearce, Moon, and Colten. The potential for such abuse of the sentencing process by the jury is, we think, de minimis in a properly controlled retrial. The first prerequisite for the imposition of a retaliatory penalty is knowledge of the prior sentence. It has been conceded in this case that the jury was not informed of the prior sentence. We have no reason to suspect that this is not customary in a properly tried jury case. It is more likely that the jury will be aware that there was a prior trial, but it does not follow from this that the jury will know whether that trial was on the same charge, or whether it resulted in a conviction or mistrial. Other distinguishing factors between jury and judicial sentencing further diminish the possibility of impropriety in jury sentencing. As was true in Colten, the second sentence is not meted out by the same judicial authority whose handling of the prior trial was sufficiently unacceptable to have required a reversal of the conviction. Thus, the jury, unlike the judge who has been reversed, will have no personal stake in the prior conviction and no motivation to engage in self-vindication. Similarly, the jury is unlikely to be sensitive to the institutional interests that might occasion higher sentences by a judge desirous of discouraging what he regards as meritless appeals.
In light of these considerations, and where improper and prejudicial information regarding the prior sentence is withheld, there is no basis for holding that jury re-sentencing poses any real threat of vindictiveness.
c
Petitioner’s final argument is that harsher sentences on retrial are impermissible because, irrespective of their causes and even conceding that vindictiveness plays no discernible role, they have a “chilling effect” on the convicted defendant’s exercise of his right to challenge his first conviction either by direct appeal or collateral attack. What we have said as to Pearce demonstrates that it provides no foundation for this claim. To the contrary, the Court there intimated no doubt about the constitutional validity of higher sentences in the absence of vindictiveness despite whatever incidental deterrent effect they might have on the right to appeal. Colten likewise represents a view incompatible with petitioner’s contention.
Petitioner relies instead on United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968), in which the Court held unconstitutional the capital punishment provision of the federal antikidnaping law. By limiting to the jury the power to impose a death sentence, the statute “discouraged” the exercise by the accused of his rights to trial by jury and to plead not guilty. Id., at 581. The Court found that the interest of the Government in having the jury retain the power to render the death penalty could be realized without this imposition on the rights of the accused. Therefore, the sentencing structure of the statute was struck down because it “unnecessarily” and “needlessly chill[ed] the exercise of basic constitutional rights.” Id., at 582.
Jackson did not hold, as subsequent decisions have made clear, that the Constitution forbids every government-imposed choice in the criminal process that has the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional, rights. In Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742 (1970), Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790 (1970), and North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 (1970), defendants entered pleas of guilty in order to avoid the potential imposition of death sentences by a jury. Each was dissuaded from exercising his rights to a jury trial and to plead not guilty. Each was, in that sense, “discouraged” from asserting his rights, but the Court found no constitutional infirmity despite the claim in each case that Jackson compelled a contrary result. Brady is particularly instructive. The Court there canvassed several common plea-bargaining circumstances in which the accused is confronted with the “certainty or probability” that, if he determines to exercise his right to plead innocent and to demand a jury trial, he will receive a higher sentence than would have followed a waiver of those rights. 397 U. S., at 751. Although every such circumstance has a discouraging effect on the defendant’s assertion of his trial rights, the imposition of these difficult choices was upheld as an inevitable attribute of any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas.
Mr. Justice Harlan’s opinion for the Court in Crampton v. Ohio, a companion case to McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183 (1971), deals at some length with the constitutional problems surrounding the imposition of difficult choices in the criminal process and is of particular relevance since it arises in the context of jury sentencing. Petitioner Crampton attacked the Ohio system of conducting capital trials. Ohio allowed the jury to determine guilt and punishment in a single trial and a single verdict, and Crampton complained that due process required a bifurcated trial because in a single trial he could not argue his case for mitigation of punishment to the jury without forgoing his right to remain silent on the issue of guilt. Id., at 220-221. Thus, the free exercise of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent was “chilled” by the prospect that a harsher jury sentence might ensue. The Court did not agree, however, that the burden imposed on that right was impermissible.
In terms pertinent to the case before us today, the Court in Crampton stated:
“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.... 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.
Recognizing that the inquiry, by its very nature, must be made on a case-by-case basis, the Court indicated that the “threshold question is whether compelling the election impairs to an appreciable extent any of the policies behind the rights involved.” Ibid. The choice imposed by the Ohio system was similar to the choice frequently faced by a criminal defendant in deciding whether to assert his right to remain silent. And the fact that the consequence of silence might be a harsher sentence was not regarded as a distinguishing factor.
These cases, we think, erase any question whether Jackson might call for abrogation of Georgia’s unrestricted jury-resentencing process. Jury sentencing, based on each jury’s assessment of the evidence it hears and appraisal of the demeanor and character of the accused, is a legitimate practice. Supra, at 21-22. Just as in the guilty-plea cases and Crampton, an incidental consequence of that practice is that it may require the accused to choose whether to accept the risk of a higher sentence or to waive his rights. We see nothing in the right to appeal or the right to attack collaterally a conviction, even where constitutional errors are claimed, which elevates those rights above the rights to jury trial and to remain silent.
Petitioner was not himself “chilled” in the exercise of his right to appeal by the possibility of a higher sentence on retrial and we doubt that the “chill factor” will often be a deterrent of any significance. Unlike the guilty-plea situation and, to a lesser extent, the nonbifurcated capital trial, the likelihood of actually receiving a harsher sentence is quite remote at the time a convicted defendant begins to weigh the question whether he will appeal. Several contingencies must coalesce. First, his appeal must succeed. Second, it must result in an order remanding the case for retrial rather than dismissing outright. Third, the prosecutor must again make the decision to prosecute and the accused must again select trial by jury rather than securing a bench trial or negotiating a plea. Finally, the jury must again convict and then ultimately the jury or the judge must arrive at a harsher sentence in circumstances devoid of a genuine likelihood of vindictiveness. While it may not be wholly unrealistic for a convicted defendant to anticipate the occurrence of each of these events, especially in the infrequent case in which his claim for reversal is strong and his first sentence was unusually low, we cannot agree with petitioner that such speculative prospects interfere with the right to make a free choice whether to appeal.
Ill
Guided by the precedents of this Court, these are the conclusions we reach. The rendition of a higher sentence by a jury upon retrial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Nor does such a sentence offend the Due Process Clause so long as the jury is not informed of the prior sentence and the second sentence is not otherwise shown to be a product of vindictiveness. The choice occasioned by the possibility of a harsher sentence, even in the case in which the choice may in fact be “difficult,” does not place an impermissible burden on the right of a criminal defendant to appeal or attack collaterally his conviction.
Affirmed.
Petitioner was indicted under a statute that provided for the following range of punishments:
“Robbery by open force or violence shall be punished by death, unless the jury recommends mercy, in which event punishment shall be imprisonment in the penitentiary for life: Provided, however, the jury in all cases may recommend that the defendant be imprisoned in the penitentiary for not less than four years nor longer than 20 years, in the discretion of the court.” Ga. Code Ann. §26-2502 (1935), replaced by Ga. Code Ann. §26-1902 (1972).
For a detailed description of the unique unsworn-statement practice in Georgia see Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S. 570 (1961).
During oral argument in this Court, counsel disagreed as to whether the prosecutor asked for the death penalty at the first trial. Tr. of Oral Arg. 13,26,32-33. At the Court’s request, counsel have filed post-argument affidavits on this question. Although the closing arguments themselves were not transcribed, the State prosecutor states that, while his memory is not entirely clear on the matter, his notes indicate, and his customary practice suggests, that he asked for the death sentence at both trials. Any remaining doubt is foreclosed by the affidavit filed by the attorney who represented petitioner during the first trial. He states unequivocally that the prosecutor argued “vigorously” in favor of imposition of the death penalty during the closing argument in that trial.
During the second trial, petitioner’s counsel from the first trial was called to testify in petitioner’s behalf in support of his insanity defense. The substance of his testimonj'- was that he had an ample opportunity to study petitioner during the previous proceedings and that he was convinced that petitioner was suffering from a “mental defect.” He explained that, despite his own evaluation, he acquiesced in petitioner’s request that he not interpose an insanity defense at that time.
At the most, then, the jury might have speculated as to whether petitioner’s retrial was the product of a mistrial or of a reversal of a prior conviction. Indeed, counsel for respondent indicated at oral argument that Georgia has many more retrials occasioned by mistrials than retrials following conviction reversals. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38.
Compare the Fifth Circuit opinion in the instant case (455 F. 2d 640 (1972)), and Casias v. Beto, 459 F. 2d 54 (CA5 1972), with Levine v. Peyton, 444 F. 2d 525 (CA4 1971), and Pendergrass v. Neil, 456 F. 2d 469 (CA6 1972) (pet. for cert, pending, No. 71-1472). State court decisions on this question appear uniformly to hold Pearce inapplicable to jury resentencing. See cases discussed in Aplin, Sentence Increases on Retrial After North Carolina v. Pearce, 39 U. Cin. L. Rev. 427, 430-432 (1970).
Georgia is one of 12 States that provide for jury sentencing in at least some categories of noncapital felony cases. Aplin, supra, n. 6, at 429 and n. 10.
See, e. g., Stubbs, Jury Sentencing in Georgia — Time For a Change?, 5 Ga. St. B. J. 421 (1969); Note, Jury Sentencing in Virginia, 53 Va. L. Rev. 968 (1967); President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 145 (1967), and American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures § 1.1 (Approved Draft 1968) (both recommending the abolition of jury sentencing).
See T. Gaddis, Birdman of Alcatraz (1955); R. Stroud, Diseases of Canaries (1935); R. Stroud, Digest on the Diseases of Birds (1939); Stroud v. United States, 283 F. 2d 137 (CA10 1960), cert. denied, 365 U. S. 864 (1961).
Brief for Petitioner 9; Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-41.
While there is no per se constitutional right to appeal, this Court has frequently held that once a State establishes an appellate forum it must assure access to it upon terms and conditions equally applicable and available to all. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 724 (1969); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956); Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963); Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U. S. 305 (1966). See also Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969).
See n. 4, supra, and accompanying text. See also n. 14, infra.
Finally, depending upon the circumstances, it may be a desirable precaution for the trial judge to give the same instructions on the range of punishment at both trials and for the prosecutor to seek the same sentence in each case. See n. 3, supra.
It has been suggested that higher sentences on retrial might result from vindictiveness on the part of the prosecutor. As punishment for a successful appeal, for instance, a prosecutor might recommend to the jury, and strenuously argue in favor of, a higher sentence than he previously sought. No such indication exists on this record since the prosecutor vigorously urged the imposition of the death penalty at the first trial. In any event, it would be erroneous to infer a vindictive motive merely from the severity of the sentence recommended by the prosecutor. Prosecutors often request more than they can reasonably expect to get, knowing that the jury will customarily arrive at some compromise sentence. The prosecutor’s strategy also might well vary from case to case depending on such factors as his assessment of the jury’s reaction to the proof and to the testimony of witnesses for and against the State. Given these practical considerations, and constrained by the bar against his informing the jury of the facts of prior conviction and sentence, the possibility that a harsher sentence will be obtained through prosecutorial malice seems remote. See Williams v. McMann, 436 F. 2d 103, 105-106 (CA2 1970).
The State agreed at oral argument that it would be improper to inform the jury of the prior sentence and that Pearce might be applied in a case in which, either because of the highly publicized nature of the prior trial or because of some other irregularity, the jury was so informed. Tr. of Oral Arg. 39. We do not decide, however, whether improperly informing the jury would always require limitation of the sentence or whether such error might be cured by careful questioning of the jury venire or by a cautionary jury instruction.
Because we have concluded that jury sentencing is not susceptible of the abuse that prompted the Pearce decision, we need not consider what remedy would be required if jury sentencing were subjected to Pearce-type restrictions. It is sufficient here to note that because the institution of jury sentencing is unlike judicial sentencing in a number of fundamental ways those restrictions may not be easily invoked. Normally, there would be no way for a jury to place on the record the reasons for its collective sentencing determination, and ordinarily the resentencing jury would not be informed of any conduct of the accused unless relevant to the question of guilt. See Note, supra, n. 8, at 978-980; Stubbs, supra, n. 8, at 428-429; LaFont, Assessment of Punishment — A Judge or Jury Function?, 38 Tex. L. Rev. 835, 837-842 (1960). These important differences would not be entirely overcome by requiring that jury trials be bifurcated as suggested by the Sixth Circuit in Pendergrass v. Neil, 456 F. 2d, at 472 (pet. for cert, pending, No. 71-1472). While some jury-sentencing States have adopted bifurcated jury trials, in which the jury assesses the punishment in a separate proceeding after a verdict of guilty has been rendered (see Aplin, supra, n. 6, at 430, 441-442; Ga. Code Ann. § 27-2534 (1972)), bifurcation alone would not wipe away the fundamental differences between jury and judicial sentencing. It may make little sense to supply the jury with information about the defendant’s conduct if the goal of jury sentencing is not necessarily to fit the punishment to the offender, and if the jury is, therefore, not concerned about matters considered pertinent to judicial sentencing.
Petitioner and recent court of appeals cases suggest that an approximation of the Pearce limitations could be realized either by instructing the jury that it may return no verdict higher than the former sentence, or by empowering the judge to reduce the second sentence whenever it exceeds the former sentence. See Levine v. Peyton, 444 F. 2d 525 (CA4 1971); Pendergrass v. Neil, supra. Although these alternatives would provide an absolute protection from the possibility of vindictiveness, they would also interfere with ordinary sentencing discretion in a manner more intrusive than contemplated by Pearce. They would achieve, in the name of due process, the substance of the result we have declined to approve under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
During oral argument, Tr. of.Oral Arg. 11 — 12, petitioner’s counsel seemed to concede the absence of an improper motivation on the jury’s part:
“Question. Did the jury know anything about the first trial?
“[Petitioner’s Counsel). No, they did not.
“Question. Was there any possibility of vindictiveness?
“[Petitioner’s Counsel). There is none, obviously not.
“Question. Why not?
“[Petitioner’s Counsel).-Because the jury did not know [about) the first sentence.”
In Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742 (1970), the Court succinctly articulated the narrow holding in Jackson:
“Because the legitimate goal of limiting the death penalty to cases in which a jury recommends it could be achieved without penalizing those defendants who plead not guilty and elect a jury trial, the death penalty provision ‘needlessly penalize[d] the assertion of a constitutional right.' ” Id., at 746 (emphasis supplied).
The legitimacy of the practice of “plea bargaining,” as the Court noted last Term in Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257 (1971), has not been doubted and where “properly administered” it is to be “encouraged” as an “essential” and “desirable” “component of the administration of justice.” Id., at 260-261. See also Brady v. United States, supra, at 751-753.
The case was argued on the theory that the Ohio single proceeding created a “tension between constitutional rights,” 402 U. S., at 211, similar to that involved in Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968). The Court declined to decide the case in those terms, 402 U. S., at 212-213, but focused instead on the extent to which the lack of a bifurcated proceeding created a burden on the exercise of the right to remain silent, or, stated differently, encouraged its waiver. Id., at 213-217.
We reiterate that we are dealing here only with the case in which jury sentencing is utilized for legitimate purposes and not as a means of punishing or penalizing the assertion of protected rights. Jackson and Pearce are clear and subsequent cases have not dulled their force: if the only objective of a state practice is to discourage the assertion of constitutional rights it is “ ‘patently unconstitutional.’ ” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 631 (1969).
A footnote in the Court of Appeals opinion indicates that petitioner argued in that court that unrestricted jury resentencing would have an impermissible “chilling effect” on his right to select a jury trial upon retrial. 455 F. 2d, at 641 n. 7. Although this argument is not mentioned in his appellate brief in this Court, petitioner’s counsel touched on it briefly at oral argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-14. What we have said here regarding the collective force of Pearce, Colten, the guilty-plea cases, and Crampton should make clear that this claim is without merit. Jackson is not to the contrary. Unlike that case, the choice here is subject to considerable speculation. Applying Pearce, the judge may or may not give a sentence as high as the jury might give. More importantly, the discouraging effect cannot be said to be “needless.” 390 U. S., at 583. The parameters of judge- and jury-sentencing power, given the binding nature of Pearce, can only be made coterminous by either (1) restricting the jury’s power of independent assessment, or (2) requiring jury sentencing in every felony case irrespective whether guilt is determined by a bench trial or a guilty plea after reversal of the conviction. Either alternative would interfere with concededly legitimate state interests, and thus the burden imposed on the right to trial by jury is no less “necessary,” post, at 44r-46, than the burdens tolerated in Brady and Crampton. Where the burden of the choice is as speculative as this one is, such incursions upon valid state interests are not justified.
In practical terms, as those closest to the criminal appellate process well know (see Hermann, Frivolous Criminal Appeals, 47 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 701 (1972); Carrington, Crowded Dockets and the Courts of Appeals: The Threat to the Function of Review and the National Law, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 542 (1969)), the likelihood that a convicted defendant will forgo his right to appeal or to attack collaterally his conviction has been diminishing in recent years, in part as a consequence of decisions removing roadblocks and disincentives to appeal. See, e. g., Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956); Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 (1963); Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969); Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U. S. 15 (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the judgment of the United States District Court is vacated. The case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Rosado v. Wyman, ante, p. 397.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black dissent for the reasons set forth in Mr. Justice Black’s dissenting opinion in Rosado v. Wyman, ante, p. 430.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, Maria Ohler, was arrested and charged with importation of marijuana and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. The District Court granted the Government’s motion in limine seeking to admit evidence of her prior felony conviction as impeachment evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1). Ohler testified at trial and admitted on direct examination that she had been convicted of possession of methamphetamine in 1993. The jury convicted her of both counts, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. We agree with the Court of Appeals that Ohler may not challenge the in limine ruling of the District Court on appeal.
Maria Ohler drove a van from Mexico to California in July 1997. As she passed through the San Ysidro Port of Entry, a customs inspector noticed that someone had tampered with one of the van’s interior panels. Inspectors searched the van and discovered approximately 81 pounds of marijuana. Ohler was arrested and charged with importation of marijuana and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Before trial, the Government filed motions in limine seeking to admit Ohler’s prior felony conviction as character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and as impeachment evidence under Rule 609(a)(1). The District Court denied the motion to admit the conviction as character evidence, but reserved ruling on whether the conviction could be used for impeachment purposes. On the first day of trial, the District Court ruled that if Ohler testified, evidence of her prior conviction would be admissible under Rule 609(a)(1). App. 97-98. She testified in her own defense, denying any knowledge of the marijuana. She also admitted on direct examination that she had been convicted of possession of methamphetamine in 1993. The jury found Ohler guilty of both counts, and she was sentenced to 30 months in prison and 3 years’ supervised release. Id., at 140-141.
On appeal, Ohler challenged the District Court’s in limine ruling allowing the Government to use her prior conviction for impeachment purposes. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Ohler waived her objection by introducing evidence of the conviction during her direct examination. 169 F. 3d 1200 (1999). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits regarding whether appellate review of an in limine ruling is available in this situation. 528 U. S. 950 (1999). See United States v. Fisher, 106 F. 3d 622 (CA5 1997) (allowing review); United States v. Smiley, 997 F. 2d 475 (CA8 1993) (holding objection waived). We affirm.
Generally, a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted. See 1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 103.14, p. 103-30 (2d ed. 2000). Cf. 1 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 55, p. 246 (5th ed. 1999) (“If a party who has objected to evidence of a certain fact himself produces evidence from his own witness of the same fact, he has waived his objection”). Ohler seeks to avoid the consequences of this well-established commonsense principle by invoking Rules 103 and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. But neither of these Rules addresses the question at issue here. Rule 103 sets forth the unremarkable propositions that a party must make a timely objection to a ruling admitting evidence and that a party cannot challenge an evidentiary ruling unless it affects a substantial right. The Rule does not purport to determine when a party waives a prior objection, and it is silent with respect to the effect of introducing evidence on direct examination, and later assigning its admission as error on appeal.
Rule 609(a) is equally unavailing for Ohler; it merely identifies the situations in which a witness’ prior conviction may be admitted for impeachment purposes. The Rule originally provided that admissible prior conviction evidence could be elicited from the defendant or established by public record during cross-examination, but it was amended in 1990 to clarify that the evidence could also be introduced on direct examination. According to Ohler, it follows from this amendment that a party does not waive her objection to the in limine ruling by introducing the evidence herself. However, like Rule 103, Rule 609(a) simply does not address this issue. There is no question that the Rule authorizes the, eliciting of a prior conviction on direct examination, but it does no more than that.
Next, Ohler argues that it would be unfair to apply such a waiver rule in this situation because it compels a defendant to forgo the tactical advantage of pre-emptively introducing the conviction in order to appeal the in limine ruling. She argues that if a defendant is forced to wait for evidence of the conviction to be introduced on cross-examination, the jury will believe that the defendant is less credible because she was trying to conceal the conviction. The Government disputes that the defendant is unduly disadvantaged by waiting for the prosecution to introduce the conviction on cross-examination. First, the Government argues that it is debatable whether jurors actually perceive a defendant to be more credible if she introduces a conviction herself. Brief for United States 28. Second, even if jurors do consider the defendant more credible, the Government suggests that it is an unwarranted advantage because the jury does not realize that the defendant disclosed the conviction only after failing to persuade the court to exclude it. Ibid.
Whatever the merits of these contentions, they tend to obscure the fact that both the Government and the defendant in a criminal trial must make choices as the trial progresses. For example, the defendant must decide whether or not to take the stand in her own behalf. If she has an innocent or mitigating explanation for evidence that might otherwise incriminate, acquittal may be more likely if she takes the stand. Here, for example, Ohler testified that she had no knowledge of the marijuana discovered in the van, that the van had been taken to Mexico without her permission, and that she had gone there simply to retrieve the van. But once the defendant testifies, she is subject to cross-examination, including impeachment by prior convictions, and the decision to take the stand may prove damaging instead of helpful. A defendant has a further choice to make if she decides to testify, notwithstanding a prior conviction. The defendant must choose whether to introduce the conviction on direct examination and remove the sting or to take her chances with the prosecutor’s possible elicitation of the conviction on cross-examination.
The Government, too, in a case such as this, must make a choice. If the defendant testifies, it must choose whether or not to impeach her by use of her prior conviction. Here the trial judge had indicated he would allow its use, but the Government still had to consider whether its use might be deemed reversible error on appeal. This choice is often based on the Government’s appraisal of the apparent effect of the defendant’s testimony. If she has offered a plausible, innocent explanation of the evidence against her, it will be inclined to use the prior conviction; if not, it may decide not to risk possible reversal on appeal from its use.
Due to the structure of trial, the Government has one inherent advantage in these competing trial strategies. Cross-examination comes after direct examination, and therefore the Government need not make its choice until the defendant has elected whether or not to take the stand in her own behalf and after the Government has heard the defendant testify.
Ohler’s submission would deny to the Government its usual' right to decide, after she testifies, whether or not to use her prior conviction against her. She seeks to short circuit that decisional process by offering the conviction herself (and thereby removing the sting) and still preserve its admission as a claim of error on appeal.
But here Ohler runs into the position taken by the Court in a similar, but not identical, situation in Luce v. United States, 469 U. S. 38 (1984), that “fa]ny possible harm flowing from a district court’s in limine ruling permitting impeachment by a prior conviction is wholly speculative.” Id., at 41. Only when the Government exercises its option to elicit the testimony is an appellate court confronted with a case where, under the normal rules of trial, the defendant can claim the denial of a substantial right if in fact the district court’s in limine ruling proved to be erroneous. In our view, there is nothing “unfair,” as Ohler puts it, about putting her to her choice in accordance with the normal rules of trial.
Finally, Ohler argues that applying this rule to her situation unconstitutionally burdens her right to testify. She relies on Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U. S. 44 (1987), where we held that a prohibition of hypnotically refreshed testimony interfered with the defendant’s right to testify. But here the rule in question does not prevent Ohler from taking the stand and presenting any admissible testimony which she chooses. She is of course subject to cross-examination and subject to impeachment by the use of a prior conviction. In a sense, the use of these tactics by the Government may deter a defendant from taking the stand. But, as we said in McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 215 (1971):
“It has long been held that a defendant who takes the stand in his own behalf cannot then claim the privilege against cross-examination on matters reasonably related to the subject matter of his direct examination.... It is not thought overly harsh in such situations to require that the determination whether to waive the privilege take into account the matters which may be brought out on cross-examination. It is also generally recognized that a defendant who takes the stand in his own behalf may be impeached by proof of prior convictions or the like. . . . Again, it is not thought inconsistent with the enlightened administration of criminal justice to require the defendant to weigh such pros and eons in deciding whether to testify.”
For these reasons, we conclude that a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that the admission of such evidence was error.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is therefore affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a): "Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and
"(1) ... In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context...
Rule 609(a): “For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, (1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused ....”
The District Court ruled on the first day of trial that Ohler’s prior conviction would be admissible for impeachment purposes, and the court likely would have abided by that ruling at trial. However, in limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U. S. 38, 41-42 (1984). Ohler’s position, therefore, would deprive the trial court of the opportunity to change its mind after hearing all of the defendant’s testimony.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 United States by its Attorney General and its Solicitor General brought this suit against the State of Louisiana, invoking our jurisdiction under Art. Ill, § 2, Cl. 2 of the Constitution which provides “In all Cases . . . in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
The complaint alleges that the United States was and is
“the owner in fee simple of, or possessed of paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals, and other things underlying the Gulf of Mexico, lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the coast of Louisiana and outside of the inland waters, extending seaward twenty-seven marine miles and bounded on the east and west, respectively, by the eastern and western boundaries of the State of Louisiana.”
The complaint further alleges that Louisiana, claiming rights in that property adverse to the United States, has made leases under her statutes to various persons and corporations which have entered upon said lands, drilled wells for the recovery of petroleum, gas and other hydrocarbon substances, and paid Louisiana substantial sums of money in bonuses, rent, and royalties, but that neither Louisiana nor its lessees have recognized the rights of the United States in said property.
The prayer of the complaint is for a decree adjudging and declaring the rights of the United States as against Louisiana in this area, enjoining Louisiana and all persons claiming under it from continuing to trespass upon the area in violation of the right of the United States, and requiring Louisiana to account for the money derived by it from the area subsequent to June 23, 1947.
Louisiana opposed the motion for leave to file the complaint, contending that the States have not consented to be sued by the Federal Government and that United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, which held that Art. III, § 2, Cl. 2 of the Constitution, granting this Court original jurisdiction in cases “in which a State shall be Party,” includes cases brought by the United States against a State should be overruled. We heard argument on the motion for leave to file and thereafter granted it. 337 U. S. 902, rehearing denied, 337 U. S. 928.
Louisiana then filed a demurrer asserting that the Court has no original jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter. She moved to dismiss on the ground that the lessees are indispensable parties to the case; and she also moved for a more definite statement of the claim of the United States and for a bill of particulars. The United States moved for judgment. The demurrer was overruled, Louisiana’s motions denied, and the motion of the United States for judgment was denied, Louisiana being given 30 days in which to file an answer. 338 U. S. 806.
In her answer Louisiana admits that “the United States has paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals and other things underlying the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the coast of Louisiana, to the extent of all governmental powers existing under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States,” but asserts that there are no conflicting claims of governmental powers to authorize the use of the bed of the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of searching for and producing oil and other, natural resources, on which the relief sought by the United States depends, since the Congress has not adopted any law which asserts such federal authority over the bed of the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana therefore contends that there is no actual justiciable controversy between the parties. Louisiana in her answer denies that the United States has a fee simple title to the lands, minerals, and other things underlying the Gulf of Mexico. As affirmative defenses Louisiana asserts that she is the holder of fee simple title to all the lands, minerals, and other things in controversy; and that since she was admitted into the Union in 1812, she has exercised continuous, undisturbed and unchallenged sovereignty and possession over the property in question.
Louisiana also moved for trial by jury. She asserts that this suit, involving title to the beds of tide waters, is essentially an action at law and that the Seventh Amendment and 62 Stat. 953, 28 U. S. C. § 1872, require a jury.
The United States then moved for judgment on the ground that Louisiana’s asserted defenses were insufficient in law. We set the case down for argument on that motion.
The territory out of which Louisiana was created was purchased by the United States from France for $15,-000,000 under the Treaty of April 30, 1803, 8 Stat. 200. In 1804 the area thus acquired was divided into two territories, one being designated as the Territory of Orleans, 2 Stat. 283. By the Enabling Act of February 20, 1811, 2 Stat. 641, the inhabitants of the Territory of Orleans were authorized to form a constitution and a state government. By the Act of April 8, 1812, 2 Stat. 701, 703, Louisiana was admitted to the Union “on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever.” And as respects the southern boundary, that Act recited that Louisiana was “bounded by the said gulf [of Mexico] . . . including all islands within three leagues of the coast.” In 1938 Louisiana by statute declared its southern boundary to be twenty-seven marine miles from the shore line.
We think United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, controls this case and that there must be a decree for the complainant.
We lay aside such cases as Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 393, where a State’s regulation of coastal waters below the low-water mark collides with the interests of a person not acting on behalf of or under the authority of the United States. The question here is not the power of a State to use the marginal sea or to regulate its use in absence of a conflicting federal policy; it is the power of a State to deny the paramount authority which the United States seeks to assert over the area in question. We also put to one side New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, holding that title to or dominion over certain lots and vacant land along the river in the city of New Orleans did not pass to the United States under the treaty of cession but remained in the city. Such cases, like those involving ownership of the land under the inland waters (see, for example, Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212), are irrelevant here. As we pointed out in United States v. California, the issue in this class of litigation does not turn on title or ownership in the conventional sense. California, like the thirteen original colonies, never acquired ownership in the marginal sea. The claim to our three-mile belt was first asserted by the national government. Protection and control of the area are indeed functions of national external sovereignty. 332 U. S. pp. 31-34. The marginal sea is a national, not a state concern. National interests, national responsibilities, national concerns are involved. The problems of commerce, national defense, relations with other powers, war and peace focus there. National rights must therefore be paramount in that area.
That is the rationale of United States v. California. It is fully elaborated in the opinion of the Court in that case and does not need repetition.
We have carefully considered the extended and able argument of Louisiana in all its aspects and have found no reason why Louisiana stands on a better footing than California so far as the three-mile belt is concerned. The national interest in that belt is as great off the shore line of Louisiana as it is off the shore line of California. And there are no material differences in the preadmission or postadmission history of Louisiana that make her case stronger than California’s. Louisiana prior to admission had no stronger claim to ownership of the. marginal sea than the original thirteen colonies or California had. Moreover, the national dominion in the three-mile belt has not been sacrificed or ceded away in either case. The United States, acting through its Attorney General, who has authority to assert claims of this character and to invoke our jurisdiction in a federal-state controversy (United States v. California, pp. 26-29), now claims its paramount rights in this domain.
There is one difference, however, between Louisiana’s claim and California’s. The latter claimed rights in the three-mile belt. Louisiana claims rights twenty-four miles seaward of the three-mile belt. We need note only briefly this difference. We intimate no opinion on the power of a State to extend, define, or establish its external territorial limits or on the consequences of any such extension vis á vis persons other than the United States or those acting on behalf of or pursuant to its authority. The matter of state boundaries has no bearing on the present problem. If, as we held in California’s case, the three-mile belt is in the domain of the Nation rather than that of the separate States, it follows a fortiori that the ocean beyond that limit also is. The ocean seaward of the marginal belt is perhaps even more directly related to the national defense, the conduct of foreign affairs, and world commerce than is the marginal sea. Certainly it is not less so. So far as the issues presented here are concerned, Louisiana’s enlargement of her boundary emphasizes the strength of the claim of the United States to this part of the ocean and the resources of the soil under that area, including oil.
Louisiana’s motion for a jury trial is denied. We need not examine it beyond noting that this is an equity action for an injunction and accounting. The Seventh Amendment and the statute, assuming they extend to cases under our original jurisdiction, are applicable only to actions at law. See Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. 253, 262; Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, 133-134.
We hold that the United States is entitled to the relief prayed for. The parties, or either of them, may before September 15, 1950, submit the form of decree to carry this opinion into effect.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in this case and in No. 13, Original, United States v. Texas, see post, p. 723.]
The Seventh Amendment provides: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
28 U. S. C. § 1872 provides: “In all original actions at law in the Supreme Court against citizens of the United States, issues of fact shall be tried by a jury.”
And see Dart, Louisiana Constitutions (1932), p. 499.
6 Dart, La. Gen. Stats. (1939) §§9311.1-9311.4.
See note 1, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Pee Curiam.
Respondent Martin was employed as a teacher by petitioner School District under a contract that incorporated by reference the School Board’s rules and regulations. Because respondent was tenured, Oklahoma law required the School Board to renew her contract annually unless she was guilty of, among other things, “wilful neglect of duty.” Okla. Stat., Tit. 70, § 6-122 (Supp. 1976) (repealed 1977). The same Oklahoma statute provided for hearing and appeal procedures in the event of nonrenewal. One of the regulations incorporated into respondent’s contract required teachers holding only a bachelor’s degree to earn five semester hours of college credit every three years. Under the terms of the regulation, noncompliance with the continuing-education requirement was sanctioned by withholding salary increases.
Respondent, hired in 1969, persistently refused to comply with the continuing-education requirement and consequently forfeited the increases in salary to which she would have otherwise been entitled during the 1972-1974 school years. After her contract had been renewed for the 1973-1974 school term, however, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted a law mandating certain salary raises for teachers regardless of their compliance with the continuing-education policy. The School Board, thus deprived of the sanction which it had previously employed to enforce the provision, notified respondent that her contract would not be renewed for the 1974 — 1975 school year unless she completed five semester hours by April 10, 1974. Respondent nonetheless declined even to enroll in the necessary courses and, appearing before the Board in January 1974, indicated that she had no intention of complying with the requirement in her contract. Finding her persistent noncompliance with the continuing-education requirement “wilful neglect of duty,” the Board voted at its April 1974 meeting not to renew her contract for the following school year. After unsuccessfully pursuing administrative and judicial relief in the Oklahoma state courts, respondent brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. She claimed that the Board’s action had denied her liberty and property without due process of law and equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The District Court dismissed her complaint; it refused to assert “pendent jurisdiction” over respondent’s state-law claim that her refusal to comply with the continuing-education provision in her contract did not constitute “wilful neglect of duty” within the meaning of the Oklahoma tenure statute, and it concluded upon the stipulated evidence that the Board had not violated the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing to renew her contract. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. 579 F. 2d 1192 (1978). Following its own precedent of Weathers v. West Yuma County School Dist. R-J-1, 530 F. 2d 1335 (1976), the Court of Appeals determined that respondent had no protected “liberty” interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, but nonetheless held that under an amalgam of the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment she had a constitutional right to retain her employment as a teacher. The Board’s “arbitrary and capricious” action, concluded the Court of Appeals, “violated Fourteenth Amendment notions of fairness embodied in the Due Process Clause generally and the Equal Protection Clause particularly.” 579 F. 2d 1192, 1200 (1978).
While our decisions construing the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment do not form a checkerboard of bright lines between black squares and red squares, neither do they leave courts, and parties litigating federal constitutional claims in them, quite as much at sea as the Court of Appeals apparently thought was the case. It is true, as that court observed, that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment not only accords procedural safeguards to protected interests, but likewise protects substantive aspects of liberty against impermissible governmental restrictions. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U. S. 238, 244 (1976). But our cases supply an analytical framework for determining whether the Fourteenth Amendment rights of a person in the position of respondent have been violated. Employing that framework here, we conclude that the Court of Appeals’ judgment should be reversed.
The School District has conceded at all times that respondent was a “tenured” teacher under Oklahoma law, and therefore could be dismissed only for specified reasons. She was accorded the usual elements of procedural due process. Shortly after the Board’s April 1974 meeting, she was advised of the decision not to renew her contract and of her right to a hearing before the Board. At respondent’s request, a hearing was held at which both she and her attorney appeared and unsuccessfully contested the Board’s determination that her refusal to enroll in the continuing-education courses constituted “wilful neglect of duty.” Thus, as the Court of Appeals recognized, respondent has no colorable claim of a denial of procedural due process. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (1974); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 599-603 (1972). If respondent is to succeed in her claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be on the basis of either “substantive” due process or equal protection.
Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of the “substantive aspects” of “life, liberty, and property,” the Court of Appeals held, apparently, that the School Board’s decision to substitute the sanction of contract nonrenewal for the sanction of withholding routine pay increases was so “arbitrary” that it offended “notions of fairness” generally embodied in the Due Process Clause. Here, however, there is no claim that the interest entitled to protection as a matter of substantive due process was anything resembling “the individual’s freedom of choice with respect to certain basic matters of procreation, marriage, and family life.” Kelley v. Johnson, supra, at 244; see Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923). Rather, respondent’s claim is simply that she, as a tenured teacher, cannot be discharged under the School Board’s purely prospective rule establishing contract nonre-newal as the sanction for violations of the continuing-education requirement incorporated into her contract.
The School Board’s rule is endowed with a presumption of legislative validity, and the burden is on respondent to show that there is no rational connection between the Board’s action and its conceded interest in providing its students with competent, well-trained teachers. See Kelley v. Johnson, supra, at 247; Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, 423 (1952); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 168-170 (1944); CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548 (1973). Respondent’s claim that the Board acted arbitrarily in imposing a new penalty for noncompliance with the continuing-education requirement simply does not square with the facts. By making pay raises mandatory, the state legislature deprived the Board of the sanction that it had earlier used to enforce its teachers’ contractual obligation to earn continuing-education credits. The Board thus turned to contract nonre-newal, but applied this sanction purely prospectively so that those who might have relied on its past practice would nonetheless have an opportunity to bring themselves into compliance with the terms of their contracts. Indeed, of the four teachers in violation of the continuing-education requirement when the state legislature mandated salary increases, only respondent persisted in refusing to enroll in the necessary courses. Such a course of conduct on the part of a school board responsible for the public education of students within its jurisdiction, and employing teachers to perform the principal portion of that task, can scarcely be described as arbitrary. Respondent’s claim of a denial of substantive due process under these circumstances is wholly untenable.
The Court of Appeals’ reliance upon the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment was likewise mistaken. Since respondent neither asserted nor established the existence of any suspect classification or the deprivation of any fundamental constitutional right, see San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 40 (1973), the only inquiry is whether the State’s classification is “rationally related to the State’s objective.” Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 315 (1976). The most cursory examination of the agreed facts demonstrates that the Board’s action met this test.
The School District’s concern with the educational qualifications of its teachers cannot under any reasoned analysis be described as impermissible, and respondent does not contend that the Board’s continuing-education requirement bears no rational relationship to that legitimate governmental concern. Rather, respondent contests “the permissibility of the classification by which [she] and three other teachers were required to achieve [by April 1974] the number of continuing-education credits that all other teachers were given three years to achieve.” Brief in Opposition 7.
The Board’s objective in sanctioning violations of the continuing-education requirement was, obviously, to encourage future compliance with the requirement. Admittedly, imposition of a penalty for noncompliance placed respondent and three other teachers in a “class” different from those teachers who had complied with their contractual obligations in the past. But any sanction designed to enforce compliance with a valid rule, whatever its source, falls only on those who break the rule. Respondent and those in her “class” were the only teachers immediately affected by the Board’s action because they were the only teachers who had previously broken their contractual obligation. There is no suggestion here that the Board enforces the continuing-education requirement selectively; the Board refuses to renew the contracts of those teachers and only those teachers who refuse to comply with the continuing-education requirement.
That the Board was forced by the state legislature in 1974 to penalize noncompliance differently than it had in the past in no way alters the equal protection analysis of respondent’s claim. Like all teachers employed in the School District, respondent was given three years to earn five continuing-education credits. Unlike most of her colleagues, however, respondent refused to comply with the requirement, thus forfeiting her right to routine pay raises. Had the legislature not mandated salary increases in 1974, the Board presumably would have penalized respondent’s continued refusal to comply with the terms of her contract by denying her an increase in salary for yet another year. The Board, having been deprived by the legislature of the sanction previously employed to enforce the continuing-education requirement, merely substituted in its place another, albeit more onerous, sanction. The classification created by both sanctions, however, was between those who had acquired five continuing-education credits within the allotted time and those who had not.
At bottom, respondent’s position is that she is willing to forgo routine pay raises, but she is not willing to comply with the continuing-education requirement or to give up her job. The constitutional permissibility of a sanction imposed to enforce a valid governmental rule, however, is not tested by the willingness of those governed by the rule to accept the consequences of noncompliance. The sanction of contract nonrenewal is quite rationally related to the Board’s objective of enforcing the continuing-education obligation of its teachers. Respondent was not, therefore, deprived of equal protection of the laws.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Marshall concurs in the result.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U. S. 925, this Court, having held “that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s Conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury,” reversed the judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals. On remand, that court held that the question of negligence was foreclosed by this Court’s decision and affirmed a judgment in favor of the petitioner on condition that petitioner accept a remittitur. On review, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals “with directions ... to adjudicate, upon its own independent evaluation of the evidence and wholly apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether or not the jury finding of negligence of the defendant ... is so against the weight and preponderance of the evidence as to require a new trial in the interest of justice, and, upon the basis of its said adjudication, to either affirm the judgment of the trial court or grant a new trial.” The determination of that issue was foreclosed by Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., supra. The motion for leave to file a petition requesting this Court to mandamus the Texas Supreme Court to conform its decision to our mandate in that case is granted. Assuming as we do that the Supreme Court of Texas will of course conform to the disposition we now make, we do not issue the writ of mandamus.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision- of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
On October 23, 1983, less than two days before Williams’ scheduled execution, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the execution “pending final action of the Supreme Court.” Because we agree with applicant that the stay was improvidently imposed, we grant his motion to vacate the stay and to allow the State to reschedule Williams’ execution.
H-I
Williams was sentenced to death for killing a security guard while robbing a grocery store in Baton Rouge, La. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. State v. Williams, 383 So. 2d 369 (1980). After we denied Williams’ petition for certiorari, 449 U. S. 1103 (1981), and his request for rehearing, 450 U. S. 971 (1981), he unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Louisiana state courts. He then filed his first petition for habeas corpus in the District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, presenting the same 13 issues that had proved unavailing in the state courts. The District Court held no hearing, but issued a written opinion denying Williams’ petition. See Williams v. Blackburn, 649 F. 2d 1019, 1021-1026 (CA5 1981) (incorporating District Court’s decision). The District Court’s judgment was affirmed by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ibid., but an order was entered directing that the appeal be reheard en banc. On rehearing, the en banc Court of Appeals rejected each of Williams’ many objections to his conviction and sentence and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Williams v. Maggio, 679 F. 2d 381 (1982) (en banc). On June 27, 1983, we again denied Williams’ petition for certiorari, 463 U. S. 1214, and we denied his request for rehearing on September 8, 1983, 463 U. S. 1249.
After unsuccessfully renewing his attempt to win relief in the state courts, Williams filed a second petition for habeas corpus in the District Court, raising two claims that had previously been rejected and two additional claims. The District Court issued a detailed opinion in which it refused to grant the writ or to stay Williams’ execution. Williams v. King, 573 F. Supp. 525 (1983). Because it believed Williams’ contentions to be “frivolous and without merit,” the District Court also denied his request for a certificate of probable cause, which, under 28 U. S. C. §2253, is a prerequisite to an appeal. The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of probable cause and affirmed the judgment of the District Court, but nevertheless issued a stay. The court reviewed Williams’ claims and “expressly [found] that each is without merit.” Williams v. King, 719 F. 2d 730, 733 (1983). In light of recent actions by this Court, however, the Court of Appeals concluded with respect to Williams’ “proportionality” claim that “a complete review of the law on this matter may be anticipated. With a person’s life at stake, we must await that review or further directions from the Supreme Court.” Ibid.
II
Just last Term, we made clear that we would not automatically grant stays of execution in cases where the Court of Appeals had denied a writ of habeas corpus. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 895 (1983). A stay application addressed to a Circuit Justice or to the Court will be granted only if there exists “ ‘a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction.’” White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers) (quoting Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1974) (Powell, J., in chambers)). We perceive no reason to apply a different standard in determining whether a stay granted by a Court of Appeals pending disposition of a petition for certiorari to this Court should continue in effect.
The grounds on which Williams would request certiorari are amply evident from his opposition to the motion to vacate the stay, his voluminous filings in the lower courts, and the opinions and proceedings in the District Court and Court of Appeals. None of these claims warrant certiorari and plenary consideration in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that the stay, which the Court of Appeals apparently granted in view of the possibility that we would disagree with its analysis of the constitutional issues raised by Williams, should be vacated.
Williams’ claims may be summarized briefly. He argues, first, that the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the proportionality of his death sentence on a districtwide rather than a statewide basis, and that such review does not adequately ensure that his death sentence has been imposed in a rational and nonarbitrary manner. Second, the prosecutor’s closing argument allegedly prejudiced the jury against Williams and elicited a decision based on passion rather than reason. Third, the trial court’s instruction on lesser offenses, given despite the absence of evidence warranting such an instruction, is claimed to have violated the rule established in Hopper v. Evans, 456 U. S. 605 (1982), and to have denied Williams due process. Fourth, the exclusion for cause of three veniremen who opposed the death penalty at the guilt-innocence phase of Williams’ trial, although proper under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968), allegedly deprived Williams of a jury representative of a fair cross-section of the community.
Williams’ second, third, and fourth contentions warrant little discussion. As Williams made clear in his second petition for state habeas corpus, he challenged the prosecutor’s closing argument, either directly or indirectly, in his first state habeas proceeding. The Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately rejected his challenge, although two justices indicated that the prosecutor’s statements raised a substantial question and one concluded that the statements constituted reversible error. State ex rel. Williams v. Blackburn, 396 So. 2d 1249 (1981). Williams’ failure to raise this claim in his first federal habeas proceeding is inexcusable, but the District Court nevertheless gave it full consideration in the second federal habeas proceeding. Applying the standard established in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637 (1974), the District Court examined the prosecutor’s closing argument at length and concluded that it did not render Williams’ trial fundamentally unfair.
The trial court’s instruction on lesser offenses was clearly proper under state law, and the District Court’s review of the record led it to conclude that the evidence fully justified the trial court’s charge.
Williams’ challenge to the exclusion for cause of certain veniremen was previously rejected by the Fifth Circuit and was presented to this Court in his petitions for certiorari and his motion for rehearing following the denial of his second petition. He has now recast his argument as an attack on the representativeness of the jury that convicted him. In Witherspoon, we found the extant evidence insufficient to demonstrate that “the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially increases the risk of conviction.” 391 U. S., at 518. Williams claims that he is entitled to a hearing on the question whether the jury selection procedures followed here had these effects. But he has not alleged that veniremen were excluded for cause on any broader basis than authorized in Witherspoon. The District Court characterized the evidence proffered by Williams on the question whether the jury was less than neutral with respect to guilt as tentative and fragmentary, and we cannot conclude that it abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Further review is not warranted.
Williams’ challenge to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s proportionality review also does not warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The en banc Fifth Circuit has carefully examined the Louisiana Supreme Court’s procedure and found that it “provides adequate safeguards against freakish imposition of capital punishment.” Williams v. Maggio, 679 F. 2d, at 395. This conclusion was challenged in this Court in Williams’ petition for certiorari following the Court of Appeals’ decision and in his motion for reconsideration of our denial of that petition. We were, of course, fully aware at that time that we had agreed to decide whether some form of comparative proportionality review is constitutionally required. See Pulley v. Harris, 460 U. S. 1036 (1983).
Since agreeing to decide this issue in Pulley, the Court has consistently denied challenges to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s proportionality review scheme that were identical to that raised by Williams. See Lindsey v. Louisiana, post, p. 908; James v. Louisiana, post, p. 908; Sonnier v. Louisiana, 463 U. S. 1229, rehearing denied, 463 U. S. 1249 (1983). See also Narcisse v. Louisiana, post, p. 865. Williams asserts that his execution should be stayed because we have issued a stay in another Louisiana death case, Baldwin v. Maggio, 463 U. S. 1251 (1983). But our decision there turned not on the substantiality of applicant’s Pulley argument, but on the fact that applicant raised a substantial challenge to the effectiveness of his trial counsel, similar to those we shall resolve in two cases set for argument this Term. Strickland v. Washington, 462 U. S. 1105 (1983); United States v. Cronic, 459 U. S. 1199 (1983).
As Williams notes, Justice White recently granted a stay in a case raising a proportionality challenge to a death sentence imposed in Texas. Autry v. Estelle, post, p. 1301. Also, on October 31, the Court declined to vacate that stay. Post, p. 925. In that case, however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, like the California Supreme Court in Pulley, had wholly failed to compare applicant’s case with other cases to determine whether his death sentence was disproportionate to the punishment imposed on others. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable to conclude that Autry’s execution should be stayed pending the decision in Pulley, or until further order of the Court.
That is not the case here. Our prior actions are ample evidence that we do not believe that the challenge to districtwide, rather than statewide, proportionality review is an issue warranting a grant of certiorari. Our view remains the same. Nor did Williams convince the lower courts that he might have been prejudiced by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision to review only cases from the judicial district in which he was convicted. Indeed, the District Court examined every published opinion of the Louisiana Supreme Court affirming a death sentence and concluded that Williams’ sentence was not disproportionate regardless of whether the review was conducted on a districtwide or statewide basis. We see no reason to disturb that judgment. Finally, Williams has not shown, nor could he, that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the crimes he was convicted of committing.
Ill
The District Court’s careful opinion was fully reviewed by the Court of Appeals, which found no basis for upsetting the District Court’s conclusion that Williams’ contentions were meritless. The arguments that Williams raised for the first time in these proceedings are insubstantial, and the arguments that he has attempted to relitigate are no more persuasive now than they were when we first rejected them. We conclude, therefore, that the stay entered by the Court of Appeals should be vacated.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent claims the right to withdraw his plea of guilty as a consequence of the District Court’s failure to give one of the warnings required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure-11. Because the claim of Rule 11 error was not preserved by timely objection, the plain-error standard of Rule 52(b) applies, with its requirement to prove effect on substantial rights. The question is what showing must thus be made to obtain relief for an unpreserved Rule 11 failing, and we hold that a defendant is obliged to show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.
I
In early May 1999, a confidential informant working with law enforcement arranged through respondent Carlos Dominguez Benitez (hereinafter Dominguez) to buy several pounds of methamphetamine. First, the informant got a sample from Dominguez, and a week later Dominguez went to a restaurant in Anaheim, California, to consummate the sale in the company of two confederates, one of whom brought a shopping bag with over a kilogram of the drugs. The meeting ended when the informant gave a signal and officers arrested the dealers. Dominguez confessed to selling the methamphetamine and gave information about his supplier and confederates.
A federal grand jury indicted Dominguez on two counts: conspiracy to possess more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, and possession of 1,391 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, both with intent to distribute. On the conspiracy count, Dominguez faced a statutory, mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, with a maximum of life. 84 Stat. 1260, 21 U. S. C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. The District Court appointed counsel, who began talking with the Government about a plea agreement.
In September 1999, the District Court received the first of several letters from Dominguez, in which he asked for a new lawyer and expressed discomfort with the plea agreement his counsel was encouraging him to sign. On counsel’s motion, the court held a status conference, at which Dominguez spoke to the judge. Again he said he was dissatisfied with his representation, and wanted a “better deal.” The court asked whether he was “talking about a disposition ... other than trial,” and Dominguez answered, “At no time have I decided to go to any trial.” App. 46-47. Counsel spoke to the same effect later in the proceeding, when he said that he had “told [the prosecutor] all along that there won’t be a trial on the [date set] based on my client’s representations that he doesn’t want a trial.” Id., at 51. The court explained to Dominguez that it could not help him in plea negotiations, and found no reason to change counsel.
Shortly after that, the parties agreed that Dominguez would plead guilty to the conspiracy, and the Government would dismiss the possession charge. The Government stipulated that Dominguez would receive what is known as a safety-valve reduction of two levels. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §§2Dl.l(b)(6), 5C1.2 (Nov. 1999) (hereinafter USSG). The safety valve was important because it would allow the court to invoke 18 U. S. C. § 3553(f), authorizing a sentence below the otherwise mandatory minimum in certain cases of diminished culpability, the only chance Dominguez had for a sentence under 10 years. That chance turned on satisfying five conditions, one going to Dominguez’s criminal history, which the agreement did not address. The agreement did, however, warn Dominguez that it did not bind the sentencing court, and that Dominguez could not withdraw his plea if the court did not accept the Government’s stipulations or recommendations. At a hearing the next day, Dominguez changed his plea to guilty. In the plea colloquy, the court gave almost all the required Rule 11 warnings, including the warning that the plea agreement did not bind the court, but the judge failed to mention that Dominguez could not withdraw his plea if the court did not accept the Government’s recommendations. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(c)(3)(B).
When the Probation Office subsequently issued its report, it found that Dominguez had three prior convictions, two of them under other names, which neither defense counsel nor the prosecutor had known at the time of the plea negotiations. The upshot was that Dominguez was ineligible for the safety valve, and so had no chance to escape the sentence of 10 years. After receiving two more letters from Dominguez complaining about the quality of counsel’s representation, the District Court sentenced Dominguez to the mandatory minimum. At the sentencing hearing, all counsel told the court that they had thought Dominguez might at least have been eligible for the safety-valve mitigation, but agreed that with three convictions, he was not. Dominguez told the court that he had “never had any knowledge about the points of responsibility, the safety valve, or anything like that.” App. 109. The court replied that in light of the “lengthy change of plea proceedings” it was “difficult ... to accept what” Dominguez said. Id., at 112.
On appeal, Dominguez argued that the District Court’s failure to warn him, as Rule 11(c)(3)(B) instructs, that he could not withdraw his guilty plea if the court did not accept the Government’s recommendations required reversal. After waiting for United States v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55 (2002), a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, 310 F. 3d 1221 (2002), and cited United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725 (1993), in applying the plain-error standard. The court held that the District Court had indeed erred; and that the error was plain, affected Dominguez’s substantial rights, and required correction in the interests of justice.
To show that substantial rights were affected, the Court of Appeals required Dominguez to “prove that the court’s error was not minor or technical and that he did hot understand the rights at issue when he entered his guilty plea.” 310 F. 3d, at 1225. The court rejected the Government’s arguments that the written plea agreement or the District Court’s other statements in the plea colloquy sufficiently advised Dominguez of his rights, given Dominguez’s inability to speak English and the assurances of both counsel that he would likely qualify under the safety-valve provision. Judge Tallman dissented, with the warning that the majority’s analysis followed neither Vonn nor Circuit precedent. 310 F. 3d, at 1227-1228.
We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1072 (2003), on the question “[wjhether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred.” Pet. for Cert. (I). We now reverse.
II
A
Because the Government agreed to make a nonbinding sentencing recommendation, Rule 11(c)(3)(B) required the court to “advise the defendant that the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.” Rule 11, however, instructs that not every violation of its terms calls for reversal of conviction by entitling the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. “A variance from the requirements of this rule is harmless error if it does not affect substantial rights.” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11(h).
In Vonn, we considered the standard that applies when a defendant is dilatory in raising Rule 11 error, and held that reversal is not in order unless the error is plain. 535 U. S., at 63; see Olano, supra, at 731-737. Although we explained that in assessing the effect of Rule 11 error, a reviewing court must look to the entire record, not to the plea proceedings alone, Vonn, supra, at 74-75, we did not formulate the standard for determining whether a defendant has shown, as the plain-error standard requires, Olano, supra, at 734-735, an effect on his substantial rights.
B
It is only for certain structural errors undermining the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole that even preserved error requires reversal without regard to the mistake’s effect on the proceeding. See Arizona v. Fulmi-nante, 499 U. S. 279, 309-310 (1991) (giving examples). Dominguez does not argue that either Rule 11 error generally or the Rule 11 error here is structural in this sense.
Otherwise, relief for error is tied in some way to prejudicial effect, and the standard phrased as “error that affects substantial rights,” used in Rule 52, has previously been taken to mean error with a prejudicial effect on the outcome of a judicial proceeding. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750 (1946). To affect “substantial rights,” see 28 U. S. C. §2111, an error must have “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the . . . verdict.” Kot-teakos, supra, at 776. In cases where the burden of demonstrating prejudice (or materiality) is on the defendant seeking relief, we have invoked a standard with similarities to the Kotteakos formulation in requiring the showing of “a reasonable probability that, but for [the error claimed], the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 682 (1985) (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (adopting the prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 694 (1984), for claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963) (internal quotation marks omitted)); 473 U. S., at 685 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (same).
No reason has appeared for treating the phrase “affecting substantial rights” as untethered to a prejudice requirement when applying Olano to this nonstructural error, or for doubting that Bagley is a sensible model to follow. As Vonn makes clear, the burden of establishing entitlement to relief for plain error is on the defendant claiming it, and for several reasons, we think that burden should not be too easy for defendants in Dominguez’s position. First, the standard should enforce the policies that underpin Rule 52(b) generally, to encourage timely objections and reduce wasteful reversals by demanding strenuous exertion to get relief for unpreserved error. See Vonn, 535 U. S., at 73. Second, it should respect the particular importance of the finality of guilty pleas, which usually rest, after all, on a defendant’s profession of guilt in open court, and are indispensable in the operation of the modern criminal justice system. See United States v. Timmreck, 441 U. S. 780, 784 (1979). And, in this case, these reasons are complemented by the fact, worth repeating, that the violation claimed was of Rule 11, not of due process.
We hold, therefore, that a defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain error under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. A defendant must thus satisfy the judgment of the reviewing court, informed by the entire record, that the probability of a different result is “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” of the proceeding. Strickland, supra, at 694; Bagley, supra, at 682 (opinion of Blackmun, J. (internal quotation marks omitted)).
c
What we have already said points to why the test applied by the Court of Appeals in this case fell short. Its first element was whether the error was “minor or technical,” 310 F. 3d, at 1225, a phrase it took from United States v. Graibe, 946 F. 2d 1428 (CA9 1991), which in turn found it in the 1983 commentary that accompanied the amendment to Rule 11(h). 946 F. 2d, at 1433. But this element requires no examination of the effect of the omitted warning on a defendant’s decision, a failing repeated to a significant extent by the second element of the Ninth Circuit’s test, taken from United States v. Minore, 292 F. 3d 1109 (CA9 2002), which asks whether the defendant understood “the rights at issue when he entered his.guilty plea.” 310 F. 3d, at 1225. True, this enquiry gets closer than the first to a consideration of the likely effect of Rule 11 error on the defendant’s decision to plead; assessing a claim that an error affected a defendant’s decision to plead guilty must take into account any indication that the omission of a Rule 11 warning misled him. But the standard of the Court of Appeals does not allow consideration of any record evidence tending to show that a misunderstanding was inconsequential to a defendant’s decision, or evidence indicating the relative significance of other facts that may have borne on his choice regardless of any Rule 11 error.
Relevant evidence that the Court of Appeals thus passed over in this case included Dominguez’s statement to the District Court that he did not intend to go to trial, and his eoun-sel’s confirmation of that representation, made at the same hearing. The neglected but relevant considerations also included the implications raised by Dominguez’s protests at the sentencing hearing. He claimed that when he pleaded guilty he had “never had any knowledge about the points of responsibility, the safety valve, or anything like that.” App. 109. These statements, if credited, would show that Dominguez was confused about the law that applied to his sentence, about which the court clearly informed him, but they do not suggest any causal link between his confusion and the particular Rule 11 violation on which he now seeks relief.
Other matters that may be relevant but escape notice under the Ninth Circuit’s test are the overall strength of the Government’s case and any possible defenses that appear from the record, subjects that courts are accustomed to considering in a Strickland or Brady analysis. When the record made for a guilty plea and sentencing reveals evidence, as this one does, showing both a controlled sale of drugs to an informant and a confession, one can fairly ask a defendant seeking to withdraw his plea what he might ever have thought he could gain by going to trial. The point of the question is not to second-guess a defendant’s actual decision; if it is reasonably probable he would have gone to trial absent the error, it is no matter that the choice may have been foolish. The point, rather, is to enquire whether the omitted warning would have made the difference required by the standard of reasonable probability; it is hard to see here how the warning could have had an effect on Dominguez’s assessment of his strategic position. And even if there were reason to think the warning from the bench could have mattered, there was the plea agreement, read to Dominguez in his native Spanish, which specifically warned that he could not withdraw his plea if the court refused to accept the Government’s recommendations. This fact, uncontested by Dominguez, tends to show that the Rule 11 error made no difference to the outcome here.
* * *
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Dominguez speaks and writes Spanish, not English. A certified translator was present for the hearings in court we describe, and for the plea agreement. Some of the letters are in English, and the record does not show who translated them or assisted Dominguez in writing them.
The agreement also contemplated that Dominguez’s total offense level under the Guidelines would be 27, after considering the safety valve and a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Assuming so, and assuming he had no (or minimal) criminal history, his sentence could have been as low as 70 months. See USSG eh. 5, pt. A (sentencing table).
At the time of the plea hearing, the requirement appeared at Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(2). It has not changed in substance. We refer to the current Rule in the text of this opinion, and do likewise for Rules 11(h) and 52(b), each of which has also received a stylistic amendment.
Other Courts of Appeals employed different tests. See n. 8, infra.
Congress gave the courts this instruction in 1983, in partial response to this Court’s decision in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459 (1969), which it felt had caused too many reversals for reasons that were too insubstantial. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 66-71 (2002) (discussing the history of Rule 11(h)).
The argument, if made, would not prevail. The omission of a single Rule 11 warning without more is not colorably structural. Cf. United States v. Timmreck, 441 U. S. 780, 783-784 (1979) (holding that Rule 11 error without more is not cognizable on collateral review).
When the Government has the burden of addressing prejudice, as in excusing preserved error as harmless on direct review of the criminal conviction, it is not enough to negate an effect on the outcome of the case. See Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967) (“[T]he court must be able to declare a belief that [constitutional error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). When the Government has the burden of showing that constitutional trial error is harmless because it comes up on collateral review, the heightened interest in finality generally calls for the Government to meet the more lenient Kotteakos standard. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 638 (1993). If the burden is on a defendant to show prejudice in the first instance, of course, it would be easier to show a reasonable doubt that constitutional error affected a trial than to show a likely effect on the outcome or verdict.
This standard is similar to one already applied by some Courts of Appeals, though those courts have not drawn a direct connection to Strickland and Bagley, and in some cases understood themselves to be reviewing for harmless, rather than plain, error. See United States v. Martinez, 289 F. 3d 1023, 1029 (CA7 2002) (on plain-error review, asking “whether any Rule 11 violations would have likely affected [the defendant’s] willingness to plead guilty”); see also United States v. Johnson, 1 F. 3d 296, 302 (CA5 1993) (en banc) (on harmless-error review, asking “whether the defendant’s knowledge and comprehension of the full and correct information would have been likely to affect his willingness to plead guilty”); cf. United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 734-735 (1993) (the main difference as to substantial rights in the harmless- and plain-error analyses is that the burden of persuasion shifts from Government to defendant).
One significant difference, however, between Rule 11 claims and claims under Strickland and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), is that the latter may be raised in postconviction proceedings such as a petition for habeas corpus, or a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U. S. C. §2255. Those proceedings permit greater development of the record. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U. S. 500 (2003) (Strickland claims are not procedurally defaulted when brought for the first time on § 2255, because of the advantages of that form of proceeding for hearing, such cases). For Rule 11 claims, by contrast, that way is open only in the most egregious cases. Timmreck, supra; see also Vonn, 535 U. S., at 64 (noting that Rule 11(h) was not meant to disturb Timmreck). A defendant will rarely, if ever, be able to obtain relief for Rule 11 violations under §2255; and relief on direct appeal, given the plain-error standard that will apply in many cases, will be difficult to get, as it should be.' Cf. United States v. Raineri, 42 F. 3d 36, 45 (CA1 1994) (Boudin, J.) (“[JJust as there are many fair trials but few perfect ones, so flaws are also to be expected in Rule 11 proceedings”).
Our rule does not, however, foreclose relief altogether. The reasonable-probability standard is not the same as, and should not be confused with, a requirement that a defendant prove by a preponderance of the evidence that but for error things would have been different. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419, 434 (1995).
This is another point of contrast with the constitutional question whether a defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We have held, for example, that when the record of a criminal conviction obtained by guilty plea contains no evidence that a defendant knew of the rights he was putatively waiving, the conviction must be reversed. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 243 (1969). We do not suggest that such a conviction could be saved even by overwhelming evidence that the defendant would have pleaded guilty regardless.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 is a civil antitrust suit by the Government challenging Diebold’s acquisition of the assets of the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company as being violative of § 7 of the Clayton Act. On motion of Diebold the District Court entered summary judgment against the Government on the ground that the acquired firm was a “failing company” under the doctrine of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 280 U. S. 291 (1930). The case is here on direct appeal. 368 U. S. 894.
In determining that the acquisition of the assets of Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company was not a violation of § 7, the District Court acted upon its findings that “HHM was hopelessly insolvent and faced with imminent receivership” and that “Diebold was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for HHM’s business.” The latter finding represents at least in part the resolution of a head-on factual controversy as revealed by the materials before the District Court of whether other offers for HHM’s assets or business were actually made. In any event both findings represent a choice of inferences to be drawn from the subsidiary facts contained in the affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions submitted below. On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A study of the record in this light leads us to believe that inferences contrary to those drawn by the trial court might be permissible. The materials before the District Court-having thus raised a genuine issue as to ultimate facts material to the rule of International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, it was improper for the District Court to decide the applicability of the rule on a motion for summary judgment. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., 56 (c).
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a treble damage suit brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15, charging petitioners, Sunkist Growers, Incorporated, and The Exchange Orange Products Company, with conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in citrus fruits and by-products and with actual monopolization thereof in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2, as amended. The petitioners are each agricultural cooperative organizations, Exchange Orange being a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunkist. Petitioners contend the case was submitted under instructions permitting the jury to find an illegal conspiracy among them and Exchange Lemon Products Company, a cooperative processing association owned and operated exclusively by a number of lemon-grower associations all of which are members of Sunkist Growers, Inc. They say that under the exemptions from the antitrust laws granted agricultural associations by § 6 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 17, and § 1 of the Cap-per-Volstead Act, 42 Stat. 388, 7 U. S. C. § 291, Sunkist, Exchange Orange, and Exchange Lemon, being made up of the same growers and associations, cannot be charged with conspiracy among themselves. The trial court overruled this contention, among others, and the jury returned a verdict of $500,000. Judgment for treble this amount and attorney fees, less some minor offsets, was entered. The Court of Appeals, accepting petitioners’ view of the instructions, held that the exemption claimed did not apply here and affirmed the judgment as to liability but reversed as to the amount of damages. 284 F. 2d 1. We granted certiorari limited to the issue of the immunity of interorganizational dealings among the three cooperatives from the conspiracy provisions of the antitrust laws. 368 U. S. 813. We have concluded that the case was submitted to the jury on the theory claimed by petitioners and that this was erroneous. Thus we reverse the judgment.
Sunkist Growers, Inc., has at its base 12,000 growers of citrus fruits in California and Arizona. These growers are organized into local associations which operate packing houses. The associations in turn are grouped into district exchanges, and representatives from these exchanges make up the governing board of Sunkist, a nonstock membership corporation. Sunkist serves the members as an organization for marketing their fresh fruit and fruit products through its field, advertising, sales, and traffic departments. All of its net revenues are distributed to the members.
In 1915 several member associations of Sunkist undertook to develop by-products for lemons in order to create a market for produce not salable as fresh fruit. Because this was a new, untried field the entire cooperative did not participate. Rather a separate cooperative — Exchange Lemon, a nonprofit stock corporation — was formed for this venture by the interested associations. Since that time Exchange Lemon has retained its separate identity although it is made up exclusively of lemon-grower associations which are also members of Sunkist. Its function now is primarily one of processing, and the resultant products are marketed for the owners by Sunkist through its products department, which is jointly managed by directors of Exchange Lemon and Exchange Orange.
One year after the organization of Exchange Lemon a similar association was formed to develop by-products for oranges. This organization, Exchange Orange, was comprised of a number of Sunkist member associations until 1931. At that time the Sunkist directors decided to make the processing facilities of Exchange Orange available to all of its member associations by purchasing it and operating it as a wholly owned subsidiary.
In sum, the individual growers involved each belong to a local grower association. Fruit which is to be sold fresh is packed by the associations and marketed by Sunkist, a nonstock membership corporation comprised of district exchanges to which the associations belong. Most fruit which is to be processed into by-products is handled by Exchange Orange, a subsidiary of Sunkist, or by Exchange Lemon, a separate organization comprised of a number of Sunkist member associations. It is then marketed by the products department of Sunkist which is managed by directors of Exchange Orange and Exchange Lemon.
Competing with the three cooperatives in the California-Arizona area in the business of processing and selling canned orange juice were four independent processors, which were primarily dependent upon Sunkist for their supply of by-product oranges. In 1951 two of these concerns, TreeSweet Products Company and E. A. Silzle Corporation, had process-and-purchase contracts with Exchange Orange. Under its contract TreeSweet agreed to process at cost an undetermined amount of oranges provided by Exchange Orange and to purchase the resultant orange juice at the then current price of Sunkist. The average net price for the oranges under this contract was alleged to have been $25.10 per ton. The contract with Silzle provided that it would process a stated amount of oranges for Exchange Orange and purchase the juice at a stated price less its processing cost alleged to have netted $17.66 per ton. The third producer, Case-Swayne Company, allegedly declined Sunkist’s offer of a similar contract. Respondent Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Company, the final processor, was offered oranges only at the list price of $40 to $44 per ton, depending upon content of soluble solids, and was refused the process- and-purchase arrangements described above.
Respondents brought this suit on the theory that Sunkist and Exchange Orange controlled the supply of byproduct oranges available in the California-Arizona area to independent processors; that they combined and conspired with Exchange Lemon, TreeSweet, and Silzle to restrain and to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in 1951 in the processing and sale of citrus fruit juices, particularly canned orange juice; that they in fact monopolized such trade and commerce; and that the purpose or effect thereof was the elimination of Winckler as a competitor in the sale of such juices. Respondents relied on six specific acts and contracts which allegedly furthered the conspiracy, namely: (1) the processing of oranges at cost by Exchange Lemon for Exchange Orange during 1951; (2) the processing of lemons at cost by Exchange Orange for Exchange Lemon during 1951; (3) the establishment by Sunkist and Exchange Orange of a price to independent processors alleged to be too high to enable purchasers to compete, i. e., the $40-$44 per ton list price; (4) the contract between Exchange Orange and TreeSweet in 1951; (5) the contract between Exchange Orange and Silzle in 1951; (6) the refusal to sign a comparable contract with respondent Winckler.
After a lengthy trial producing a 4,000-page transcript, the case went to the jury under a necessarily complicated charge. As to the parties the jury might find to have participated in an illegal conspiracy, the court gave several instructions. One, given early in the charge, was that:
“a parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary can be guilty of combining or conspiring together to violate the antitrust laws. The defendants Sunkist Growers, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary Exchange Orange Products Company, can accordingly combine or conspire together or with others to violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as charged in the first and second causes of action, subject to other instructions concerning the Capper-Volstead Act, and Section 6 of the Clayton Act, and the exemptions contained therein.”
The instructions on the Clayton and Capper-Volstead Acts merely stated that the cooperatives could lawfully have a monopoly of the fruit and products in which they dealt. Later references to the alleged conspiracy often mentioned only petitioners and the two independent processors, e. g., “If you find that either or both of the defendants [Sunkist and Exchange Orange, petitioners here] combined with TreeSweet or Silzle to eliminate the competition of the plaintiff . . . .” However, the court’s concluding instructions on the subject could well have been taken by the jury as permitting them to find an illegal conspiracy solely among the three cooperatives:
“Unless you find, therefore, from the preponderance of the evidence, that Sunkist or Exchange Orange or either of them, combined or conspired with either TreeSweet, or Silzle, or ELP [Exchange Lemon Products], and in 1951 did one or more of the specific acts charged ....
. . Unless you find from the preponderance of the evidence that defendants Sunkist and Exchange Orange, or either of them, and one or more of the alleged co-conspirators [one of which was Exchange Lemon], combined and conspired, and pursuant to such combination or conspiracy ....
“Those are summary instructions whieh sort of sum up what is charged and what the plaintiff must prove.”
And in a final addendum after consultation with counsel the court instructed that:
“I also am told that I spoke about how the defendants had conspired on one occasion. The charge is not that the defendants conspired. The charge is that the defendants and co-conspirators conspired.
“However, as a .matter of fact, you may find that nobody conspired, or you may pick out and decide that some number less than the total conspired.”
On the question now before us, the Court of Appeals held that any objection to at least one of the cónspiracy instructions was waived; that in any event different agricultural cooperatives combining together are not entitled to claim a total immunity for acts which they might do unilaterally and individually; and that the common ownership of Sunkist, Exchange Orange, and Exchange Lemon did not prevent the finding of an illegal conspiracy among them.
We believe the instructions quite plainly left it open for the jury to base their verdict upon a finding of a conspiracy among petitioners and Exchange Lemon. At the outset the court instructed that a conspiracy could be found between Sunkist and its wholly owned subsidiary Exchange Orange. Thereafter the charge advised the jury that a finding of conspiracy between “Sunkist or Exchange Orange or either of them . . . [and] either TreeSweet, or Silzle, or ELP” was sufficient basis for a judgment against petitioners. From this it is entirely probable that the jury’s verdict against both petitioners was based on their finding of a conspiracy among Sunkist, Exchange Orange, and Exchange Lemon. There is no question that Exchange Lemon was identified in the complaint and throughout the trial as an alleged co-conspirator. In no fewer than five instances did the trial court refer to the alleged conspiracy as being among petitioners and the “co-conspirators” or petitioners and Exchange Lemon, TreeSweet, or Silzle. The final summarization on conspiracy was in terms of finding that petitioners combined or conspired with either TreeSweet or Silzle or Exchange Lemon, and the addendum instructions emphasized that the jury could find either or both petitioners had illegally conspired with any one of the alleged co-conspirators. It is true that in some instances the court’s conspiracy instructions mentioned only TreeSweet and Silzle as co-conspirators. Conjecture as to the reasons for this would not be fruitful. For it is clear that the court never limited the jury to a consideration of those parties as the sole co-conspirators. And other instructions, including the summarization, allowed the jury to base their verdict upon a finding of an illegal conspiracy solely among Sunkist, Exchange Orange, and Exchange Lemon.
It is suggested by respondents and the court below that petitioners waived their objection to these instructions. This is based on petitioners’ acquiescence in the additional instructions, including references to the conspiracy, given the jury after the general charge. But petitioners’ actions here must be viewed in context. Prior to the general charge, conferences of counsel and the trial court were held to discuss the instructions. At each point counsel for petitioners objected to instructions which suggested that the three cooperatives might be found to have illegally conspired among themselves and requested instructions that would have limited a finding of an unlawful conspiracy in this case to one among petitioners and TreeSweet or Silzle. The trial court consistently ruled adversely to petitioners on this point. After the charge was delivered, counsel were told that all prior objections would be preserved and asked if they had any additional objections. In light of this assurance and petitioners’ prior objections and requests, we believe the acquiescence in the added instructions could not be considered a waiver.
We are squarely presented, then, with the question of whether Sunkist, Exchange Orange, and Exchange Lemon — the three legal entities formed by these 12,000 growers — can be considered independent parties for the purposes of the conspiracy provisions of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. We conclude not. Section 6 of the Clayton Act provides, inter alia, that agricultural organizations instituted for the purposes of mutual help shall not be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade under the antitrust laws. The Capper-Volstead Act sets out this immunity in greater specificity:
“That persons engaged in the production of agricultural products as farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers may act together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively processing, preparing for market, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of persons so engaged. Such associations may have marketing agencies in common; and such associations and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes . ...”
There can be no doubt that under these statutes the 12,000 California-Arizona citrus growers ultimately involved could join together into one organization for the collective processing and marketing of their fruit and fruit products without the business decisions of their officers being held combinations or conspiracies. The language of the Capper-Volstead Act is specific in permitting concerted efforts by farmers in the processing, preparing for market, and marketing of their products. And the legislative history of the Act reveals several references to the Sunkist organization — then called the California Fruit Growers Exchange and numbering 11,000 members — including a suggestion by Senator Capper that this was the type of cooperative that would find “definite legalization” under the legislation. Although we cannot draw from these references a knowing approval of the tripartite legal organization of the 11,000 growers, they do indicate that a cooperative of such size and general activities was contemplated by the Act.
Instead of a single cooperative, these growers through local associations first formed one area-wide organization (Sunkist) for marketing purposes. When it was decided to perform research and processing on a joint basis, separate organizations were formed by the interested associations for reasons outlined above. At a later date one of these (Exchange Orange) was acquired by the Sunkist organization and is presently held as a subsidiary. The other (Exchange Lemon) is still owned by the lemon-grower associations, all of whom are also member associations of Sunkist. With due respect to the contrary opinions of the Court of Appeals and District Court, we feel that the 12,000 growers here involved are in practical effect and in the contemplation of the statutes one “organization” or “association” even though they have formally organized themselves into three separate legal entities. To hold otherwise would be to impose'grave legal consequences upon organizational distinctions that are of de minimis meaning and effect to these growers who have banded together for processing and marketing purposes within the purview of the Clayton and Capper-Volstead Acts. There is no indication that the use of separate corporations had economic significance in itself or that outsiders considered and dealt with the three entities as independent organizations. That the packing is done by local associations, the advertising, sales, and traffic by divisions of the area association, and the processing by separate organizations does not in our opinion preclude these growers from being considered one organization or association for purposes of the Clayton and Capper-Volstead Acts.
Since we hold erroneous one theory of liability upon which the general verdict may have rested — a conspiracy among petitioners and Exchange Lemon — it is unnecessary for us to explore the legality of the other theories. As was stated of a general verdict in Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U. S. 490, 493 (1884), “[I]ts generality prevents us from perceiving upon which plea they found. If, therefore, upon any one issue error was committed, either in the admission of evidence, or in the charge of the court, the verdict cannot be upheld . . . Suffice it to say that our decision in no way detracts from earlier cases holding agricultural cooperatives liable for conspiracies with outside groups, United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188 (1939), and for monopolization, Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Assn. v. United States, 362 U. S. 458 (1960).
Reversed and remanded.
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.
These include juices, concentrates, oil, pectin, pharmaceuticals, and cattle feed.
Some by-product fruit is sold to or processed by independent processors.
Sunkist also sold by-product oranges to additional companies for processing into by-products other than canned orange juice.
The soluble solids content of the oranges processed by TreeSweet under this contract averaged 131.6 pounds per ton.
The soluble solids content of these oranges averaged 120 pounds per ton.
It could be argued that the instructions also permitted the jury to find an illegal conspiracy solely between petitioners. Our holding renders unnecessary an evaluation of this interpretation of the charge.
“Sec. 6. That the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.”
The Act has certain organizational requisites which are not in issue here.
61 Cong. Rec. 1036 (1921) (remarks of Representative Black); 62 Cong. Rec. 2052 (1922) (Senator Kellogg); 62 Cong. Rec. 2061 (1922) (Senator Capper); 62 Cong. Rec. 2277 (1922) (Senator Walsh).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we must determine whether an alien who is prosecuted under 8 U. S. C. § 1326 for illegal entry following deportation may assert in that criminal proceeding the invalidity of the underlying deportation order.
I-H
Respondents, Jose Mendoza-Lopez and Angel Landeros-Quinones, were arrested at separate locations in Lincoln, Nebraska, on October 23, 1984, by agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. On October 30, 1984, they were transported to Denver, Colorado, where a group deportation hearing was held for respondents along with 11 other persons, all of whom were, like respondents, Mexican nationals. After the hearing, respondents were ordered deported and were bused to El Paso, Texas. They were deported from El Paso on November 1,1984. Each received, at the time of his deportation, a copy of Form 1-294, which advised, in both Spanish and English, that a return to the United States without permission following deportation would constitute a felony.
On December 12, 1984, both respondents were once again separately arrested in Lincoln, Nebraska. They were subsequently indicted by a grand jury in the District of Nebraska on charges of violating 8 U. S. C. §1326, which provides:
“Any alien who—
“(1) has been arrested and deported or excluded and deported, and thereafter
“(2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in the United States . . .
“shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment of not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.”
Respondents moved in the District Court to dismiss their indictments, on the ground that they were denied fundamentally fair deportation hearings. They contended that the Immigration Law Judge inadequately informed them of their right to counsel at the hearing, and accepted their unknowing waivers of the right to apply for suspension of deportation.
The District Court ruled that respondents could collaterally attack their previous deportation orders. United States v. Landeros-Quinones, CR 85-L-06 (Feb. 28, 1985). It rejected their claims that they were not adequately informed of their right to counsel. It found, however, that respondents had apparently failed to understand the Immigration Judge’s explanation of suspension of deportation. The District Court concluded that respondents had not made knowing and intelligent waivers of their rights to apply for suspension of deportation or their rights to appeal, finding it “inconceivable that they would so lightly waive their rights to appeal, and thus to the relief they now claim entitlement, [sic] if they had been fully apprised of the ramifications of such a choice.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 28a. Holding that the “failure to overcome these defendants’ lack of understanding about the proceedings, which is apparent from listening to the tape recording, totally undermined the reliability of the proceedings” and that “substantial justice was not done,” the District Court dismissed the indictments in both cases. Id., at 26a.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 781 F. 2d 111 (1985). Noting a conflict among the Circuits regarding whether a defendant prosecuted under § 1326 may collaterally attack a deportation order, the court agreed with those Courts of Appeals that had concluded that a material element of the offense prohibited by § 1326 was a “lawful” deportation. Id., at 112. It went on to state that principles of fundamental fairness required a pretrial review of the underlying deportation to examine whether the alien received due process of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that there was a due process violation in this case, holding that, “[bjecause the defendants did not fully understand the proceedings, the hearing was fundamentally unfair, and the deportation order was obtained unlawfully. Thus, it cannot stand as a material element forming the basis of the charges against the defendants.” Id., at 113.
To resolve the conflict among the Circuits, we granted certiorari. 479 U. S. 811 (1986). We affirm.
I-H 1 — I
In United, States v. Spector, 343 U. S. 169 (1952), we left open whether the validity of an underlying order of deportation may be challenged in a criminal prosecution in which that prior deportation is an element of the crime. Today, we squarely confront this question in the context of § 1326, which imposes a criminal penalty on any alien who has been deported and subsequently enters, attempts to enter, or is found in, the United States. The issue before us is whether a federal court must always accept as conclusive the fact of the deportation order, even if the deportation proceeding was not conducted in conformity with due process.
The first question we must address is whether the statute itself provides for a challenge to the validity of the deportation order in a proceeding under § 1326. Some of the Courts of Appeals considering the question have held that a deportation is an element of the offense defined by § 1326 only if it is “lawful,” and that §1326 therefore permits collateral challenge to the legality of an underlying deportation order. The language of the statute, however, suggests no such limitation, stating simply that “[a]ny alien who has been arrested and deported or excluded and deported,” 8 U. S. C. § 1826 (1), will be guilty of a felony if the alien thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, 8 U. S. C. § 1326(2).
Nor does the sparse legislative history contain any evidence that Congress intended to permit challenge to the validity of the deportation in the § 1326 proceeding. Before § 1326 was enacted, three statutory sections imposed criminal penalties upon aliens who reentered the country after deportation: 8 U. S. C. § 180(a) (1946 ed.) (repealed 1952), which provided that any alien who had been “deported in pursuance of law” and subsequently entered the United States would be guilty of a felony; 8 U. S. C. § 138 (1946 ed.) (repealed 1952), which provided that an alien deported for prostitution, procuring, or similar immoral activity, and who thereafter reentered the United States, would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a different penalty; and 8 U. S. C. § 137-7(b) (1946 ed., Supp. V) (repealed 1952), which stated that any alien who reentered the country after being deported for subversive activity would be guilty of a felony and subject to yet a third, more severe penalty. See H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 219-220 (1952).
Congress thus had available to it in at least one of the predecessor sections — § 180(a) — express language that would have permitted collateral challenges to the validity of deportation proceedings in a criminal prosecution for reentry after deportation. It nonetheless failed to include in § 1326 the “in pursuance of law” language of § 180(a). And while there was, at the time of the enactment of § 1326, some case law suggesting that a collateral attack on a deportation proceeding might under certain circumstances be permitted, that principle was not so unequivocally established as to persuade us that Congress must have intended to incorporate that prior law into § 1326.
The Immigration and Nationality Act does include sections that limit judicial review of deportation orders. 8 U. S. C. § 1105a provides that, outside of enumerated exceptions, the procedures prescribed by Title 28 of the United States Code for review of federal agency orders “shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for, the judicial review of all final orders of deportation.” The enumerated exceptions permit an alien to challenge a deportation order, the validity of which has not previously been judicially determined, in a criminal proceeding against the alien for violation of 8 U. S. C. §§ 1252(d) or (e), 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(6), and any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation may obtain judicial review of that order in a habeas corpus proceeding, 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(9). These sections are not directly applicable to this case, since respondents did not ask the District Court to vacate their deportation orders and the court did not do so. It ruled only that the orders could not properly be used as the predicate for a § 1326 conviction. Yet the text of § 1105a indicates that Congress considered and addressed some of the various circumstances in which challenges to deportation orders might arise and did not mention § 1326. See also 8 U. S. C. § 1101(g) (“For the purposes of this chapter any alien ordered deported . . . who has left the United States, shall be considered to have been deported in pursuance of law . . .”); but see Mendez v. INS, 563 F. 2d 956, 959 (CA9 1977).
The text and background of § 1326 thus indicate no congressional intent to sanction challenges to deportation orders in proceedings under § 1326.
HH HH h-1
That Congress did not intend the validity of the deportation order to be contestable in a § 1326 prosecution does not end our inquiry. If the statute envisions that a court may impose a criminal penalty for reentry after any deportation, regardless of how violative of the rights of the alien the deportation proceeding may have been, the statute does not comport with the constitutional requirement of due process.
Our cases establish that where a determination made in an administrative proceeding is to play a critical role in the subsequent imposition of a criminal sanction, there must be some meaningful review of the administrative proceeding. See Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, 121-122 (1946); Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 444 (1944); cf. McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 196-197 (1969). This principle means at the very least that where the defects in an administrative proceeding foreclose judicial review of that proceeding, an alternative means of obtaining judicial review must be made available before the administrative order may be used to establish conclusively an element of a criminal offense. The result of those proceedings may subsequently be used to convert the misdemeanor of unlawful entry into the felony of unlawful entry after a deportation. Depriving an alien of the right to have the disposition in a deportation hearing reviewed in a judicial forum requires, at a minimum, that review be made available in any subsequent proceeding in which the result of the deportation proceeding is used to establish an element of a criminal offense.
B
Having established that a collateral challenge to the use of a deportation proceeding as an element of a criminal offense must be permitted where the deportation proceeding effectively eliminates the right of the alien to obtain judicial review, the question remains whether that occurred in this case. The United States did not seek this Court’s review of the determination of the courts below that respondents’ rights to due process were violated by the failure of the Immigration Judge to explain adequately their right to suspension of deportation or their right to appeal. Pet. for Cert. 7. The United States has asked this Court to assume that respondents’ deportation hearing was fundamentally unfair in considering whether collateral attack on the hearing may be permitted. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6-7. We consequently accept the legal conclusions of the court below that the deportation hearing violated due process. If the violation of respondents’ rights that took place in this case amounted to a complete deprivation of judicial review of the determination, that determination may not be used to enhance the penalty for an unlawful entry under § 1826. We think that it did. The Immigration Judge permitted waivers of the right to appeal that were not the result of considered judgments by respondents, and failed to advise respondents properly of their eligibility to apply for suspension of deportation. Because the waivers of their rights to appeal were not considered or intelligent, respondents were deprived of judicial review of their deportation proceeding. The Government may not, therefore, rely on those orders as reliable proof of an element of a criminal offense.
C
The United States asserts that our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), answered any constitutional objections to the scheme employed in §1326. In Lewis, the Court held that a state-court conviction, even though it was uncounseled and therefore obtained in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the defendant under Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), could be used as a predicate for a subsequent conviction under § 1202(a)(1) of Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U. S. C. App. § 1202(a)(1), which forbade any person convicted of a felony from receiving, possessing, or transporting a firearm. We do not consider Lewis to control the issues raised by this case. The question in Lewis was whether Congress could define that “class of persons who should be disabled from dealing in or possessing firearms,” 445 U. S., at 67, by reference to prior state felony convictions, even if those convictions had resulted from procedures, such as the denial of counsel, subsequently condemned as unconstitutional. The Court there rejected Lewis’ statutory challenge, holding that Congress had manifested no intent to permit collateral attacks upon the prior state convictions in federal criminal proceedings, and further held that this use of uncounseled prior convictions did not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In rejecting the notion that the statute permitted, or the Constitution required, this “new form of collateral attack” on prior convictions, the Court pointed to the availability of alternative means to secure judicial review of the conviction: “[I]t is important to note that a convicted felon may challenge the validity of a prior conviction, or otherwise remove his disability, before obtaining a firearm.” Ibid.
It is precisely the unavailability of effective judicial review of the administrative determination at issue here that sets this case apart from Lewis. The fundamental procedural defects of the deportation hearing in this case rendered direct review of the Immigration Judge’s determination unavailable to respondents. What was assumed in Lewis, namely the opportunity to challenge the predicate conviction in a judicial forum, was precisely that which was denied to respondents here. Persons charged with crime are entitled to have the factual and legal determinations upon which convictions are based subjected to the scrutiny of an impartial judicial officer. Lewis does not reject that basic principle, and our decision today merely reaffirms it.
Because respondents were deprived of their rights to appeal, and of any basis to appeal since the only relief for which they would have been eligible was not adequately explained to them, the deportation proceeding in which these events occurred may not be used to support a criminal conviction, and the dismissal of the indictments against them was therefore proper. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Respondents have at no point raised, and we do not express any opinion regarding, the propriety of the group deportation procedure used in this ease. Compare United States v. Barraza-Leon, 575 F. 2d 218, 219-220 (CA9 1978), with United States v. Calles-Pineda, 627 F. 2d 976, 977 (CA9 1980).
The statute excepts those aliens who have either received the express consent of the Attorney General to reapply for admission or who otherwise establish that they were not required to obtain such consent. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1326 (2)(A), (B). Respondents do not contend that either exception applies to them.
Suspension of deportation is a discretionary remedy providing relief from deportation. The statutory section applicable to respondents makes the remedy available to a deportable alien who has been physically present in the United States for at least seven years, who was during that time a person of good moral character, and whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship to the alien or his spouse, parent, or child, who is a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a). Suspension of deportation not only provides relief from deportation, but enables the alien to adjust his status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Ibid.
The District Court found that the Immigration Judge did not answer a question from one of the respondents regarding application for suspension of deportation; that the Immigration Judge addressed the wrong respondent while discussing eligibility for the remedy; that the Immigration Judge did not make clear how much time he would allow respondents to apply for suspension; and that Landeros-Quinones asked a question which demonstrated that he did not understand the concept of suspension of deportation, but that the Immigration Judge failed to explain further. The District Court contrasted this cursory and confusing treatment of the issue of suspension of deportation with the extensive inquiry that took place when two of the other aliens sought voluntary departure in lieu of deportation, one of whom was ultimately granted voluntary departure. App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a-22a.
One judge dissented on the ground that a challenge to the propriety of a previous deportation order may never be asserted in a criminal proceeding under § 1326. 781 F. 2d, at 113-114.
Compare, e. g., United States v. Nicholas-Armenta, 763 F. 2d 1089, 1090 (CA9 1985), and United States v. Bowles, 331 F. 2d 742, 749-750 (CA3 1964) (collateral attack on legality of deportation permitted in § 1326 proceeding), with United States v. Petrella, 707 F. 2d 64, 66 (CA2), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 921 (1983), United States v. Gonzalez-Parra, 438 F. 2d 694, 697 (CA5), cert. denied, 402 U. S. 1010 (1971), and Arriaga-Ramirez v. United States, 325 F. 2d 857, 859 (CA10 1963) (collateral attacks barred in prosecutions under § 1326); see also United States v. Rosal-Aguilar, 652 F. 2d 721, 723 (CA7 1981) (trial de novo on the factual basis of the underlying deportation is not a constitutional prerequisite to conviction under § 1326, but “the Government must prove the underlying deportation to have been based on a valid legal predicate and obtained according to law”); Petrella v. United States, 464 U. S. 921, 922 (1983) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (internal quotation omitted).
In Spector, an alien against whom an order of deportation was outstanding was prosecuted for failure to make timely application for documents necessary to his departure. He challenged the statute on vagueness grounds and prevailed in the District Court. The case was appealed directly to this Court, which ruled that the statute was not void for vagueness. 343 U. S., at 171-172. The Court noted the argument that the statute was unconstitutional because it afforded no opportunity for the court trying the criminal charge to pass on the validity of the order of deportation, but declined to address the issue because it “was neither raised by the appellee nor briefed nor argued here.” Id., at 172. “It will be time to consider whether the validity of the order of deportation may be tried in the criminal trial. . . when and if the appellee seeks to have it tried. That question is not foreclosed by this opinion. We reserve decision on it.” Id., at 172-173.
Justice Jackson, with whom Justice Frankfurter joined, dissented on the ground that the statute at issue impermissibly allowed the use of an administrative determination as conclusive evidence of a fact in a criminal prosecution. “Having thus dispensed with important constitutional safeguards in obtaining an administrative adjudication that the alien is guilty of conduct making him deportable on the ground it is only a civil proceeding, the Government seeks to turn around and use the result as a conclusive determination of that fact in a criminal proceeding. We think it cannot make that use of such an order.” Id., at 179.
Congress resolved the potential problem in Spector when, in 1961, it enacted 8 U. S. C. § 1105a(a)(6), which provides explicitly that, if the validity of a deportation order has not been judicially determined, it may be challenged in a criminal proceeding against the alien under 8 U. S. C. § 1252(e) for willfully failing or refusing to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to his departure. Section 1105a does not explicitly address the availability of collateral attack under § 1326.
In its petition for certiorari, the United States did not seek review of the Court of Appeals’ holding that the deportation proceeding in this case was fundamentally unfair and that the deportation order was therefore unlawful. Pet. for Cert. 7.
See, e. g., United States v. Gasca-Kraft, 522 F. 2d 149, 152 (CA9 1975) (“A material element of the offense defined by 8 U. S. C. § 1326 is a lawful deportation”); United States v. Bowles, supra, at 749 (“When Congress made use of the word ‘deported’ in the statute, it meant ‘deported according to law’ ”). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in deciding this case, noted that other courts had permitted collateral attack on the ground that “a material element of the offense prohibited by 8 U. S. C. § 1326 is a ‘lawful’ deportation” and stated that it “agree[d] with this rationale.” 781 F. 2d, at 112. The court does not appear to have relied entirely on the statute in ruling that the propriety of the deportation could be reviewed in the § 1326 proceeding, since it then continued: “Allowing a pretrial review of the underlying deportation to examine whether due process was provided insures fundamental fairness to the rights of the criminal defendant. Accordingly, we conclude that defendants in section 1326 prosecutions may collaterally attack their previous deportation orders on the ground that they were not accorded due process at the deportation hearing.” Id., at 112-113.
Section 180(a) provided for punishment by imprisonment of not more than two years or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both; § 138 provided solely for imprisonment for up to two years; § 137-7(b) provided for imprisonment for up to five years. The purpose of § 1326 was to impose the same penalty on any person who returned to the United States without permission after deportation, regardless of the basis of the original deportation. See S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 655, 656 (1950).
That Congress had before it the text of all three sections was clear— their text was in all pertinent respects reproduced as “existing law” in the House Report on the statute that included § 1326. H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 219-220 (1952).
See, e. g., United States ex rel. Beck v. Neelly, 202 F. 2d 221, 222, 224 (CA7) (declining to decide whether deported alien may challenge prior deportation in habeas corpus proceeding), cert. denied, 345 U. S. 997 (1953); United States ex rel. Steffner v. Carmichael, 183 F. 2d 19, 20 (CA5) (collateral attack on deportation proceeding in later deportation proceeding impermissible unless there was “gross miscarriage of justice” in the former proceeding; prior order here was valid), cert. denied, 340 U. S. 829 (1950); Daskaloff v. Zurbrick, 103 F. 2d 579, 580-581 (CA6 1939) (alien deported as a prostitute who reentered country and was detained on warrant of deportation under 8 U. S. C. § 155 (1946 ed.) (repealed 1952) could not collaterally attack validity of earlier deportation through habeas corpus).
Contrary to Justice Scalia’s suggestion, post, at 849, our opinion today does not reject the holding in Mendez, as to which we express no view. '
The Government stated at oral argument that it was the position of the United States that there were “absolutely no due process limitations to the enforcement of Section 1326.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.
Even with this safeguard, the use of the result of an administrative proceeding to establish an element of a criminal offense is troubling. See United States v. Spector, 343 U. S. 169, 179 (1952) (Jackson, J., dissenting). While the Court has permitted criminal conviction for violation of an administrative regulation where the validity of the regulation could not be challenged in the criminal proceeding, Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414 (1944), the decision in that case was motivated by the exigencies of wartime, dealt with the propriety of regulations rather than the legitimacy of an adjudicative procedure, and, most significantly, turned on the fact that adequate judicial review of the validity of the regulation was available in another forum. Under different circumstances, the propriety of using an administrative ruling in such a way remains open to question. We do not reach this issue here, however, holding that, at a minimum, the result of an administrative proceeding may not be used as a conclusive element of a criminal offense where the judicial review that legitimated such a practice in the first instance has effectively been denied.
A number of commentators have expressed the notion that, where the deportation proceeding violated fundamental fairness, its validity may be challenged in a criminal proceeding under § 1326. See, e. g., Comment, Collateral Attacks on Deportation Orders in Prosecutions for Illegal Reentry, 48 U. Chi. L. Rev. 83, 90-91, 102-103 (1981) (where alien was denied fundamental fairness at the deportation hearing, collateral attacks in § 1326 proceedings would be proper); Note, Collaterally Attacking Deportation Orders in Criminal Prosecutions for Illegal Reentry Under Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 56 Notre Dame Law. 677, 686-688 (1981) (fundamental fairness requires some form of collateral review of civil deportation proceedings which have criminal consequences).
We decline at this stage to enumerate which procedural errors are so fundamental that they may functionally deprive the alien of judicial review, requiring that the result of the hearing in which they took place not be used to support a criminal conviction. We have previously recognized, however, in the context of criminal proceedings, that “some errors necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair,” Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570, 577 (1986) (use of coerced confession, adjudication by a biased judge); see also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 543-544 (1982) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (mob violence, knowing use of perjured testimony). While the procedures required in an administrative proceeding are less stringent than those demanded in a criminal trial, analogous abuses could operate, under some circumstances, to deny effective judicial review of administrative determinations.
We note parenthetically that permitting collateral challenge to the validity of deportation orders in proceedings under § 1326 does not create an opportunity for aliens to delay deportation, since the collateral challenge we recognize today is available only in criminal proceedings instituted after reentry.
Cf. Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109, 115 (1967); see also Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U. S. 222, 226-227 (1980) (MARSHALL, J., concurring) (court may not constitutionally use prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction collaterally to enhance a subsequent misdemeanor to a felony with an increased term of imprisonment); United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443 (1972) (court may not consider constitutionally invalid prior convictions in imposing sentence on unrelated offense); see also 8 U. S. C. § 1325, which provides that an unlawful entry into the United States constitutes a misdemeanor. Section 1326 serves to enhance the penalty for unlawful entry, imposing a steeper punishment on individuals who violate § 1325 and who have previously been deported.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we are called upon to determine the scope and the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, 42 U. S. C. § 1982, which provides that:
“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”
On September 2, 1965, the petitioners filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that the respondents had refused to sell them a home in the Paddock Woods community of St. Louis County for the sole reason that petitioner Joseph Lee Jones is a Negro. Relying in part upon § 1982, the petitioners sought injunctive and other relief. The District Court sustained the respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that § 1982 applies only to state action and does not reach private refusals to sell. We granted certiorari to consider the questions thus presented. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. We hold that § 1982 bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment.
I.
At the outset, it is important to make clear precisely what this case does not involve. Whatever else it may be, 42 U. S. C. § 1982 is not a comprehensive open housing law. In sharp contrast to the Fair Housing Title (Title VIII) of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 81, the statute in this case deals only with racial discrimination and does not address itself to discrimination on grounds of religion or national origin. It does not deal specifically with discrimination in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling. It does not prohibit advertising or other representations that indicate discriminatory preferences. It does not refer explicitly to discrimination in financing arrangements or in the provision of brokerage services. It does not empower a federal administrative agency to assist aggrieved parties. It makes no provision for intervention by the Attorney General. And, although it can be enforced by injunction, it contains no provision expressly authorizing a federal court to order the payment of damages.
Thus, although § 1982 contains none of the exemptions that Congress included in the Civil Rights Act of 1968, it would be a serious mistake to suppose that § 1982 in any way diminishes the significance of the law recently enacted by Congress. Indeed, the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs was informed in hearings held after the Court of Appeals had rendered its decision in this case that § 1982 might well be “a presently valid federal statutory ban against discrimination by private persons in the sale or lease of real property.” The Subcommittee was told, however, that even if this Court should so construe § 1982, the existence of that statute would not “eliminate the need for congressional action” to spell out “responsibility on the part of the federal government to enforce the rights it protects.” The point was made that, in light of the many difficulties confronted by private litigants seeking to enforce such rights on their own. “legislation is needed to establish federal machinery for enforcement of the rights guaranteed under Section 1982 of Title 42 even if the plaintiffs in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company should prevail in the United States Supreme Court.”
On April 10, 1968, Representative Kelly of New York focused the attention of the House upon the present case and its possible significance. She described the background of this litigation, recited the text of § 1982, and then added:
“When the Attorney General was asked in court about the effect of the old law [§ 1982] as compared with the pending legislation which is being considered on the House floor today, he said that the scope was somewhat different, the remedies and procedures were different, and that the new law was still quite necessary.”
Later the same day, the House passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Its enactment had no effect upon § 1982 and no effect upon this litigation, but it underscored the vast differences between, on the one hand, a general statute applicable only to racial discrimination in the rental and sale of property and enforceable only by private parties acting on their own initiative, and, on the other hand, a detailed housing law, applicable to a broad range of discriminatory practices and enforceable by a complete arsenal of federal authority. Having noted these differences, we turn to a consideration of § 1982 itself.
II.
This Court last had occasion to consider the scope of 42 U. S. C. § 1982 in 1948, in Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24. That case arose when property owners in the District of Columbia sought to enforce racially restrictive covenants against the Negro purchasers of several homes on their block. A federal district court enforced the restrictive agreements by declaring void the deeds of the Negro purchasers. It enjoined further attempts to sell or lease them the properties in question and directed them to “remove themselves and all of their personal belongings” from the premises within 60 days. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari to decide whether § 1982, then § 1978 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, barred enforcement of the racially restrictive agreements in that case.
The agreements in Hurd covered only two-thirds of the lots of a single city block, and preventing Negroes from buying or renting homes in that specific area would not have rendered them ineligible to do so elsewhere in the city. Thus, if § 1982 had been thought to do no more than grant Negro citizens the legal capacity to buy and rent property free of prohibitions that wholly disabled them because of their race, judicial enforcement of the restrictive covenants at issue would not have violated § 1982. But this Court took a broader view of the statute. Although the covenants could have been enforced without denying the general right of Negroes to purchase or lease real estate, the enforcement of those covenant-s would nonetheless have denied the Negro purchasers “the same right ‘as is enjoyed by white citizens... to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.’ ” 334 U. S., at 34. That result, this Court concluded, was prohibited by § 1982. To suggest otherwise, the Court said, “is to reject the plain meaning of language.” Ibid.
Hurd v. Hodge, su-pra, squarely held, therefore, that a Negro citizen who is denied the opportunity to purchase the home he wants “[s]olely because of [his] race and color,” 334 U. S., at 34, has suffered the kind of injury that § 1982 was designed to prevent. Accord, Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 79; Harmon v. Tyler, 273 U. S. 668; Richmond v. Deans, 281 U. S. 704. The basic source of the injury in Hurd was, of course, the action of private individuals — white citizens who had agreed to exclude Negroes from a residential area. But an arm of the Government — in that case, a federal court — had assisted in the enforcement of that agreement. Thus Hurd v. Hodge, supra, did not present the question whether purely private discrimination, unaided by any action on the part of government, would violate § 1982 if its effect were to deny a citizen the right to rent or buy property solely because of his race or color.
The only federal court (other than the Court of Appeals in this case) that has ever squarely confronted that question held that a wholly private conspiracy among white citizens to prevent a Negro from leasing a farm violated § 1982. United States v. Morris, 125 F. 322. It is true that a dictum in Hurd said that § 1982 was directed only toward “governmental action,” 334 U. S., at 31, but neither Hurd nor any other case before or since has presented that precise issue for adjudication in this Court. Today we face that issue for the first time.
III.
We begin with the language of the statute itself. In plain and unambiguous terms', § 1982 grants to all citizens, without regard to race or color, “the same right” to purchase and lease property “as is enjoyed by white citizens.” As the Court of Appeals in this case evidently recognized, that right can be impaired as effectively by "those who place property on the market” as by the State itself. For, even if the State and its agents lend no support to those who wish to exclude persons from their communities on racial grounds, the fact remains that, whenever property “is placed on the market for whites only, whites have a right denied to Negroes.” So long as a Negro citizen who wants to buy or rent a home can be turned away simply because he is not white, he cannot be said to enjoy “the same right... as is enjoyed by white citizens... to... purchase [and] lease... real and personal property.” 42 U. S. C. § 1982. (Emphasis added.)
On its face, therefore, § 1982 appears to prohibit all discrimination against Negroes in the sale or rental of property — discrimination by private owners as well as discrimination by public authorities. Indeed, even the respondents seem to concede that, if § 1982 “means what it says” — to use the words of the respondents’ brief— then it must encompass every racially motivated refusal to sell or rent and cannot be confined to officially sanctioned segregation in housing. Stressing what they consider to be the revolutionary implications of so literal a reading of § 1982, the respondents argue that Congress cannot possibly have intended any such result. Our examination of the relevant history, however, persuades us that Congress meant exactly what it said.
IY.
In its original form, 42 U. S. C. § 1982 was part of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That section was cast in sweeping terms:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,... are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude,... shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The crucial language for our purposes was that which guaranteed all citizens “the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States,... to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property... as is enjoyed by white citizens....” To the Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it was clear that the right to do these things might be infringed not only by “State or local law” but also by “custom, or prejudice.” Thus, when Congress provided in § 1 of the Civil Rights Act that the right to purchase and lease property was to be enjoyed equally throughout the United States by Negro and white citizens alike, it plainly meant to secure that right against interference from any source whatever, whether governmental or private.
Indeed, if § 1 had been intended to grant nothing more than an immunity from governmental interference, then much of § 2 would have made no sense at all. For that section, which provided fines and prison terms for certain individuals who deprived others of rights “secured or protected” by § 1, was carefully drafted to exempt private violations of § 1 from the criminal sanctions it imposed. There would, of course, have been no private violations to exempt if the only “right” granted by § 1 had been a right to be free of discrimination by public officials. Hence the structure of the 1866 Act, as well as its language, points to the conclusion urged by the petitioners in this case — that § 1 was meant to prohibit all racially motivated deprivations of the rights enumerated in the statute, although only those deprivations perpetrated “under color of law” were to be criminally punishable under § 2.
In attempting to demonstrate the contrary, the respondents rely heavily upon the fact that the Congress which approved the 1866 statute wished to eradicate the recently enacted Black Codes — laws which had saddled Negroes with “onerous disabilities and burdens, and curtailed their rights... to such an extent that their freedom was of little value....” Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 70. The respondents suggest that the only evil Congress sought to eliminate was that of racially discriminatory laws in the former Confederate States. But the Civil Rights Act was drafted to apply throughout the country, and its language was far broader than would have been necessary to strike down discriminatory statutes.
That broad language, we are asked to believe, was a mere slip of the legislative pen. We disagree. For the same Congress that wanted to do away with the Black Codes also had before it an imposing body of evidence pointing to the mistreatment of Negroes by private individuals and unofficial groups, mistreatment unrelated to any hostile state legislation. “Accounts in newspapers North and South, Freedmen’s Bureau and other official documents, private reports and correspondence were all adduced” to show that “private outrage and atrocity” were “daily inflicted on freedmen....” The congressional debates are replete with references to private injustices against Negroes — references to white employers who refused to pay their Negro workers, white planters who agreed among themselves not to hire freed slaves without the permission of their former masters, white citizens who assaulted Negroes or who combined to drive them out of their communities.
Indeed, one of the most comprehensive studies then before Congress stressed the prevalence of private hostility toward Negroes and the need to protect them from the resulting persecution and discrimination. The report noted the existence of laws virtually prohibiting Negroes from owning or renting property in certain towns, but described such laws as “mere isolated cases,” representing “the local outcroppings of a spirit... found to prevail everywhere” — a spirit expressed, for example, by lawless acts of brutality directed against Negroes who traveled to areas where they were not wanted. The report concluded that, even if anti-Negro legislation were “repealed in all the States lately in rebellion,” equal treatment for the Negro would not yet be secured.
In this setting, it would have been strange indeed if Congress had viewed its task as encompassing merely the nullification of racist laws in the former rebel States. That the Congress which assembled in the Nation’s capital in December 1865 in fact had a broader vision of the task before it became clear early in the session, when three proposals to invalidate discriminatory state statutes were rejected as “too narrowly conceived.” From the outset it seemed clear, at least to Senator Trumbull of Illinois, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that stronger legislation might prove necessary. After Senator Wilson of Massachusetts had introduced his bill to strike down all racially discriminatory laws in the South, Senator Trumbull said this:
“I reported from the Judiciary Committee the second section of the [Thirteenth Amendment] for the very purpose of conferring upon Congress authority to see that the first section was carried out in good faith... and I hold that under that second section Congress will have the authority, when the constitutional amendment is adopted, not only to pass the hill of the Senator from Massachusetts, but a bill that will be much more efficient to protect the freedman in his rights.... And, sir, when the constitutional amendment shall have been adopted, if the information from the South be that the men whose liberties are secured by it are deprived of the privilege to go and come when they please, to buy and sell when they please, to make contracts and enforce contracts, I give notice that, if no one else does, I shall introduce a bill and urge its passage through Congress that will secure to those men every one of these rights: they would not be freemen without them. It is idle to say that a man is free who cannot go and come at pleasure, who cannot buy and sell, who cannot enforce his rights.... [So] when the constitutional amendment is adopted I trust we may pass a bill, if the action of the people in the southern States should make it necessary, that will be much more sweeping and efficient than the bill under consideration.”
Five days later, on December 18, 1865, the Secretary of State officially certified the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. The next day Senator Trumbull again rose to speak. He had decided, he said, that the “more sweeping and efficient” bill of which he had spoken previously ought to be enacted
“at an early day for the purpose of quieting apprehensions in the minds of many friends of freedom lest by local legislation or a prevailing public sentiment in some of the States persons of the African race should continue to be oppressed and in fact deprived of their freedom....”
On January 5, 1866, Senator Trumbull introduced the bill he had in mind — the bill which later became the Civil Rights Act of 1866. He described its objectives in terms that belie any attempt to read it narrowly:
“Mr. President, I regard the bill to which the attention of the Senate is now called as the most important measure that has been under its consideration since the adoption of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.. That- amendment declared that all persons in the United States should be free. This measure is intended to give effect to that declaration and secure to all persons within the United States practical freedom. There is very little importance in the general declaration of abstract truths and principles unless they can be carried into effect, unless the persons who are to be affected by them have some means of availing themselves of their benefits.”
Of course, Senator Trumbull’s bill would, as he pointed out, “destroy all [the] discriminations” embodied in the Black Codes, but it would do more: It would affirmatively secure for all men, whatever their race or color, what the Senator called the “great fundamental rights” :
“the right to acquire property, the right to go and come at pleasure, the right to enforce rights in the courts, to make contracts, and to inherit and dispose of property.”
As to those basic civil rights, the Senator said, the bill would “break down all discrimination between black men and white men.”
That the bill would indeed have so sweeping an effect was seen as its great virtue by its friends and as its great danger by its enemies but was disputed by none. Opponents of the bill charged that it would not only regulate state laws but would directly “determine the persons who [would] enjoy... property within the States,” threatening the ability of white citizens “to determine who [would] be members of [their] communit[ies]....” The bill’s advocates did not deny the accuracy of those characterizations. Instead, they defended the propriety of employing federal authority to deal with “the white man... [who] would invoke the power of local prejudice” against the Negro. Thus, when the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act on February 2, 1866, it did so fully aware of the breadth of the measure it had approved.
In the House, as in the Senate, much was said about eliminating the infamous Black Codes. But, like the Senate, the House was moved by a larger objective— that of giving real content to the freedom guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Representative Thayer of Pennsylvania put it this way:
“[W]hen I voted for the amendment to abolish slavery... I did not suppose that I was offering... a mere paper guarantee. And when I voted for the second section of the amendment, I felt... certain that I had... given to Congress ability to protect... the rights which the first section gave...
“The bill which now engages the attention of the House has for its object to carry out and guaranty the reality of that great measure. It is to give to it practical effect and force. It is to prevent that great measure from remaining a dead letter upon the constitutional page of this country.... The events of the last four years... have changed [a] large class of people... from a condition of slavery to that of freedom. The practical question now to be decided is whether they shall be in fact freemen. It is whether they shall have the benefit of this great charter of liberty given to them by the American people.”
Representative Cook of Illinois thought that, without appropriate federal legislation, any “combination of men in [a] neighborhood [could] prevent [a Negro] from having any chance” to enjoy those benefits. To Congressman Cook and others like him, it seemed evident that, with respect to basic civil rights — including the “right to... purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey... property," Congress must provide that “there... be no discrimination” on grounds of race or color.
It thus appears that, when the House passed the Civil Rights Act on March 13, 1866, it did so on the same assumption that had prevailed in the Senate: It too believed that it was approving a comprehensive statute forbidding all racial discrimination affecting the basic civil rights enumerated in the Act.
President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Act on March 27, and in the brief congressional debate that followed, his supporters characterized its reach in all-embracing terms. One stressed the fact that § 1 would confer “the right... to purchase... real estate... without any qualification and without any restriction whatever Another predicted, as a corollary, that the Act would preclude preferential treatment for white persons in the rental of hotel rooms and in the sale of church pews. Those observations elicited no reply. On April 6 the Senate, and on April 9 the House, overrode the President's veto by the requisite majorities, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 became law.
In light of the concerns that led Congress to adopt it and the contents of the debates that preceded its passage, it is clear that the Act was designed to do just what its terms suggest: to prohibit all racial discrimination, whether or not under color of law, with respect to the rights enumerated therein — including the right to purchase or lease property.
Nor was the scope of the 1866 Act altered when it was re-enacted in 1870, some two years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is quite true that some members of Congress supported the Fourteenth Amendment “in order to eliminate doubt as to the constitutional validity of the Civil Rights Act as applied to the States.” Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24, 32-33. But it certainly does not follow that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment or the subsequent readoption of the Civil Rights Act were meant somehow to limit its application to state action. The legislative history furnishes not the slightest factual basis for any such speculation, and the conditions prevailing in 1870 make it highly implausible. For by that time most, if not all, of the former Confederate States, then under the control of “reconstructed” legislatures, had formally repudiated racial discrimination, and the focus of congressional concern had clearly shifted from hostile statutes to the activities of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, operating wholly outside the law.
Against this background, it would obviously make no sense to assume, without any historical support whatever, that Congress made a silent decision in 1870 to exempt private discrimination from the operation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. “The cardinal rule is that repeals by implication are not favored.” Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U. S. 497, 503. All Congress said in 1870 was that the 1866 law “is hereby re-enacted.” That is all Congress meant.
As we said in a somewhat different setting two Terms ago, “We think that history leaves no doubt that, if we are to give [the law] the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.” United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 801. “We are not at liberty to seek ingenious analytical instruments,” ibid., to carve from § 1982 an exception for private conduct — even though its application to such conduct in the present context is without established precedent. And, as the Attorney General of the United States said at the oral argument of this case, “The fact that the statute lay partially dormant for many years cannot be held to diminish its force today.”
Y.
The remaining question is whether Congress has power under the Constitution to do what § 1982 purports to do: to prohibit all racial discrimination, private and public, in the sale and rental of property. Our starting point is the Thirteenth Amendment, for it was pursuant to that constitutional provision that Congress originally enacted what is now § 1982. The Amendment consists of two parts. Section 1 states:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Section 2 provides:
“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
As its text reveals, the Thirteenth Amendment “is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 20. It has never been doubted, therefore, “that the power vested in Congress to enforce the article by appropriate legislation,” ibid., includes the power to enact laws “direct and primary, operating upon the acts of individuals, whether sanctioned by State legislation or not.” Id., at 23.
Thus, the fact that § 1982 operates upon the unofficial acts of private individuals, whether or not sanctioned by state law, presents no constitutional problem. If Congress has power under the Thirteenth Amendment to eradicate conditions that prevent Negroes from buying and renting property because of their race or color, then no federal statute calculated to achieve that objective can be thought to exceed the constitutional power of Congress simply because it reaches beyond state action to regulate the conduct of private individuals. The constitutional question in this case, therefore, comes to this: Does the authority of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment “by appropriate legislation” include the power to eliminate all racial barriers to the acquisition of real and personal property? We think the answer to that question is plainly yes.
“By its own unaided force and effect,” the Thirteenth Amendment “abolished slavery, and established universal freedom.” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 20. Whether or not the Amendment itself did any more than that— a question not involved in this case — it is at least clear that the Enabling Clause of that Amendment empowered Congress to do much more. For that clause clothed “Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United StatesIbid. (Emphasis added.)
Those who opposed passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 argued in effect that the Thirteenth Amendment merely authorized Congress to dissolve the legal bond by which the Negro slave was held to his master. Yet many had earlier opposed the Thirteenth Amendment on the very ground that it would give Congress virtually unlimited power to enact laws for the protection of Negroes in every State. And the majority leaders in Congress — who were, after all, the authors of the Thirteenth Amendment — had no doubt that its Enabling Clause contemplated the sort of positive legislation that was embodied in the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Their chief spokesman, Senator Trumbull of Illinois, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had brought the Thirteenth Amendment to the floor of the Senate in 1864. In defending the constitutionality of the 1866 Act, he argued that, if the narrower construction of the Enabling Clause were correct, then
“the trumpet of freedom that we have been blowing throughout the land has given an 'uncertain sound/ and the promised freedom is a delusion. Such was not the intention of Congress, which proposed the constitutional amendment, nor is such the fair meaning of the amendment itself.... I have no doubt that under this provision... we may destroy all these discriminations in civil rights against the black man; and if we cannot, our constitutional amendment amounts to nothing. It was for that purpose that the second clause of that amendment was adopted, which says that Congress shall have authority, by appropriate legislation, to carry into effect the article prohibiting slavery. Who is to decide what that appropriate legislation is to be? The Congress of the United States; and it is for Congress to adopt such appropriate legislation as it may think proper, so that it be a means to accomplish the end.”
Surely Senator Trumbull was right. Surely Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation. Nor can we say that the determination Congress has made is an irrational one. For this Court recognized long ago that, whatever else they may have encompassed, the badges and incidents of slavery — its “burdens and disabilities” — included restraints upon “those fundamental rights which are the essence of civil freedom, namely, the same right... to inherit, purchase, lease, sell and convey property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 22. Just as the Black Codes, enacted after the Civil War to restrict the free exercise of those rights, were substitutes for the slave system, so the exclusion of Negroes from white communities became a substitute for the Black Codes. And when racial discrimination herds men into ghettos and makes their ability to buy property turn on the color of their skin, then it too is a relic of slavery.
Negro citizens, North and South, who saw in the Thirteenth Amendment a promise of freedom — freedom to “go and come at pleasure” and to “buy and sell when they please” — would be left with “a mere paper guarantee” if Congress were powerless to assure that a dollar in the hands of a Negro will purchase the same thing as a dollar in the hands of a white man. At the very least, the freedom that Congress is empowered to secure under the Thirteenth Amendment includes the freedom to buy whatever a white man can buy, the right to live wherever a white man can live. If Congress cannot say that being a free man means at least this much, then the Thirteenth Amendment made a promise the Nation cannot keep.
Representative Wilson of Iowa was the floor manager in the House for the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In urging that Congress had ample authority to pass the pending bill, he recalled the celebrated words of Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421:
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
“The end is legitimate,” the Congressman said, “because it is defined by the Constitution itself. The end is the maintenance of freedom.... A man who enjoys the civil rights mentioned in this bill cannot be reduced to slavery.... This settles the appropriateness of this measure, and that settles its constitutionality.” We agree. The judgment is
Reversed.
To vindicate their rights under 42 U. S. C. § 1982, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court to award “damages or... equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights....” 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (4). In such cases, federal jurisdiction does not require that the amount in controversy exceed $10,000. Cf. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 161; Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 507-514, 527-532.
255 F. Supp. 115.
379 F. 2d 33.
389 U. S. 968.
Because we have concluded that the discrimination alleged in the petitioners’ complaint violated a federal statute that Congress had the power to enact under the Thirteenth Amendment, we find it unnecessary to decide whether that discrimination also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Contrast the Civil Rights Act of 1968, § 804 (a).
Contrast § 804 (b).
Contrast §§804 (c), (d), (e).
Contrast §805.
Contrast § 806. In noting that 42 U. S. C. § 1982 differs from the Civil Rights Act of 1968 in not dealing explicitly and exhaustively with such matters (see also nn. 7 and 9, supra), we intimate no view upon the question whether ancillary services or facilities of this sort might in some situations constitute “property” as that term is employed in § 1982. Nor do we intimate any view upon the extent to which discrimination in the provision of such services might be barred by 42 U. S. C. § 1981, the text of which appears in n. 78, infra.
Contrast the Civil Rights Act of 1968, §§ 808-811.
Contrast § 813 (a).
The petitioners in this case sought an order requiring the respondents to sell them a “Hyde Park” type of home on Lot No. 7147, or on “some other lot in [the] subdivision sufficient to accommodate the home selected....” They requested that the respondents be enjoined from disposing of Lot No. 7147 while litigation was pending, and they asked for a permanent injunction against future discrimination by the respondents “in the sale of homes in the Paddock Woods subdivision.” The fact that 42 U. S. C. § 1982 is couched in declaratory terms and provides no explicit method of enforcement does not, of course, prevent a federal court from fashioning an effective equitable remedy. See, e. g., Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Ry. Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, 568-570; Deckert v. Independence Corp., 311 U. S. 282, 288; United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 362 U. S. 482, 491-492; J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 432-435. Cf. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123; Griffin v. School Board, 377 U. S. 218.
Contrast the Civil Rights Act of 1968, § 812 (c). The complaint in this case alleged that the petitioners had “suffered actual damages in the amount of $50.00,” but no facts were stated to support or explain that allegation. Upon receiving the injunctive relief to which they are entitled, see n. 13, supra, the petitioners will presumably be able to purchase a home from the respondents at the price prevailing at the time of the wrongful refusal in 1965— substantially less, the petitioners concede, than the current
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Rio Mimbres rises in the southwestern highlands of New Mexico and flows generally southward, finally disappearing in a desert sink just north of the Mexican border. The river originates in the upper reaches of the Gila National Forest, but during its course it winds more than 50 miles past privately owned lands and provides substantial water for both irrigation and mining. In 1970, a stream adjudication was begun by the State of New Mexico to determine the exact rights of each user to water from the Rio Mimbres. In this adjudication the United States claimed reserved water rights for use in the Gila National Forest. The State District Court held that the United States, in setting aside the Gila National Forest from other public lands, reserved the use of such water “as may be necessary for the purposes for which [the land was] withdrawn,” but that these purposes did not include recreation, aesthetics, wildlife preservation, or cattle grazing. The United States appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. v. Salopek, 90 N. M. 410, 564 P. 2d 615 (1977). We granted certiorari to consider whether the Supreme Court of New Mexico had applied the correct principles of federal law in determining petitioner’s reserved rights in the Mimbres. 434 U. S. 1008. We now affirm.
The question posed in this case — what quantity of water, if any, the United States reserved out of the Rio Mimbres when it set aside the Gila National Forest in 1899 — is a question of implied intent and not power. In California v. United States, ante, at 653-663, we had occasion to discuss the respective authority of Federal and State Governments over waters in the Western States. The Court has previously concluded that whatever powers the States acquired over their waters as a result of congressional Acts and admission into the Union, however, Congress did not intend thereby to relinquish its authority to reserve unappropriated water in the future for use on appurtenant lands withdrawn from the public domain for specific federal purposes. Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564, 577 (1908); Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546, 597-598 (1963); Cappaert v. United States, 426 U. S. 128, 143-146 (1976).
Recognition of Congress’ power to reserve water for land which is itself set apart from the public domain, however, does not answer the question of the amount of water which has been reserved or the purposes for which the water may be used. Substantial portions of the public domain have been withdrawn and reserved by the United States for use as Indian reservations, forest reserves, national parks, and national monuments. And water is frequently necessary to achieve the purposes for which these reservations are made. But Congress has seldom expressly reserved water for use on these withdrawn lands. If water were abundant, Congress’ silence would pose no problem. In the arid parts of the West, however, claims to water for use on federal reservations inescapably vie with other public and private claims for the limited quantities to be found in the rivers and streams. This competition is compounded by the sheer quantity of reserved lands in the Western States, which lands form brightly colored swaths across the maps of these States.
The Court has previously concluded that Congress, in giving the President the power to reserve portions of the federal domain for specific federal purposes, impliedly authorized him to reserve "appurtenant water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reservation.” Cappaert, supra, at 138 (emphasis added). See Arizona v. California, supra, at 595-601; United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U. S. 520, 522-523 (1971); Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 805 (1976). While many of the contours of what has come to be called the “implied-reservation-of-water doctrine” remain unspecified, the Court has repeatedly emphasized that Congress reserved “only that amount of water necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation, no more.” Cappaert, supra, at 141. See Arizona v. California, supra, at 600-601; District Court for Eagle County, supra, at 523. Each time this Court has applied the “implied-reservation-of-water doctrine,” it has carefully examined both the asserted water right and the specific purposes for which the land was reserved, and concluded that without the water the purposes of the reservation would be entirely defeated.
This careful examination is required both because the reservation is implied, rather than expressed, and because of the history of congressional intent in the field of federal-state jurisdiction with respect to allocation of water. Where Congress has expressly addressed the question of whether federal entities must abide by state water law, it has almost invariably deferred to the state law. See California v. United States, ante, at 653-670, 678-679. Where water is necessary to fulfill the very purposes for which a federal reservation was created, it is reasonable to conclude, even in the face of Congress’ express deference to state water law in other areas, that the United States intended to reserve the necessary water. Where water is only valuable for a secondary use of the reservation, however, there arises the contrary inference that Congress intended, consistent with its other views, that the United States would acquire water in the same manner as any other public or private appropriator.
Congress indeed has appropriated funds for the acquisition under state law of water to be used on federal reservations. Thus, in the National Park Service Act of Aug. 7, 1946, 60 Stat. 885, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 17j — 2 (1976 ed.), Congress authorized appropriations for the “ [investigation and establishment of water rights in accordance with local custom, laws, and decisions of courts, including the acquisition of water rights or of lands or interests in lands or rights-of-way for use and protection of water rights necessary or beneficial in the administration and public use of the national parks and monuments.” (Emphasis added.) The agencies responsible for administering the federal reservations have also recognized Congress' intent to acquire under state law any water not essential to the specific purposes of the reservation.
The State District Court referred the issues in this case to a Special Master, who found that the United States was diverting 6.9 acre-feet per annum of water for domestic-residential use, 6.5 acre-feet for road-water use, 3.23 acre-feet for domestic-recreational use, and.10 acre-foot for “wildlife” purposes. The Special Master also found that specified amounts of water were being used in the Gila National Forest for stockwatering and that an “instream flow” of six cubic feet per second was being “used” for the purposes of fish preservation. The Special Master apparently believed that all of these uses fell within the reservation doctrine, and also concluded that the United States might have reserved rights for future water needs, ordering it to submit a report on future requirements within one year of his decision.
The District Court of Luna County disagreed with many of the Special Master’s legal conclusions, but agreed with the Special Master that the Government should prepare within one year a report covering any future water requirements that might support a claim of reserved right in the waters of the Rio Mimbres. The District Court concluded that the United States had not established a reserved right to a minimum instream flow for any of the purposes for which the Gila National Forest was established, and that any water rights arising from cattle grazing by permittees on the forest should be adjudicated “to the permittee under the law of prior appropriation and not to the United States.”
The United States appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. The United States contended that it was entitled to a minimum instream flow for “aesthetic, environmental, recreational and 'fish’ purposes.” 90 N. M., at 412, 564 P. 2d, at 617. The Supreme Court of New Mexico concluded that, at least before the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, 74 Stat. 215, 16 U. S. C. § 528 et seq. (1976 ed.), national forests could only be created “to insure favorable conditions of water flow and to furnish a continuous supply of timber” and not for the purposes upon which the United States was now basing its asserted reserved rights in a minimum instream flow. 90 N. M., at 412-413, 564 P. 2d, at 617-619. The United States also argued that it was entitled to a reserved right for stockwatering purposes. The State Supreme Court again disagreed, holding that stockwatering was not a purpose for which the national forests were created. Id., at 414, 564 P. 2d, at 619.
II
A
The quantification of reserved water rights for the national forests is of critical importance to the West, where, as noted earlier, water is scarce and where more than 50% of the available water either originates in or flows through national forests. When, as in the case of the Rio Mimbres, a river is fully appropriated, federal reserved water rights will frequently require a gallon-for-gallon reduction in the amount of water available for water-needy state and private appropriators. This reality has not escaped the attention of Congress and must be weighed in determining what, if any, water Congress reserved for use in the national forests.
The United States contends that Congress intended to reserve minimum instream flows for aesthetic, recreational, and fish-preservation purposes. An examination of the limited purposes for which Congress authorized the creation of national forests, however, provides no support for this claim. In the mid and late 1800’s, many of the forestó on the public domain were ravaged and the fear arose that the forest lands might soon disappear, leaving the United States with a shortage both of timber and of watersheds with which to encourage stream flows while preventing floods. It was in answer to these fears that in 1891 Congress authorized the President to “set apart and reserve, in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations.” Creative Act of Mar. 3, 1891, § 24, 26 Stat. 1103, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 471 (repealed 1976).
The Creative Act of 1891 unfortunately did not solve the forest problems of the expanding Nation. To the dismay of the conservationists, the new national forests were not adequately attended and regulated; fires and indiscriminate timber cutting continued their toll. To the anguish of Western settlers, reservations were frequently made indiscriminately. President Cleveland, in particular, responded to pleas of conservationists for greater protective measures by reserving some 21 million acres of “generally settled” forest land on February 22, 1897. President Cleveland’s action drew immediate and strong protest from Western Congressmen who felt that the “hasty and ill considered” reservation might prove disastrous to the settlers living on or near these lands.
Congress’ answer to these continuing problems was threefold. It suspended the President’s Executive Order of February 22, 1897; it carefully defined the purposes for which national forests could in the future be reserved; and it provided a charter for forest management and economic uses within the forests. Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 34, 16 U. S. C. §473 et seg. (1976 ed.). In particular, Congress provided:
“No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of [the Creative Act of 1891], to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes.” 30 Stat. 35, as codified, 16 U. S. C. § 475 (1976 ed.) (emphasis added).
The legislative debates surrounding the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and its predecessor bills demonstrate that Congress intended national forests to be reserved for only two purposes — “[t]o conserve the water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the people.” 30 Cong. Rec. 967 (1897) (Cong. McRae). See United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506, 515 (1911). National forests were not to be reserved for aesthetic, environmental, recreational, or wildlife-preservation purposes.
“The objects for which the forest reservations should be made are the protection of the forest growth against destruction by fire and ax, and preservation of forest conditions upon which water conditions and water flow are dependent. The purpose, therefore, of this bill is to maintain favorable forest conditions, without excluding the use of these reservations for other purposes. They are not parks set aside for nonuse, but have been established for economic reasons.” 30 Cong. Rec. 966 (1897) (Cong. McRae).
Administrative regulations at the turn of the century confirmed that national forests were to be reserved for only these two limited purposes.
Any doubt as to the relatively narrow purposes for which national forests were to be reserved is removed by comparing the broader language Congress used to authorize the establishment of national parks. In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service and provided that the
“fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations... is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same... unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” National Park Service Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 535, § 1, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1 (1976 ed.).
When it was Congress’ intent to maintain minimum instream flows within the confines of a national forest, it expressly so directed, as it did in the case of the Lake Superior National Forest:
“In order to preserve the shore lines, rapids, waterfalls, beaches and other natural features of the region in an unmodified state of nature, no further alteration of the natural water level of any lake or stream... shall be authorized.” 16 U. S. C. § 577b' (1976 ed.).
National park legislation is not the only instructive comparison. In the Act of Mar. 10, 19S4, 48 Stat. 400, 16 U. S. C. § 694 (1976 ed.), Congress authorized the establishment within individual national forests of fish and game sanctuaries, but only with the consent of the state legislatures. The Act specifically provided:
“For the purpose of providing breeding places for game birds, game animals, and fish on lands and waters in the national forests not chiefly suitable for agriculture, the President of the United States is authorized, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce and with the approval of the State legislatures of the respective States in which said national forests are situated, to establish by public proclamation certain specified and limited areas within said forests as fish and game sanctuaries or refuges which shall be devoted to the increase of game birds, game animals, and fish of all kinds naturally adapted thereto.” (Emphasis added.)
If, as the dissent contends, post, at 722, Congress in the Organic Administration Act of 1897 authorized the reservation of forests to “improve and protect” fish and wildlife, the 1984 Act would have been unnecessary. Nor is the dissent's position consistent with Congress' concern in 1934 that fish and wildlife preserves only be created “with the approval of the State legislatures.”
As the dissent notes, in creating what would ultimately become Yosemite National Park, Congress in 1890 explicitly instructed the Secretary of the Interior to provide against the wanton destruction of fish and game inside the forest and against their taking “for the purposes of merchandise or profit.” -Act of Oct. 1, 1890, § 2, 26 Stat. 651. Congress also instructed the Secretary to protect all “the natural curiosities, or wonders within such reservation,... in their natural condition.” By comparison, Congress in the 1897 Organic Act expressed no concern for the preservation of fish and wildlife within national forests generally, Nor is such a concern found in any of the comments made during the legislative debate on the 1897 Act. Cf. also H. It. 119, 54th Cong., 1st Sess., 28 Cong. Ree. 6410 (1896).
B
Not only is the Government’s claim that Congress intended to reserve water for recreation and wildlife preservation inconsistent with Congress’- failure to recognize these goals as purposes of the national forests, it would defeat the very purpose for which Congress did create the national forest system.
“[F] orests exert a most important regulating influence upon the flow of rivers, reducing floods and increasing the water supply in the low stages. The importance of their conservation on the mountainous watersheds which collect the scanty supply for the arid regions of North America can hardly be overstated. With the natural regimen of the streams replaced by destructive floods in the spring, and by dry beds in the months when the irrigating flow is most needed, the irrigation of wide areas now proposed will be impossible, and regions now supporting prosperous communities will become depopulated.” S. Doc. No. 105, 55th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1897).
The water that would be “insured” by preservation of the forest was to “be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes, under the laws of the State wherein such national forests are situated, or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder.” Organic Administration Act of 1897, 30 Stat. 36, 16 U. S. C. § 481 (1976 ed.). As this provision and its legislative history-evidence, Congress authorized the national forest system principally as a means of enhancing the quantity of water that would be available to the settlers of the arid West. The Government, however, would have us now believe that Congress intended to partially defeat this goal by reserving significant amounts of water for purposes quite inconsistent with this goal.
C
In 1960, Congress passed the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, 74 Stat. 215, 16 U. S. C. § 528 et seq. (1976 ed.), which provides:
“It is the policy of Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The purposes of sections 528 to 531 of this title are declared to be supplemental to, but not in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests were established as set forth in the [Organic Administration Act of 1897.]”
The Supreme Court of New Mexico concluded that this Act did not give rise to any reserved rights not previously authorized in the Organic Administration Act of 1897. “The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 does not have a retroactive effect nor can it broaden the purposes for which the Gila National Forest was established under the Organic Act of 1897.” 90 N. M., at 413, 564 P. 2d, at 618. While we conclude that the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 was intended to broaden the purposes for which national forests had previously been administered, we agree that Congress did not intend to thereby expand the reserved rights of the United States.
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 establishes the purposes for which the national forests “are established and shall be administered.” (Emphasis added.) The Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to administer all forests, including those previously established, on a multiple-use and sustained-yield basis. H.. R. 10572, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1960). In the administration of the national forests, therefore, Congress intended the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 to broaden the benefits accruing from all reserved national forests.
The House Report accompanying the 1960 legislation, however, indicates that recreation, range, and “fish” purposes are “to be supplemental to, but not in derogation of, the purposes for which the national forests were established” in the Organic Administration Act of 1897.
“The addition of the sentence to follow the first sentence in section 1 is to make it clear that the declaration of congressional policy that the national forests are established and shall be administered for the purposes enumerated is supplemental to, but is not in derogation of, the purposes of improving and protecting the forest or for securing favorable conditions of water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of timber as set out in the cited provision of the act of June 4, 1897. Thus, in any establishment of a national forest a purpose set out in the 1897 act must be present but there may also exist one or more of the additional purposes listed in the bill. In other words, a national forest could not be established just for the purpose of outdoor recreation, range, or wildlife and fish purposes, but such purposes could be a reason for the establishment of the forest if there also were one or more of the purposes of improving and protecting the forest, securing favorable conditions of water flows, or to furnish a continuous supply of timber as set out in the 1897 act.” H. R. Rep. No. 1551, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1960).
As discussed earlier, the “reserved rights doctrine” is a doctrine built on implication and is an exception to Congress’ explicit deference to state water law in other areas. Without legislative history to the contrary, we are led to conclude that Congress did not intend in enacting the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 to reserve water for the secondary purposes there established. A reservation of additional water could mean a substantial loss in the amount of water available for irrigation and domestic use, thereby defeating Congress’ principal purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flow. Congress intended the national forests to be administered for broader purposes after 1960 but there is no indication that it believed the new purposes to be so crucial as to require a reservation of additional water. By reaffirming the primacy of a favorable water flow, it indicated the opposite intent.
Ill
What we have said also answers the Government’s contention that Congress intended to reserve water from the Rio Mimbres for stockwatering purposes. The United States issues permits to private cattle owners to graze their stock on the Gila National Forest and provides for stockwatering at various locations along the Rio Mimbres. The United States contends that, since Congress clearly foresaw stockwatering on national forests, reserved rights must be recognized for this purpose. The New Mexico courts disagreed and held that any stock-watering rights must be allocated under state law to individual stockwaterers. We agree.
While Congress intended the national forests to be put to a variety of uses, including stockwatering, not inconsistent with the two principal purposes of the forests, stockwatering was not itself a direct purpose of reserving the land. If stock-watering could not take place in the Gila National Forest, Congress’ purposes in reserving the land would not be defeated. Congress, of course, did intend to secure favorable water flows, and one of the uses to which the enhanced water supply was intended to be placed was probably stockwatering. But Congress intended the water supply from the Rio Mimbres to be allocated among private appropriators under state law. 16 U. S. C. §481 (1976 ed.). There is no indication in the legislative histories of any of the forest Acts that Congress foresaw any need for the Forest Service to allocate water for stockwatering purposes, a task to which state law was well suited.
IY
Congress intended that water would be reserved only where necessary to preserve the timber or to secure favorable water flows for private and public uses under state law. This intent is revealed in the purposes for which the national forest system was created and Congress’ principled deference to state water law in the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and other legislation. The decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico is faithful to this congressional intent and is therefore
Affirmed.
The suit was initially filed in 1966 as a private action by the Mimbres Valley Irrigation Co. to enjoin alleged illegal diversions from the Rio Mimbres. In 1970, the State of New Mexico, pursuant to New Mexico Stat. Ann. §75-4-4 (1953), filed a complaint-in-intervention seeking a general adjudication of water rights in the Rio Mimbres and its tributaries. Under 43 U. S. C. § 666 (a), “[c]onsent is given to> join the United States as a defendant in any suit... for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source,” including the reserved rights of the United States. See United States v. District Court for Eagle County, 401 U. S. 520 (1971); United States v. District Court for Water Div. No. 5, 401 U. S. 527 (1971).
See also Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U. S. 604 (1978).
The percentage of federally owned land (excluding Indian reservations and other trust properties) in the Western States ranges from 29.5% of the land in the State of Washington to 86.5% of the land in the State of Nevada, an average of about 46%. Of the land in the State of New Mexico, 33.6% is federally owned. General Services Administration, Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World as of June 30, 1974, pp. 17, 34, and App. 1, table 4. Because federal reservations are normally found in the uplands of the Western States rather than the flatlands, the percentage of water flow originating in or flowing through the reservations is even more impressive. More than 60% of the average annual water yield in the 11 Western States is from federal reservations. The percentages of average annual water yield range from a low of 56% in the Columbia-North Pacific water-resource region to a high of 96% in the Upper Colorado region. In the Rio Grande water-resource region, where the Rio Mimbres lies, 77% of the average runoff originates on federal reservations. C. Wheatley, C. Corker, T. Stetson, & D. Reed, Study of the Development, Management and Use of Water Resources on the Public Lands 402-406, and table 4 (1969).
In Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564 (1908), the Court was faced with two questions. First, whether Congress, when it created the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation by treaty, impliedly guaranteed the Indians a reasonable quantity of water. And second, whether Congress repealed this reservation of water when it admitted Montana to the Union one year later “upon an equal footing with the original States.” In answering the first question, the Court emphasized that the reservation was formed to change the Indians’ “nomadic and uncivilized” habits and to make them into “a pastoral and civilized people.” Id., at 576. Without water to irrigate the lands, however, the Fort Belknap Reservation would be “practically valueless” and “civilized communities could not be established thereon.” Ibid. The purpose of the Reservation would thus be “impair[ed] or defeat[ed].” Id., at 577. In answering the second question, the Court concluded that “it would be extreme to believe that within a year Congress destroyed the reservation and took from the Indians the consideration of their grant, leaving them a barren waste — took from them the means of continuing their old habits, yet did not leave them the power to change to new ones.” Ibid.
In Arizona v. California, the Court only had reason to discuss the Master’s finding that the United States had reserved water for use on Arizona Indian reservations. Arizona argued that there was “a lack of evidence showing that the United States in establishing the reservations intended to reserve water for them.” 373 U. S., at 598. The Court disagreed:
“It is impossible to believe that when Congress created the great Colorado River Indian Reservation and when the Executive Department of this Nation created the other reservations they were unaware that most of the lands were of the desert kind — hot, scorching sands — and that water from the river would be essential to the life of the Indian people and to the animals they hunted and the crops they raised.” Id., at 598-599.
The Court also pointed to congressional debate that indicated that Congress had intended to reserve the water for the reservations. Id., at 599.
In Cappaert, Congress had given the President the power to reserve “objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government.” American Antiquities Preservation Act, 34 Stat. 225, 16 U. S. C. § 431 et seq. (1976 ed.). Pursuant to this power, the President had reserved Devil’s Hole as a national monument. Devil’s Hole, according to the Presidential Proclamation, is “ ‘a unique subsurface remnant of the prehistoric chain of lakes which in Pleistocene times formed the Death Valley Lake System’ it also contains “ ‘a peculiar race of desert fish, and zoologists have demonstrated that this race of fish, which is found nowhere else in the world, evolved only after the gradual drying up of the Death Valley Lake System isolated this fish population from the original ancestral stock that in Pleistocene times was common to the entire region.’ ” 426 U. S., at 132. As the Court concluded, the pool was reserved specifically to preserve its scientific interest, principal of which was the Devil’s Hole pupfish. Without a certain quantity of water, these fish would not be able to spawn and would die. This quantity of water was therefore impliedly reserved when the monument was proclaimed. Id., at 141. The Court, however, went on to note that the pool “need only be preserved, consistent with the intention expressed in the Proclamation, to the extent necessary to preserve its scientific interest.... The District Court thus tailored its injunction, very appropriately, to minimal need, curtailing pumping only to the extent necessary to preserve an adequate water level at Devil’s Hole, thus implementing the stated objectives of the Proclamation.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
See Hearings on S. 1275 before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 302-310 (1964) (App. B, supplementary material submitted by Sen. Kuchel), listing 37 statutes in which Congress has expressly recognized the importance of deferring to state water law, from the Mining Act of 1866, § 9, 14 Stat. 253, to the Act of Aug. 28, 1958, § 202, 72 Stat. 1059, stating Congress’ policy to “recognize and protect the rights and interests of the State of Texas in determining the development of the watersheds of the rivers... and its interests and rights in water utilization and control.”
See also the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 737, 16 U. S. C. § 526 (1976 ed.), authorizing the appropriation of funds “for the investigation and establishment of water rights, including the purchase thereof or of lands or interests in land or rights-of-way for use and protection of water rights necessary or beneficial in connection with the administration and public use of the national forests.”
Before this Court’s decisions in FPC v. Oregon, 349 U. S. 435 (1955) and Arizona v. California, recognizing reserved rights outside of Indian reservations, the Forest Service apparently believed that all of its water had to be obtained under state law. “Bights to the use of water for National Forest purposes will be obtained in accordance with State law.” Forest Service Manual (1936). While the Forest Service has apparently modified its policy since those decisions, their Service Manual still indicates a policy of deferring to state water law wherever possible. “The right of the States to appropriate and otherwise control the use of water is recognized, and the policy of the Forest Service is to abide by applicable State laws and regulations relating to water use. When water is needed by the Forest Service either for development of programs, improvements, or other uses, action will be taken promptly to acquire necessary water rights....” Forest Service Handbook §2514 (Feb. 1960). “The rights to use water for national forest purposes will be obtained in accordance with State law. This policy is based on the act of June 4, 1897 (16 U. S. C. [§] 481).” Forest Service Manual §2514.1 (Jan. 1960).
The District Court of Luna County, in its finding of facts, did not list any current water use for “wildlife” purposes. App. 226-227. The United States apparently did not object to this deletion in state court nor does it challenge the deletion in its brief before this Court.
Wheatley, Corker, Stetson & Reed, supra n. 3, at 211.
J. Ise, The United States Forest Policy 62-118 (1972).
Id., at 120-122.
Id., at 129. President Cleveland’s action more than doubled the acreage of then-existing United States forest reserves. Cf. id., at 120.
Id., at 130-139. Western Congressmen had objected since 1891 to what they viewed to be frequently indiscriminate creation of federal forest reserves. Id., at 129-130. A major complaint of the Western Congressmen was that rampant reserving of forest lands by the United States might leave “no opportunity there for further enlargement of civilization by the establishment of agriculture or mining.” 30 Cong. Rec. 1281 (1897) (Sen. Cannon).
The Government notes that the Act forbids the establishment of national forests except “to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber,” and argues from this wording that “improvement” and “protection” of the forests form a third and separate purpose of the national forest system. A close examination of the language of the Act, however, reveals that Congress only intended national forests to be established for two purposes. Forests would be created only “to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries,” or, in other words, “for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber.”
This reading of the Act is confirmed by its legislative history. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress intended national forests to be established for three purposes, one of which would be extremely broad. Indeed, it is inconceivable that a Congress which was primarily concerned with limiting the President’s power to reserve the forest lands of the West would provide for the creation of forests merely “to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries”; forests would be reserved for their improvement and protection, but only to serve the purposes of timber protection and favorable water supply.
This construction is revealed by a predecessor bill to the 1897 Act which was introduced but not passed in the 54th Congress; the 1896 bill provided: “That the object
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, Wayne Dyke, Ed McKinney, and John Blackwell, were found guilty of criminal contempt by the Chancery Court of McMinn County, Tennessee. All three were given the maximum sentence authorized by statute, 10 days in jail and a $50 fine. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting contentions that the convictions violated the Federal Constitution because a jury trial was denied and because testimony concerning a gun, allegedly discovered during an unconstitutional search, was admitted at trial. Petitioners raised both challenges in their petition for a writ of certiorari, and we granted the writ. 389 U. S. 815 (1967).
In connection with a labor dispute, McMinn County Chancery Court issued, on January 24, 1966, an injunction against, inter alia,
“inflicting harm or damage upon the persons or property of [respondent Taylor Implement Company’s] employees, customers, visitors or any other persons.”
On the night of February 25, 1966, a car was seen to drive past the home of Lloyd Duckett, a nonstriking Taylor Implement employee who lived in Monroe County, which adjoins McMinn. Shots were fired from the car at or into the Duckett home. Robert Wayne Ellis, Duckett’s son-in-law, was standing in the front yard with another son-in-law, Dale Harris; Ellis fired back at the car with a pistol, and thought his first shot hit the back of the car. Ellis informed Monroe County Sheriff Howard Kirkpatrick by telephone, and soon after, Monroe Deputy Sheriff Loyd Powers, contacted by Kirkpatrick on his radio and presumably told of the crime, spotted a suspicious car and began following it. The car raced away but was stopped by Athens, Tennessee, policemen, notified by Powers of a speeding car heading for Athens. When Powers reached the stopped car, which contained the three petitioners, he and the Athens policemen took them to McMinn County jail, and parked their car outside the jail. While petitioners were waiting inside the jail, Powers and several Athens policemen searched the car. Under the front seat they found an air rifle. At trial there was testimony that Ellis and Harris had recognized the car from which shots were fired as a two-tone 1960 or 1961 Dodge, that Ellis thought he hit the back of the Dodge with one shot, that the car stopped in Athens was a 1960 Dodge with a fresh bullet hole through the trunk lid, that an air rifle pellet was found the next day outside the Duckett home, and that an air rifle was found under the car’s seat. The chancellor noted that the case against petitioners was “premised entirely upon circumstantial evidence” but that nonetheless he had “no trouble at all with the proof which I have heard and I have weighed it in its severest form, that the charges made must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” The three petitioners were found guilty.
Petitioners’ first claim is that the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when their request for trial by jury was denied. We have held today, in Duncan v. Louisiana, ante, p. 145, that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes upon the States the requirement of Article III and the Sixth Amendment that jury trials be available to criminal defendants. We have also held, in Bloom v. Illinois, ante, p. 194, that prosecutions for criminal contempt are within the constitutional guarantee. The Bloom and Duncan cases, however, have reaffirmed the view that the guarantee of jury trial does not extend to petty crimes. As Bloom makes clear, supra, at 195-200, criminal contempt has always been thought not to be a crime of the sort that requires a jury trial regardless of the penalty authorized. Alleged criminal contemnors must be given a jury trial, therefore, unless the legislature has authorized a maximum penalty within the “petty offense” limit or, if the legislature has made no judgment about the maximum penalty that can be imposed, unless the penalty actually imposed is within that limit. This Court has not had occasion to state precisely where the line falls between punishments that can be considered “petty” and those that cannot be. From Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966), it is clear that a six-month sentence is short enough to be “petty.” That holding is sufficient for resolution of this case. Here the maximum penalty which Tennessee statutes permitted the chancellor to impose was 10 days in jail and a fine of $50. The contempt was therefore a “petty offense,” and petitioners had no federal constitutional right to a jury trial.
Petitioners next contend that admission at trial, over timely objection, of evidence concerning the discovery of an air rifle under the seat of the car in which they were riding when arrested violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The State concedes that the search was without a warrant, but asserts that it was not in violation of the Constitution because “reasonable.” While the record is not entirely clear, petitioners appear to have been arrested for reckless driving. Whether or not a car may constitutionally be searched “incident” to arrest for a traffic offense, the search here did not take place until petitioners were in custody inside the courthouse and the car was parked on the street outside. Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364 (1964), holds that under such circumstances a search is “too remote in time or place to [be] incidental to the arrest . . . .” 376 U. S., at 368.
The search in question here is not saved by Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58 (1967), which upheld a war-rantless search of a car impounded “as evidence” pursuant to a state statute. The police there were required to seize the car and to keep it until forfeiture proceedings could be completed. In those circumstances, said the Court, “[i]t would be unreasonable to hold that the police, having to retain the car in their custody for such a length of time, had no right, even for their own protection, to search it.” 386 U. S., at 61-62. In the. instant case there is no indication that the police had purported to impound or to hold the car, that they were authorized by any state law to do so, or that their search of the car was intended to implement the purposes of such custody. Here the police seem to have parked the car near the courthouse merely as a convenience to the owner, and to have been willing for some friend or relative of McKinney (or McKinney himself if he were soon released from custody) to drive it away. The reasons that made the warrantless search in Cooper reasonable thus do not apply to the search here. The Court discussed in Cooper, 386 U. S., at 61, the reasons why that case was distinguishable from Preston. The case before us is like Preston and unlike Cooper according to each of the distinguishing tests set forth in the Cooper opinion.
Automobiles, because of their mobility, may be searched without a warrant upon facts not justifying a warrantless search of a residence or office. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160 (1949); Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925). The cases so holding have, however, always insisted that the officers conducting the search have “reasonable or probable cause” to believe that they will find the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime before they begin their warrantless search. The record before us does not contain evidence that Sheriff Kirkpatrick, Deputy Sheriff Powers, or the officers who assisted in the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe that evidence would be found in petitioners’ car. Powers had not been told that Harris and Ellis had identified the car from which shots were fired as a 1960 or 1961 Dodge. He testified:
“All I got is just that it would be an old make model car. Kinda old make model car.”
The record also contains no suggestion that Ellis told Sheriff Kirkpatrick, Deputy Sheriff Powers, or any other law enforcement official that he had fired at the Dodge or that he thought he had hit it with one bullet. As far as this record shows, Powers knew only that the car he chased was “an old make model car,” that it speeded up when he chased it, and that it contained a fresh bullet hole. The evidence placed upon the record is insufficient to justify a conclusion that McKinney’s car was searched with “reasonable or probable cause” to believe the search would be fruitful.
Since the search was not shown to have been based upon sufficient cause, we need not reach the question whether Carroll and Brinegar, supra, extend to a warrant-less search, based upon probable cause, of an automobile which, having been stopped originally on a highway, is parked outside a courthouse.
Because evidence was admitted without a satisfactory showing that it was obtained in compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Tennessee Supreme Court for disposition not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-903 (1955): “The punishment for contempt may be by fine or imprisonment, or both; but where not otherwise specially provided, the circuit, chancery, and appellate courts are limited to a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00), and imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, and all other courts are limited to a fine of ten dollars ($10.00).”
Sub nom. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, 219 Tenn. 472, 410 S. W. 2d 881 (1966), rehearing denied, 219 Tenn. 481, 410 S. W. 2d 885 (1967).
This claim by petitioners is based on the Fourteenth Amendment, and respondent calls our attention to the fact that at trial and on appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court petitioners pointed only to specific Bill of Rights provisions. The opinion below demonstrates that the Tennessee Supreme Court considered and rejected the contention that the Fourteenth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, taken together, required that petitioners be given a jury trial. We have frequently held that a party is not barred by failure to cite below the proper constitutional provisions when the lower courts consider the relevant provisions. E. g., Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Nebraska State Bd. of Equalization and Assessment, 347 U. S. 590, 598-599 (1954); Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U. S. 773, 779 (1949).
The record suggests that petitioners were told they were under arrest for reckless driving.
The air rifle itself was not introduced. The trial judge treated it as “filed and withdrawn.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These two cases arose under the Declaratory Judgment Act of June 14, 1934, 48 Stat. 955, as amended, now 28 U. S. C. (1958 ed.) §§ 2201 and 2202. The plaintiff, an educational publishing corporation, asked defendant, Vice Admiral Rickover, for leave to publish, to an undefined extent, uncopyrighted speeches he had theretofore delivered. He refused on the ground that what he claimed to be exclusive publishing rights had been sold to another publisher, and he gave notice of copyright on speeches subsequent to the plaintiff's demand. Since the defendant threatened restraint of plaintiff’s use of his speeches, the plaintiff sought this declaratory relief. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the merits, 177 F. Supp. 601. The Court of Appeals (one judge dissenting), agreeing with the District Court that the defendant had, as to his uncopyrighted speeches, the common-law rights of an author, held that he had forfeited his rights by reason of their “publication”; as to his copyrighted speeches, that court remanded the case to the District Court for determination of the extent to which “fair use” was open to the plaintiff. 109 U. S. App. D. C. 128, 284 F. 2d 262. By petition for certiorari and cross-petition both parties sought review and because serious public questions were in issue we brought the cases here. 365 U. S. 841.
The Declaratory Judgment Act was an authorization, not a command. It gave the federal courts competence to make a declaration of rights; it did not impose a duty to do so. Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U. S. 491, 494, 499; Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293, 299-300; Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450, 462; Mechling Barge Lines v. United States, 368 U. S. 324, 331. Of course a District Court cannot decline to entertain such an action as a matter of whim or personal disinclination. “A declaratory judgment, like other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as a matter of judicial discretion, exercised in the public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U. S. 426, 431. We have cautioned against declaratory judgments on issues of public moment, even falling short of constitutionality, in speculative situations. Eccles v. Peoples Bank, supra, at 432.
In these cases we are asked to determine matters of serious public concern. They relate to claims to in tel-lectual property arising out of public employment. They thus raise questions touching the responsibilities and immunities of those engaged in the public service, particularly high officers, and the rightful demands of the Government and the public upon those serving it. These are delicate problems; their solution is bound to have far-reaching import. Adjudication of such problems, certainly by way of resort to a discretionary declaratory judgment, should rest on an adequate and full-bodied record. The record before us is woefully lacking in these requirements.
The decisions of the courts below rested on an Agreed Statement of Facts which sketchily summarized the circumstances of the preparation and of the delivery of the speeches in controversy in relation to the Vice Admiral’s official duties. The nature and scope of his duties were not clearly defined and less than an adequate exposition of the use by him of government facilities and government personnel in the preparation of these speeches was given. Administrative practice, insofar as it may relevantly shed light, was not explored. The Agreed Statement of Facts was in part phrased, modified and interpreted in the course of a running exchange between trial judge and counsel. The extent of the agreement of counsel to the Agreed Statement of Facts was in part explained in the course of oral argument in the District Court. None of the undetailed and loose, if not ambiguous, statements in the Agreed Statement of Facts was subject to the safeguards of critical probing through examination and cross-examination. This is all the more disturbing where vital public interests are implicated in a requested declaration and the Government asserted no claim (indeed obliquely may be deemed not to have disapproved of the defendant’s claim) although the Government was invited to appear in the litigation as amicus curiae and chose not to do so. So fragile a record is an unsatisfactory basis on which to entertain this action for declaratory relief.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, with direction to return the case to the District Court for disposition not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner asks damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained in a shipboard accident while a crew member aboard the respondent’s Great Lakes vessel, the tanker Orion. His complaint alleges respondent’s liability both for negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. § 688, and for unseaworthiness under the general maritime law; a claim for maintenance and cure is also alleged. The parties settled the claim for maintenance and cure at the trial, which was before a jury in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Judgment was entered for the respondent on the unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims upon a verdict directed by the trial judge on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 271 F. 2d 194. We granted certiorari, 362 U. S. 909.
Michalic claims that in a shipboard accident on December 28, 1955, a two-and-one-half-pound wrench dropped on his left great toe. Michalic was afflicted with Buerger’s disease when he joined the Orion three months earlier as a fireman in the engine room. We are informed by the testimony of one of the medical witnesses that Buerger’s disease “is a disease of unknown origin ... it produces a narrowing of the blood supply going to the foot through the arteries, and it runs a very foreseeable course; it is slowly progressive in most cases and leads to progressive loss of blood supply to the extremities involving usually the legs”; for one afflicted with the disease to drop “a hammer on his toe ... is a very serious thing and frequently leads to amputation. . . . Because the circulation is already impaired and the wound will not heal properly, and any appreciable trauma will frequently lead to gangrene.”
Michalic did not report the accident at the time but continued working until January 6, 1956, a week later, when the vessel was laid up for the winter. Meanwhile he treated the toe every night after work in hot water and Epsom salts. He was at his home from January 6 to March 15 and used hot boric acid soaks “practically every day.” He was called back to the Orion on March 15. On April 1, 1956, he reported to the Orion’s captain that “[m]y leg was so bad, so painful, I couldn't take it no more ... I want a hospital ticket.” The captain gave him the ticket after filling out a report in which he stated that Michalic told him that on December 28,1955, “While working with pumpman in pumproom man said he dropped a wrench on his foot and his toe has been sore ever since.” This was the first notice respondent had of any accident.
At the hospital in April, a diagnosis was made of “an infected left great toe nail and gangrene of the left great toe secondary to the Buerger’s Disease.” During the spring three amputations were performed on the left leg, first the great left toe, next the left leg below the knee and then part of the leg above the knee. Medical experts, three on behalf of the petitioner and one for the respondent, differed whether, assuming that the wrench dropped on Michalic’s left great toe on December 28, there was a causal connection between that trauma and the amputations. This plainly presented a question for the jury’s determination, Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Corp., 361 U. S. 107, and we do not understand that the respondent contends otherwise.
The basic dispute between the parties is as to the sufficiency of the proofs to justify the jury’s finding with reason that respondent furnished Michalic with a wrench which was not reasonably fit for its intended use. Here a distinction should be noticed between the unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims in this regard. The vessel’s duty to furnish seamen with tools reasonably fit for their intended use is absolute, Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 321 U. S. 96; Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85; The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158; Cox v. Esso Shipping Co., 247 F. 2d 629; and this duty is completely independent of the owner’s duty under the Jones Act to exercise reasonable care. Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U. S. 539. The differences are stated in Cox v. Esso Shipping Co., supra:
“One is an absolute duty, the other is due care. Where . . . the ultimate issue . . . [is] seaworthiness of the gear .... The owner has an absolute duty to furnish reasonably suitable appliances. If he does not, then no amount of due care or prudence excuses him, whether he knew, or could have known, of its deficiency at the outset or after use. In contrast, under the negligence concept, there is only a duty to use due care, i. e., reasonable prudence, to select and keep in order reasonably suitable appliances. Defects which would not have been known to a reasonably prudent person at the outset, or arose after use and which a reasonably prudent person ought not to have discovered would impose no liability.” 247 F. 2d, at 637.
Thus the question under Michalic’s unseaworthiness claim is the single one as to the sufficiency of the proofs to raise a jury question whether the wrench furnished Michalic was a reasonably suitable appliance for the task he was assigned. To support the Jones Act claim, however, the evidence must also be sufficient to raise a jury question whether the respondent failed to exercise due care in furnishing a wrench which was not a reasonably suitable apipliance.
The wrench dropped on Michalic’s foot while he was using it to unscrew nuts from bolts on the casing of a centrifugal pump in the pumproom. He had been assigned this task by the pumpman after the first assistant engineer sent him from the engine room to the pumproom to help ready the pumps for the vessel’s winter lay-up. There were about twenty-five 1%" nuts tightly secured to the bolts on the casing. The pumpman gave him a 1%" straight-end wrench weighing two and one-half pounds and ten to eleven inches long, and also a mallet. The pump was located alongside and some inches below a catwalk, and Michalic had to step down from the catwalk to reach the casing. His task required the gripping of each nut in the claw of the wrench and the hammering of the side of the wrench with the mallet to apply pressure to loosen it. Michalic had removed all but a few of the nuts when he “had hold of a nut” with the wrench and “I hit it [the wrench] with the mallet and it slipped off the nut and came down the side of the pump and hit my big toe. ... Yes, she slipped off the nut on the pump and came down the side of the pump and smashed my big toe.”
Michalic contends that the proofs were sufficient to justify the jury in finding with reason that there was play in the claw of the wrench which prevented a tight grip on the nut, thus entitling him to the jury’s determination of his unseaworthiness claim, and were also sufficient to justify the jury in finding with reason that the respondent negligently furnished him with a defective wrench, thus entitling him also to the jury’s determination of his Jones Act claim. The evidence viewed in a light favorable to him was as follows: The wrench and other pumproom tools were kept in the pumproom toolbox and were used only when the vessel was being prepared for lay-up. The tools were four or five years old. Because of the. danger of fire, the tools, including the wrench and mallet which Michalic used, were made of a special spark-proof alloy. The second mate, who had left the Orion on December 19, testified that the tools were bronze because “Bronze tools are for non-striking.” It was the practice to inspect the pumproom tools and replace worn ones before their use at lay-up time, but the first assistant engineer who testified to the practice did not say this inspection was made in 1955; and the pumpman testified that “It could be” that no one looked at the toolbox for nine months before December 28. The second mate testified that the tools “had been very beaten and battered, perhaps there for some time.” Michalic testified that he noticed when the pumpman gave him the wrench that it was an “old beat-up wrench ... all chewed up on the end.” Michalic said that when he started work “the wrench was slipping off the nuts; it slipped off every one of them.” He “had a hard time loosening them off.” He protested to the pumpman that “This wrench keeps slipping off,” and the pumpman answered “Never mind about that, do the job as best you can.”
The trial judge found the evidence to be insufficient to present a jury question whether the wrench was a reasonably suitable appliance, because “on the theory the grip is worn . . . there is never any mention of the grip in the case . . . .” The Court of Appeals took the same view, saying “There was no evidence that the open or jaw end of the wrench was in any way deficient . . . [t] he fact that the wrench slipped is not evidence that its slipping was the consequence of some condition in the jaw or handle of the wrench.” 271 E. 2d, at 199. We think that both lower courts erred. True, there was no direct evidence of play in the jaw of the wrench, as in Jacob v. New York City, 315 U. S. 752, 754. But direct evidence of a fact is not required. Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co,, 352 U. S. 500, 508, n. 17. The jury, on this record, with the inferences permissible from the respondent’s own testimony that inspections were necessary to replace tools of this special alloy because of wear which impaired their effectiveness, could reasonably have found that the wrench repeatedly slipped from the nuts because the jaw of the wrench did not properly grip them. Plainly the jury, with reason, could infer that the colloquy between Michalic and the pumpman, and Michalic’s testimony as to slipping, related to the function of the jaw of the wrench in gripping the nuts and that there was play in it which caused the wrench to slip off. Thus the proofs sufficed to raise questions for the jury’s determination of both the unseaworthiness and Jones Act claims. “It does not matter that, from the evidence, the jury may also with reason* on grounds of probability, attribute the result to other causes . . . .” Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., supra, p. 506.
The Jones Act claim is double-barreled. Michalic adds a charge of negligent failure to provide him with a safe place to work to the charge of negligence in furnishing him with a defective wrench. However, the case was not tried, nor is it argued here, on the basis that the charge of negligence in failing to provide a safe place to work rests solely on evidence tending to show a cramped and poorly lighted working space, regardless of the suitability of the wrench. On the contrary, Michalic also makes the allegedly defective wrench the basis of this charge, arguing in effect that the described conditions under which he was required to do the work increased the hazard from the use of the defective wrench. Under that theory, the relevance of the testimony is only to the charge of furnishing a defective wrench and the causal connection between that act and his injury. Phrasing the claim as a failure to provide a safe place to work, therefore adds nothing to Michalic’s case, and he was not entitled to have that claim submitted to the jury as an additional ground of the respondent’s alleged liability.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.
The parties tried the case in the District Court, and argued it here and in the Court of Appeals, as raising issues both of negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under the general maritime law. We therefore need not be concerned with the confusing language of the complaint and whether it may be read as pleading a claim solely on the theory of negligence.
The trial judge ordered the second mate’s testimony to be stricken from the record when it appeared that the mate left the Orion on December 19. The Court of Appeals nevertheless considered the testimony so far as it concerned the condition of the tools. 271 F. 2d, at 196. We think the action of the Court of Appeals was correct in light of the testimony of respondent’s own witnesses, from which it is reasonable to infer that the tools used on December 28 had been in the toolbox for some time prior to December 19.
The trial judge rested his action partly on a supposed variance between the complaint and the proof at the trial. The complaint alleged that the wrench was “an old defective wrench in an unsea-worthy condition in that the teeth and grip of the wrench were worn and defective.” (Emphasis supplied.) Michalic and all the witnesses at the trial who testified about the wrench described its claw as smooth-faced and without teeth. We see no fatal variance and in any event respondent waived reliance on any by expressly disclaiming surprise at the trial.
The petitioner does not invoke the District Court’s jurisdiction on grounds of diversity of citizenship. Thus there is jurisdiction on the law side of the court of the unseaworthiness claim only as “pendent” to jurisdiction under the Jones Act. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U. S. 354, 380-381. However, the question expressly reserved in Romero, p. 381 — whether the District Court may submit the “pendent” claim to the jury — is not presented by the case. The Orion was a Great Lakes vessel and the petitioner is entitled to a jury trial of his unseaworthiness claim under 28 U. S. C. § 1873. See Troupe v. Chicago, D. & G. Bay Transit Co., 234 F. 2d 253; The Western States, 159 F. 354; Jenkins v. Roderick, 156 F. Supp. 299.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner Lloyd E. Schlup, Jr., a Missouri prisoner currently under a sentence of death, filed a second federal habeas corpus petition alleging that constitutional error deprived the jury of critical evidence that would have established his innocence. The District Court, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, declined to reach the merits of the petition, holding that petitioner could not satisfy the threshold showing of “actual innocence” required by Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. 333 (1992). Under Sawyer, the petitioner must show “by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner” guilty. Id., at 336. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to consider whether the Sawyer standard provides adequate protection against the kind of miscarriage of justice that would result from the execution of a person who is actually innocent.
I
On February 3, 1984, on Walk 1 of the high security area of the Missouri State Penitentiary, a black inmate named Arthur Dade was stabbed to death. Three white inmates from Walk 2, including petitioner, were charged in connection with Dade’s murder.
At petitioner’s trial in December 1985, the State’s evidence consisted principally of the testimony of two corrections officers who had witnessed the killing. On the day of the murder, Sergeant Roger Flowers was on duty on Walk 1 and Walk 2, the two walks on the lower floor of the prison’s high security area. Flowers testified that he first released the inmates on Walk 2 for their noon meal and relocked their cells. After unlocking the cells to release the inmates on Walk 1, Flowers noticed an inmate named Rodnie Stewart moving against the flow of traffic carrying a container of steaming liquid. Flowers watched as Stewart threw the liquid in Dade’s face. According to Flowers, Schlup then jumped on Dade’s back, and Robert O’Neal joined in the attack. Flowers shouted for help, entered the walk, and grabbed Stewart as the two other assailants fled.
Officer John Maylee witnessed the attack from Walk 7, which is three levels and some 40-50 feet above Walks 1 and 2. Maylee first noticed Schlup, Stewart, and O’Neal as they were running from Walk 2 to Walk 1 against the flow of traffic. According to Maylee’s testimony, Stewart threw a container of liquid at Dade’s face, and then Schlup jumped on Dade’s back. O’Neal then stabbed Dade several times in the chest, ran down the walk, and threw the weapon out a window. Maylee did not see what happened to Schlup or Stewart after the stabbing.
The State produced no physical evidence connecting Schlup to the killing, and no witness other than Flowers and Maylee testified to Schlup’s involvement in the murder.
Schlup’s defense was that the State had the wrong man. He relied heavily on a videotape from a camera in the prisoners’ dining room. The tape showed that Schlup was the first inmate to walk into the dining room for the noon meal, and that he went through the line and got his food. Approximately 65 seconds after Schlup’s entrance, several guards ran out of the dining room in apparent response to a distress call. Twenty-six seconds later, O’Neal ran into the dining room, dripping blood. Shortly thereafter, Schlup and O’Neal were taken into custody.
Schlup contended that the videotape, when considered in conjunction with testimony that he had walked at a normal pace from his cell to the dining room, demonstrated that he could not have participated in the assault. Because the videotape showed conclusively that Schlup was in the dining room 65 seconds before the guards responded to the distress call, a critical element of Schlup’s defense was determining when the distress call went out. Had the distress call sounded shortly after the murder, Schlup would not have had time to get from the prison floor to the dining room, and thus he could not have participated in the murder. Conversely, had there been a delay of several minutes between the murder and the distress call, Schlup might have had sufficient time to participate in the murder and still get to the dining room over a minute before the distress call went out.
The prosecutor adduced evidence tending to establish that such a delay had in fact occurred. First, Flowers testified that none of the officers on the prison floor had radios, thus implying that neither he nor any of the other officers on the floor was able to radio for help when the stabbing occurred. Second, Flowers testified that after he shouted for help, it took him “a couple [of] minutes” to subdue Stewart. Flowers then brought Stewart downstairs, encountered Captain James Eberle, and told Eberle that there had been a “disturbance.” Eberle testified that he went upstairs to the prison floor, and then radioed for assistance. Eberle estimated that the elapsed time from when he first saw Flowers until he radioed for help was “approximately a minute.” The prosecution also offered testimony from a prison investigator who testified that he was able to run from the scene of the crime to the dining room in 33 seconds and to walk the distance at a normal pace in a minute and 37 seconds.
Neither the State nor Schlup was able to present evidence establishing the exact time of Schlup’s release from his cell on Walk 2, the exact time of the assault on Walk 1, or the exact time of the radio distress call. Further, there was no evidence suggesting that Schlup had hurried to the dining room.
After deliberating overnight, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Following the penalty phase, at which the victim of one of Schlup’s prior offenses testified extensively about the sordid details of that offense, the jury sentenced Schlup to death. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed Schlup’s conviction and death sentence, State v. Schlup, 724 S. W. 2d 236 (Mo. 1987), and this Court denied certiorari, Schlup v. Missouri, 482 U. S. 920 (1987).
II
On January 5, 1989, after exhausting his state collateral remedies, Schlup filed a pro se petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, asserting the claim, among others, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview, and to call witnesses who could establish Schlup’s innocence. The District Court concluded that Schlup’s ineffectiveness claim was procedurally barred, and it denied relief on that claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, though it did not rely on the alleged procedural bar. Schlup v. Armontrout, 941 F. 2d 631 (CA8 1991). Instead, based on its own examination of the record, the Court found that trial counsel’s performance had not been constitutionally ineffective, both because counsel had reviewed statements that Schlup’s potential witnesses had given to prison investigators, and because the testimony of those witnesses “would be repetitive of the testimony to be presented at trial.” Id., at 639. But cf. 11 F. 3d 738, 746, n. 3 (CA8 1993) (Heaney, J., dissenting) (challenging the conclusion that such testimony would have been “repetitive”). The Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, Schlup v. Armontrout, 945 F. 2d 1062 (1991), and we denied a petition for certiorari, 503 U. S. 909 (1992).
On March 11, 1992, represented by new counsel, Schlup filed a second federal habeas corpus petition. That petition raised a number of claims, including that (1) Schlup was actually innocent of Dade’s murder, and that his execution would therefore violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, cf. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 (1993); (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview alibi witnesses; and (3) the State had failed to disclose critical exculpatory evidence. The petition was supported by numerous affidavits from inmates attesting to Schlup’s innocence.
The State filed a response arguing that various procedural bars precluded the District Court from reaching the merits of Schlup’s claims and that the claims were in any event mer-itless. Attached to the State’s response were transcripts of inmate interviews conducted by prison investigators just five days after the murder. One of the transcripts contained an interview with John Green, an inmate who at the time was the clerk for the housing unit. In his interview, Green stated that he had been in his office at the end of the walks when the murder occurred. Green stated that Flowers had told him to call for help, and that Green had notified base of the disturbance shortly after it began.
Schlup immediately filed a traverse arguing that Green’s affidavit provided conclusive proof of Schlup’s innocence. Schlup contended that Green’s statement demonstrated that a call for help had gone out shortly after the incident. Because the videotape showed that Schlup was in the dining room some 65 seconds before the guards received the distress call, Schlup argued that he could not have been involved in Dade’s murder. Schlup emphasized that Green’s statement was not likely to have been fabricated, because at the time of Green’s interview, neither he nor anyone else would have realized the significance of Green’s call to base. Schlup tried to buttress his claim of innocence with affidavits from inmates who stated that they had witnessed the event and that Schlup had not been present. Two of those affidavits suggested that Randy Jordan — who occupied the cell between O’Neal and Stewart in Walk 2, and who, as noted above, see n. 4, supra, is shown on the videotape arriving at lunch with O’Neal — was the third assailant.
On August 23,1993, without holding a hearing, the District Court dismissed Schlup’s second habeas petition and vacated the stay of execution that was then in effect. The District Court concluded that Schlup’s various filings did not provide adequate cause for failing to raise his new claims more promptly. Moreover, the court concluded that Schlup had failed to meet the Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. 333 (1992), standard for showing that a refusal to entertain those claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In its discussion of the evidence, the court made no separate comment on the significance of Green’s statement.
On September 7,1993, petitioner filed a motion to set aside the order of dismissal, again calling the court’s attention to Green’s statement. Two days later, Schlup filed a supplemental motion stating that his counsel had located John Green and had obtained an affidavit from him. That affidavit confirmed Green’s postincident statement that he had called base shortly after the assault. Green’s affidavit also identified Jordan rather than Schlup as the third assailant. The District Court denied the motion and the supplemental motion without opinion.
Petitioner then sought from the Court of Appeals a stay of execution pending the resolution of his appeal. Relying on Justice Powell’s plurality opinion in Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436 (1986), Schlup argued that the District Court should have entertained his second habeas corpus petition, because he had supplemented his constitutional claim “with a colorable claim of factual innocence.” Id., at 454.
On October 15, 1993, the Court of Appeals denied the stay application. In an opinion that was subsequently vacated, the majority held that petitioner’s claim of innocence was governed by the standard announced in Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. 333 (1992), and it concluded that under that standard, the evidence of Schlup’s guilt that had been adduced at trial foreclosed consideration of petitioner’s current constitutional claims.
Judge Heaney dissented. Relying on Green’s affidavit, the videotape, and the affidavits of four other eyewitnesses, Judge Heaney concluded that the petitioner had met both the Kuhlmann standard and a proper reading of the Sawyer standard. Cf. infra, at 331. He believed that the District Court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing in which the affiants would have been subjected to examination by the State so “their credibility could be accurately determined.”
In the meantime, petitioner’s counsel obtained an affidavit from Robert Faherty, the former lieutenant at the prison whom Schlup had passed on the way to lunch on the day of the murder and who had reprimanded Schlup for shouting out the window. See n. 10, supra. Faherty’s affidavit stated that Schlup had been in Faherty’s presence for at least two and a half minutes; that Schlup was walking at a leisurely pace; and that Schlup “was not perspiring or breathing hard, and he was not nervous.” Affidavit of Robert Fah-erty ¶¶ 4, 6 (Oct. 26, 1993).
On November 15, 1993, the Court of Appeals vacated its earlier opinion and substituted a more comprehensive analysis of the law to support its decision to deny Schlup’s request for a stay. 11 F. 3d 738. The majority adhered to its earlier conclusion that Sawyer stated the appropriate standard for evaluating Schlup’s claim of actual innocence. 11 F. 3d, at 740. The opinion also contained an extended discussion of Schlup’s new evidence. The court noted in particular that Green’s new affidavit was inconsistent in part with both his prison interview and his testimony at the Stewart trial. Id., at 742. The court viewed Faherty’s affidavit as simply “an effort to embellish and expand upon his testimony” and concluded “that a habeas court should not permit retrial on such a basis.” Id., at 743.
Judge Heaney again dissented, concluding that Schlup had “presented truly persuasive evidence that he is actually innocent,” and that the District Court should therefore have addressed the merits of Schlup’s constitutional claims. Id., at 744. Judge Heaney also argued that Schlup’s ineffectiveness claim was substantial. He noted that Schlup’s trial counsel failed to conduct individual interviews with Griffin Bey, McCoy, or any of the other inmates who told investigators that they had seen the killing. Moreover, counsel failed to interview Green about his statement that he had called base. In fact, counsel apparently failed to conduct individual interviews with any of the potential witnesses to the crime.
Judge Heaney adhered to his conclusion that Schlup’s counsel was ineffective, even though counsel allegedly had reviewed 100 interviews conducted by prison investigators. Judge Heaney argued that counsel’s review of the interview transcripts — rather than demonstrating counsel’s effectiveness — made counsel’s failure to conduct his own interviews with Green and the few inmates who admitted seeing the attack even more troubling. See id., at 747, n. 5. Judge Heaney concluded that Schlup’s case should be remanded to the District Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and, if appropriate, to address the merits of Schlup’s constitutional claims.
On November 17,1993, the Court of Appeals denied a suggestion for rehearing en banc. Dissenting from that denial, three judges joined an opinion describing the question whether the majority should have applied the standard announced in Sawyer v. Whitley, supra, rather than the Kuhl-mann standard as “a question of great importance in habeas corpus jurisprudence.” 11 F. 3d, at 755. We granted cer-tiorari to consider that question. 511 U. S. 1003 (1994).
Ill
As a preliminary matter, it is important to explain the difference between Schlup’s claim of actual innocence and the claim of actual innocence asserted in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 (1993). In Herrera, the petitioner advanced his claim of innocence to support a novel substantive constitutional claim, namely, that the execution of an innocent person would violate the Eighth Amendment. Under petitioner’s theory in Herrera, even if the proceedings that had resulted in his conviction and sentence were entirely fair and error free, his innocence would render his execution a “constitutionally intolerable event.” Id., at 419 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
Schlup’s claim of innocence, on the other hand, is procedural, rather than substantive. His constitutional claims are based not on his innocence, but rather on his contention that the ineffectiveness of his counsel, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), and the withholding of evidence by the prosecution, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), denied him the full panoply of protections afforded to criminal defendants by the Constitution. Schlup, however, faces procedural obstacles that he must overcome before a federal court may address the merits of those constitutional claims. Because Schlup has been unable to establish “cause and prejudice” sufficient to excuse his failure to present his evidence in support of his first federal petition, see McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 493-494 (1991), Schlup may obtain review of his constitutional claims only if he falls within the “narrow class of cases... implicating a fundamental miscarriage of justice,” id., at 494. Schlup’s claim of innocence is offered only to bring him within this “narrow class of cases.”
Schlup’s claim thus differs in at least two important ways from that presented in Herrera. First, Schlup’s claim of innocence does not by itself provide a basis for relief. Instead, his claim for relief depends critically on the validity of his Strickland and Brady claims. Schlup’s claim of innocence is thus “not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.” Herrera, 506 U. S., at 404; see also 11 F. 3d, at 740.
More importantly, a court’s assumptions about the validity of the proceedings that resulted in conviction are fundamentally different in Schlup’s. case than in Herrera’s. In Herrera, petitioner’s claim was evaluated on the assumption that the trial that resulted in his conviction had been error free. In such a case, when a petitioner has been “tried before a jury of his peers, with the full panoply of protections that our Constitution affords criminal defendants,” 506 U. S., at 419 (O’Connor, J., concurring), it is appropriate to apply an “‘extraordinarily high”’ standard of review, id., at 426 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
Schlup, in contrast, accompanies his claim of innocence with an assertion of constitutional error at trial. For that reason, Schlup’s conviction may not be entitled to the same degree of respect as one, such as Herrera’s, that is the product of an error-free trial. Without any new evidence of innocence, even the existence of a concededly meritorious constitutional violation is not in itself sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice that would allow a habeas court to reach the merits of a barred claim. However, if a petitioner such as Schlup presents evidence of innocence so strong that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial unless the court is also satisfied that the trial was free of nonharmless constitutional error, the petitioner should be allowed to pass through the gateway and argue the merits of his underlying claims.
Consequently, Schlup’s evidence of innocence need carry less of a burden. In Herrera (on the assumption that petitioner’s claim was, in principle, legally well founded), the evidence of innocence would have had to be strong enough to make his execution “constitutionally intolerable” even if his conviction was the product of a fair trial. For Schlup, the evidence must establish sufficient doubt about his guilt to justify the conclusion that his execution would be a miscarriage of justice unless his conviction was the product of a fair trial.
Our rather full statement of the facts illustrates the foregoing distinction between a substantive Herrera claim and Schlup’s procedural claim. Three items of evidence are particularly relevant: the affidavit of black inmates attesting to the innocence of a white defendant in a racially motivated killing; the affidavit of Green describing his prompt call for assistance; and the affidavit of Lieutenant Faherty describing Schlup’s unhurried walk to the dining room. If there were no question about the fairness of the criminal trial, a Herrera-type claim would have to fail unless the federal ha-beas court is itself convinced that those new facts unquestionably establish Schlup’s innocence. On the other hand, if the habeas court were merely convinced that those new facts raised sufficient doubt about Schlup’s guilt to undermine confidence in the result of the trial without the assurance that that trial was untainted by constitutional error, Schlup’s threshold showing of innocence would justify a review of the merits of the constitutional claims.
IV
As this Court has repeatedly noted, “[a]t common law, res judicata did not attach to a court’s denial of habeas relief.” McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 479. Instead, “ ‘a renewed application could be made to every other judge or court in the realm, and each court or judge was bound to consider the question of the prisoner’s right to a discharge independently, and not to be influenced by the previous decisions refusing discharge.’ ” Ibid., quoting W. Church, Writ of Habeas Corpus §386, p. 570 (2d ed. 1893).
The Court has explained the early tolerance of successive petitions, in part, by the fact that the writ originally performed only the narrow function of testing either the jurisdiction of the sentencing court or the legality of Executive detention. See McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 478; Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 78 (1977). The scope of the writ later expanded beyond its original narrow purview to encompass review of constitutional error that had occurred in the proceedings leading to conviction. See McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 478-479; Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S., at 79. That broadening of the scope of the writ created the risk that repetitious filings by individual petitioners might adversely affect the administration of justice in the federal courts. Such filings also posed a threat to the finality of state-court judgments and to principles of comity and federalism. See, e. g., McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 491; Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478, 487 (1986).
To alleviate the increasing burdens on the federal courts and to contain the threat to finality and comity, Congress attempted to fashion rules disfavoring claims raised in second and subsequent petitions. For example, in 1966, Congress amended 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b) “to introduce ‘a greater degree of finality of judgments in habeas corpus proceedings.’ ” Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S., at 450, quoting S. Rep. No. 1797, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1966) (Senate Report); see also McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 486. Similarly, in 1976, Congress promulgated Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Proceedings in part to deal with the problem of repetitive filings.
These same concerns resulted in a number of recent decisions from this Court that delineate the circumstances under which a district court may consider claims raised in a second or subsequent habeas petition. In those decisions, the Court held that a habeas court may not ordinarily reach the merits of successive claims, Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436 (1986), or abusive claims, McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 493, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, see Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977). The application of cause and prejudice to successive and abusive claims conformed to this Court’s treatment of procedurally defaulted claims. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478; see also McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 490-491 (“The doctrines of procedural default and abuse of the writ implicate nearly identical concerns flowing from the significant costs of federal habeas corpus review”). See generally Sawyer, 505 U. S., at 338-340. The net result of this congressional and judicial action has been the adoption in habeas corpus of a “ ‘qualified application of the doctrine of res judi-cata.’” McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 486, quoting Senate Report, at 2.
At the same time, the Court has adhered to the principle that habeas corpus is, at its core, an equitable remedy. This Court has consistently relied on the equitable nature of habeas corpus to preclude application of strict rules of res judicata. Thus, for example, in Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 (1963), this Court held that a habeas court must adjudicate even a successive habeas claim when required to do so by the “ends of justice.” Id., at 15-17; see also McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 495. The Sanders Court applied this equitable exception even to petitions brought under 28 U. S. C. § 2255, though the language of § 2255 contained no reference to an “ends of justice” inquiry. 373 U. S., at 12-15.
We firmly established the importance of the equitable inquiry required by the ends of justice in “a trio of 1986 decisions” handed down on the same day. Sawyer, 505 U. S., at 339 (referring to Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436, Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478, and Smith v. Murray, 477 U. S. 527). In Kuhlmann, seven Members of this Court squarely rejected the argument that in light of the 1966 amendments, “federal courts no longer must consider the ‘ends of justice’ before dismissing a successive petition.” 477 U. S., at 451 (plurality opinion); id., at 468-471 (Brennan, J., dissenting); id., at 476-477 (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Sawyer, 505 U. S., at 339 (noting that in Kuhlmann, “[w]e held that despite the removal of [the reference to the ends of justice] from 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b) in 1966, the miscarriage of justice exception would allow successive claims to be heard”). Thus, while recognizing that successive petitions are generally precluded from review, Justice Powell’s plurality opinion expressly noted that there are “limited circumstances under which the interests of the prisoner in relitigating constitutional claims held meritless on a prior petition may outweigh the countervailing interests served by according finality to the prior judgment.” 477 U. S., at 452. Similarly, writing for the Court in Carrier, Justice O’Connor observed that the Court had adopted the cause and prejudice standard in part because of its confidence that that standard would provide adequate protection to “ ‘victims of a fundamental miscarriage of justice,’ ” 477 U. S., at 495-496, quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 135 (1982); however, Justice O’Connor also noted that the Court has candidly refused to “pretend that this will always be true,” Carrier, 477 U. S., at 496. For that reason, “‘[i]n appropriate cases,’ the principles of comity and finality that inform the concepts of cause and prejudice ‘must yield to the imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration.’ ” Id., at 495, quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S., at 135; see also Smith v. Murray, 477 U. S., at 537. In subsequent cases, we have consistently reaffirmed the existence and importance of the exception for fundamental miscarriages of justice. See, e. g., Sawyer, 505 U. S., at 339-340; McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 494-495; Dugger v. Adams, 489 U. S. 401, 414 (1989) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
To ensure that the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception would remain “rare” and would only be applied in the “extraordinary case,” while at the same time ensuring that the exception would extend relief to those who were truly deserving, this Court explicitly tied the miscarriage of justice exception to the petitioner’s innocence. In Kuhlmann, for example, Justice Powell concluded that a prisoner retains an overriding “interest in obtaining his release from custody if he is innocent of the charge for which he was incarcerated. That interest does not extend, however, to prisoners whose guilt is conceded or plain.” 477 U. S., at 452. Similarly, Justice O’Connor wrote in Carrier that “in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural default.” 477 U. S., at 496; see also Smith v. Murray, 477 U. S., at 537, quoting Carrier, 477 U. S., at 496.
The general rule announced in Kuhlmann, Carrier, and Smith, and confirmed in this Court’s more recent decisions, rests in part on the fact that habeas corpus petitions that advance a substantial claim of actual innocence are extremely rare. Judge Friendly’s observation a quarter of a century ago that “the one thing almost never suggested on collateral attack is that the prisoner was innocent of the crime” remains largely true today. Explicitly tying the miscarriage of justice exception to innocence thus accommodates both the systemic interests in finality, comity, and conservation of judicial resources, and the overriding individual interest in doing justice in the “extraordinary case,” Carrier, 477 U. S., at 496.
In addition to linking miscarriages of justice to innocence, Carrier and Kuhlmann also expressed the standard of proof that should govern consideration of those claims. In Carrier, for example, the Court stated that the petitioner must show that the constitutional error “probably” resulted in the conviction of one who was actually innocent. The Kuhlmann plurality, though using the term “colorable claim of factual innocence,” elaborated that the petitioner would be required to establish, by a “‘fair probability/” that “‘the trier of the facts would have entertained a reasonable doubt of his guilt."” 477 U. S., at 454, 455, n. 17.
In the years following Kuhlmann and Carrier, we did not expound further on the actual innocence exception. In those few cases that mentioned the standard, the Court continued to rely on the formulations set forth in Kuhlmann and Carrier. In McCleskey, for example, while establishing that cause and prejudice would generally define the situations in which a federal court might entertain an abusive petition, the Court recognized an exception for cases in which the constitutional violation “probably has caused the conviction of one innocent of the crime.” 499 U. S., at 494, citing Carrier, 477 U. S., at 485.
Then, in Sawyer, the Court examined the miscarriage of justice exception as applied to a petitioner who claimed he was “actually innocent of the death penalty.” In that opinion, the Court struggled to define “actual innocence” in the context of a petitioner’s claim that his death sentence was inappropriate. The Court concluded that such actual innocence “must focus on those elements which render a defendant eligible for the death penalty.” 505 U. S., at 347. However, in addition to defining what it means to be “innocent” of the death penalty, the Court departed from Carrier’s use of “probably” and adopted a more exacting standard of proof to govern these claims: The Court held that a habeas petitioner “must show by clear and convincing evidence that but for a constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner eligible for the death penalty.” 505 U. S., at 336 (emphasis added). No attempt was made in Sawyer to reconcile this stricter standard with Carrier’s use of “probably.”
V
In evaluating Schlup’s claim of innocence, the Court of Appeals applied Eighth Circuit precedent holding that Sawyer, rather than Carrier, supplied the proper legal standard. The court then purported to apply the Sawyer standard. Schlup argues that Sawyer has no application to a petitioner who claims that he is actually innocent of the crime, and that the Court of Appeals misapplied Sawyer in any event. Respondent contends that the Court of Appeals was correct in both its selection and its application of the Sawyer standard. Though the Court of Appeals seems to have misapplied Sawyer, we do not rest our decision on that ground because we conclude that in a case such as this, the Sawyer standard does not apply.
As we have stated, the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception seeks to balance the societal interests in finality, comity, and conservation of scarce judicial resources with the individual interest in justice that arises in the extraordinary case. We conclude that Carrier, rather than Sawyer, properly strikes that balance when the claimed injustice is that constitutional error has resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent of the crime.
Claims of actual innocence pose less of a threat to scarce judicial resources and to principles of finality and comity than do claims that focus solely on the erroneous imposition of the death penalty. Though challenges to the propriety of imposing a sentence of death are routinely asserted in capital cases, experience has taught us that a substantial claim that constitutional error has caused the conviction of an innocent person is extremely rare. See supra, at 321-322. To be credible, such a claim requires petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence— whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence — that was not presented at trial. Because such evidence is obviously unavailable in the vast majority of cases, claims of actual innocence are rarely successful. Even under the pre-Sawyer regime, “in virtually every case, the allegation of actual innocence has been summarily rejected.” The threat to judicial resources, finality, and comity posed by claims of actual innocence is thus significantly less than that posed by claims relating only to sentencing.
Of greater importance, the individual interest in avoiding injustice is most compelling in the context of actual innocence. The quintessential miscarriage of justice is the execution of a person who is entirely innocent. Indeed, concern about the injustice that results from the conviction of an innocent person has long been at the core of our criminal justice system. That concern is reflected, for example, in the “fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.” In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 372 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). See also T. Starkie, Evidence 756 (1824) (“The maxim of the law is... that it is better that ninety-nine... offenders should escape, than that one innocent man should be condemned”). See generally Newman, Beyond “Reasonable Doubt,” 68 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 979, 980-981 (1993).
The overriding importance of this greater individual interest merits protection by imposing a somewhat less exacting standard of proof on a habeas petitioner alleging a fundamental miscarriage of justice than on one alleging that his sentence is too severe. As this Court has noted, “a standard of proof represents an attempt to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V), forbids retaliation by employers against employees who report workplace race or gender discrimination. The question here is whether this protection extends to an employee who speaks out about discrimination not on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer’s internal investigation. We hold that it does.
I
In 2002, respondent Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (Metro), began looking into rumors of sexual harassment by the Metro School District’s employee relations director, Gene Hughes. 211 Fed. Appx. 373, 374 (CA6 2006). When Veronica Frazier, a Metro human resources officer, asked petitioner Vicky Crawford, a 30-year Metro employee, whether she had witnessed “inappropriate behavior” on the part of Hughes, id., at 374-375, Crawford described several instances of sexually harassing behavior: once, Hughes had answered her greeting, “‘Hey Dr. Hughes, [wjhat’s up?/ ” by grabbing his crotch and saying “ ‘[Y]ou know what’s up’ he had repeatedly “ ‘put his crotch up to [her] window’ and on one occasion he had entered her office and “ ‘grabbed her head and pulled it to his crotch/ ” id., at 375, and n. 1. Two other employees also reported being sexually harassed by Hughes. Id., at 375. Although Metro took no action against Hughes, it did fire Crawford and the two other accusers soon after finishing the investigation, saying in Crawford’s case that it was for embezzlement. Ibid. Crawford claimed Metro was retaliating for her report of Hughes’s behavior and filed a charge of a Title VII violation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), followed by this suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Ibid.
The Title VII antiretaliation provision has two clauses, making it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... [1] because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or [2] because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-3(a). The one is known as the “opposition clause,” the other as the “participation clause,” and Crawford accused Metro of violating both.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Metro. It held that Crawford could not satisfy the opposition clause because she had not “instigated or initiated any complaint,” but had “merely answered questions by investigators in an already-pending internal investigation, initiated by someone else.” Memorandum Opinion, No. 3:03-cv-0996 (MD Tenn., Jan. 6,2005), App. C to Pet. for Cert. 16a-17a. It concluded that her claim also failed under the participation clause, which Sixth Circuit precedent confined to protecting “'an employee’s participation in an employer’s internal investigation . . . where that investigation occurs pursuant to a pending EEOC charge’ ” (not the case here). Id., at 15a (emphasis deleted) (quoting Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., 348 F. 3d 537, 543 (CA6 2003)).
The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same grounds, holding that the opposition clause “'demands active, consistent “opposing” activities to warrant... protection against retaliation,’” 211 Fed. Appx., at 376 (quoting Bell v. Safety Grooving & Grinding, LP, 107 Fed. Appx. 607, 610 (CA6 2004)), whereas Crawford did “not claim to have instigated or initiated any complaint prior to her participation in the investigation, nor did she take any further action following the investigation and prior to her firing,” 211 Fed. Appx., at 376. Again like the trial judge, the Court of Appeals understood that Crawford could show no violation of the participation clause because her “ ‘employer’s internal investigation’ ” was not conducted “‘pursuant to a pending EEOC charge.’” Ibid, (quoting Abbott, supra, at 543).
Because the Sixth Circuit’s decision conflicts with those of other Circuits, particularly as to the opposition clause, see, e. g., McDonnell v. Cisneros, 84 F. 3d 256, 262 (CA7 1996), we granted Crawford’s petition for certiorari. 552 U. S. 1162 (2008). We now reverse and remand for further proceedings.
II
The opposition clause makes it “unlawful ... for an employer to discriminate against any... employe[e]... because he has opposed any practice made . . . unlawful ... by this subchapter.” §2000e-3(a). The term “oppose,” being left undefined by the statute, carries its ordinary meaning, Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42 (1979): “[t]o resist or antagonize ...; to contend against; to confront; resist; withstand,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1710 (2d ed. 1957). Although these actions entail varying expenditures of energy, “resist frequently implies more active striving than OPPOSE.” Ibid.; see also Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1359 (2d ed. 1987) (defining “oppose” as “to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion”).
The statement Crawford says she gave to Frazier is thus covered by the opposition clause, as an ostensibly disapproving account of sexually obnoxious behavior toward her by a fellow employee, an answer she says antagonized her employer to the point of sacking her on a false pretense. Crawford’s description of the louche goings-on would certainly qualify in the minds of reasonable jurors as “resist[ant]” or “antagonistic]” to Hughes’s treatment, if for no other reason than the point argued by the Government and explained by an EEOC guideline: “When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in . . . a form of employment discrimination, that communication” virtually always “constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9 (citing 2 EEOC Compliance Manual §§8-II-B(l), (2), p. 614:0003 (Mar. 2003)); see also Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U. S. 389, 399 (2008) (explaining that EEOC compliance manuals “reflect ‘a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance’ ” (quoting Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 642 (1998))). It is true that one can imagine exceptions, like an employee’s description of a supervisor’s racist joke as hilarious, but these will be eccentric cases, and this is not one of them.
The Sixth Circuit thought answering questions fell short of opposition, taking the view that the clause “ ‘demands active, consistent “opposing” activities to warrant. . . protection against retaliation/” 211 Fed. Appx., at 376 (quoting Bell, supra, at 610), and that an employee must “instigat[e] or initiat[e]” a complaint to be covered, 211 Fed. Appx., at 376. But though these requirements obviously exemplify opposition as commonly understood, they are not limits of it.
“Oppose” goes beyond “active, consistent” behavior in ordinary discourse, where we would naturally use the word to speak of someone who has taken no action at all to advance a position beyond disclosing it. Countless people were known to “oppose” slavery before Emancipation, or are said to “oppose” capital punishment today, without writing public letters, taking to the streets, or resisting the government. And we would call it “opposition” if an employee took a stand against an employer’s discriminatory practices not by “instigating” action, but by standing pat, say, by refusing to follow a supervisor’s order to fire a junior worker for discriminatory reasons. Cf. McDonnell, supra, at 262 (finding employee covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where his employer retaliated against him for failing to prevent his subordinate from filing an EEOC charge). There is, then, no reason to doubt that a person can “oppose” by responding to someone else’s question just as surely as by provoking the discussion, and nothing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question.
Metro and its amici support the Circuit panel’s insistence on “active” and “consistent” opposition by arguing that the lower the bar for retaliation claims, the less likely it is that employers will look into what may be happening outside the executive suite. As they see it, if retaliation is an easy charge when things go bad for an employee who responded to enquiries, employers will avoid the headache by refusing to raise questions about possible discrimination.
The argument is unconvincing, for we think it underestimates the incentive to enquire that follows from our decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775 (1998). Ellerth and Faragher hold “[a]n employer . . . subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with ... authority over the employee.” Ellerth, supra, at 765; Faragher, supra, at 807. Although there is no affirmative defense if the hostile environment “culminates in a tangible employment action” against the employee, Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 765, an employer does have a defense “[w]hen no tangible employment action is taken” if it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any” discriminatory conduct and “the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise,” ibid. Employers are thus subject to a strong inducement to ferret out and put a stop to any discriminatory activity in their operations as a way to break the circuit of imputed liability. Ibid.; see also Brief for Petitioner 24-28, and nn. 31-35 (citing studies demonstrating that Ellerth and Faragher have prompted many employers to adopt or strengthen procedures for investigating, preventing, and correcting discriminatory conduct). The possibility that an employer might someday want to fire someone who might charge discrimination traceable to an internal investigation does not strike us as likely to diminish the attraction of an Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense.
That aside, we find it hard to see why the Sixth Circuit’s rule would not itself largely undermine the Ellerth-Faragher scheme, along with the statute’s “‘primary objective’” of “avoiding] harm” to employees. Faragher, supra, at 806 (quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 417 (1975)). If it were clear law that an employee who reported discrimination in answering an employer’s questions could be penalized with no remedy, prudent employees would have a good reason to keep quiet about Title VII offenses against themselves or against others. This is no imaginary horrible given the documented indications that “[f]ear of retaliation is the leading reason why people stay silent instead of voicing their concerns about bias and discrimination.” Brake, Retaliation, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 18, 20 (2005); see also id., at 37, and n. 58 (compiling studies). The appeals court’s rule would thus create a real dilemma for any knowledgeable employee in a hostile work environment if the boss took steps to assure a defense under our cases. If the employee reported discrimination in response to the enquiries, the employer might well be free to penalize her for speaking up. But if she kept quiet about the discrimination and later filed a Title VII claim, the employer might well escape liability, arguing that it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct [any discrimination] promptly” but “the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of . . . preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.” Ellerth, supra, at 765. Nothing in the statute’s text or our precedent supports this catch-22.
Because Crawford’s conduct is covered by the opposition clause, we do not reach her argument that the Sixth Circuit misread the participation clause as well. But that does not mean the end of this case, for Metro’s motion for summary judgment raised several defenses to the retaliation charge besides the scope of the two clauses; the District Court never reached these others owing to its ruling on the elements of retaliation, and they remain open on remand.
Ill
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Because this case arises out of the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for Metro, “we are required to view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, [Crawford].” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194, 195, n. 2 (2004) (per curiam).
Metro suggests in passing that it was unclear whether Crawford actually opposed Hughes’s behavior because some of her defensive responses were “inappropriate,” such as telling Hughes to “bite me” and “flip[ping] him a bird.” Brief for Respondent 1-2 (internal quotation marks omitted). This argument fails not only because at the summary judgment stage we must “view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in [Crawford’s] favor,” Brosseau, 543 U. S., at 195, n. 2, but also because Crawford gave no indication that Hughes’s gross clowning was anything but offensive to her.
Metro also argues that “[Requiring the employee to actually initiate a complaint. .. conforms with the employee’s ‘obligation of reasonable care to avoid harm’ articulated in Faragher and Ellerth.” Brief for Respondent 28 (quoting Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 807 (1998)). But that mitigation requirement only applies to employees who are suffering discrimination and have the opportunity to fix it by “tak[ing] advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer,” 524 U. S., at 807; it is based on the general principle “that a victim has a duty ‘to use such means as are reasonable under the circumstances to avoid or minimize . . . damages,’ ” id,., at 806 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U. S. 219, 231, n. 15 (1982)). We have never suggested that employees have a legal obligation to report discrimination against others to their employer on their own initiative, let alone lose statutory protection by failing to speak. Extending the mitigation requirement so far would make no sense; employees will often face retaliation not for opposing discrimination they themselves face, but for reporting discrimination suffered by others. Thus, they are not “victims” of anything until they are retaliated against, and it would be absurd to require them to “mitigate” damages they may be unaware they will suffer.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A divided Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that respondent’s state-court murder conviction was constitutionally invalid. Its holding has two bases: (1) the pretrial photographic identification procedure employed by state police was “so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable in-court misidenti-fication of the [respondent]”; and (2) the admission of the in-court identification “constituted error of constitutional dimension.” 611 F. 2d 754, 755 (1979). The question before us is whether the Court of Appeals properly analyzed respondent’s challenge to his state-court murder conviction, given the limited nature of the review provided federal courts by 28 U. S. C. § 2254.
I
In 1973, respondent was convicted in the Superior Court of Kern County, Cal., of the first-degree murder of one of his fellow inmates at a California correctional institution. At trial, three witnesses testified that they had witnessed all or part of the attack on the inmate and identified respondent as participating in the murder. Respondent offered as an alibi three other witnesses who testified that respondent was in bed at the time the stabbing occurred. At no point did respondent object to his in-court identification by the State’s three eyewitnesses.
On direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal, respondent claimed for the first time that the pretrial photographic identification employed by the state police violated the due process of law guaranteed him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The California Court of Appeal analyzed his contention under the test earlier enunciated by this Court in Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968). The court explained that each case must be considered on its own facts and a violation of due process will occur and a conviction will be set aside only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The California court then rejected respondent’s contention, in this language:
“Reviewing the facts of the present case to determine if the particular photographic identification procedure used contained the proscribed suggestive characteristics, we first find that the photographs were available for cross-examination purposes at the trial. We further find that there is no showing of influence by the investigating officers [; ] that the witnesses had an adequate opportunity to view the crime; and that their descriptions are accurate. The circumstances thus indicate the inherent fairness of the procedure, and we find no error in the admission of the identification evidence.” App. to Pet. for Cert. C-4 — C-5.
Respondent did not seek direct review of the California Court of Appeal’s decision with the California Supreme Court. He did, however, later raise the pretrial identification issue in state habeas corpus proceedings. The California Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court all denied relief.
On December 9, 1977, respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and again raised the pretrial identification issue. On May 23, 1978, the District Court denied the petition and respondent appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court, employing the same standard used by the California state courts, concluded “the photographic identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” 611 F. 2d, at 759. This conclusion was based, inter alia, on the court’s finding that (1) the circumstances surrounding the witnesses’ observation of the crime were such that there was a grave likelihood of misidentification; (2) the witnesses had failed to give sufficiently detailed descriptions of the assailant; and (3) considerable pressure from both prison officials and prison factions had been brought to bear on the witnesses. Id., at 758-759.
II
The findings made by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are considerably at odds with the findings made by the California Court of Appeal. Both courts made their findings after reviewing- the state-court trial record and neither court has indicated that this record is not a completely adequate record upon which to base such findings.
If this were simply a run-of-the-mine case in which an appellate court had reached an opposite conclusion from a trial court in a unitary judicial system, there would be little reason for invocation of this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction to make a third set of findings. But unfortunately for the smooth functioning of our federal system, which consists of 50 state judicial systems and one national judicial system, this is not such a run-of-the-mine case. Instead, this case presents important questions regarding the role to be played by the federal courts in the exercise of the habeas corpus jurisdiction conferred upon them by 28 U. S. C. § 2254.
It has long been established, as to those constitutional issues which may properly be raised under § 2254, that even a single federal judge may overturn the judgment of the highest court of a State insofar as it deals with the application of the United States Constitution or laws to the facts in question. As might be imagined, this result was not easily arrived at under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, the predecessor to 28 U. S. C. § 2254. But the present doctrine, adumbrated in the Court’s opinion in Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1923), and culminating in this Court’s opinion in Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 (1963), is that the Act of 1867 allows such collateral attack.
The petitioner asserts that in reaching its decision the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit failed to observe certain limitations on its authority specifically set forth in 28 U. S. C. §2254 (d). Section 2254 (d) provides:
“(d) In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding to which the applicant for the writ and the State or an officer or agent thereof were parties, evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct, unless the applicant shall establish or it shall otherwise appear, or the respondent shall admit—
“(1) that the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the State court hearing;
“(2) that the factfinding procedure employed by the State court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing;
“(3) that the material facts were not adequately developed at the State court hearing;
“(4) that the State court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or over the person of the applicant in the State court proceeding;
“(5) that the applicant was an indigent and the State court, in deprivation of his constitutional right, failed to appoint counsel to represent him in the State court proceeding;
“(6) that the applicant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding; or
“(7) that the applicant was otherwise denied due process of law in the State court proceeding;
“(8) or unless that part of the record of the State court proceeding in which the determination of such factual issue was made, pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such factual determination, is produced as provided for hereinafter, and the Federal court on a consideration of such part of the record as a whole concludes that such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record:
“And in an evidentiary hearing in the proceeding in the Federal court, when due proof of such factual determination has been made, unless the existence of one or more of the circumstances respectively set forth in paragraphs numbered (1) to (7), inclusive, is shown by the applicant, otherwise appears, or is admitted by the respondent, or unless the court concludes pursuant to the provisions of paragraph numbered (8) that the record in the State court proceeding, considered as a whole, does not fairly support such factual determination, the burden shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous.”
It is obvious from a literal reading of the above that § 2254 (d) is applicable to the present situation although it has been contended that this should not be the case where a state appellate court, as opposed to a trial court, makes the pertinent factual findings. We, however, refuse to read this limitation into § 2254 (d). Admittedly, the California Court of Appeal made the factual determinations at issue here and it did so after a review of the trial court record. Nevertheless, it clearly held a “hearing” within the meaning of § 2254 (d). Both respondent and the State were formally before the court. Respondent was given an opportunity to be heard and his claim received plenary consideration even though he failed to raise it before the trial court. After respondent presented his case to the state appellate court, that court concluded in a written opinion that “the facts of the present case” did not adequately support respondent’s claim. Since that court was requested to determine the issue by respondent, we do not think he may now be heard to assert that its proceeding was not a “hearing” within the meaning of § 2254 (d).
Section 2254 (d) applies to cases in which a state court of competent jurisdiction has made “a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue.” It makes no distinction between the factual determinations of a state trial court and those of a state appellate court. Nor does it specify any procedural requirements that must be satisfied for there to be a “hearing on the merits of a factual issue,” other than that the habeas applicant and the State or its agent be parties to the state proceeding and that the state-court determination be evidenced by “a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia.” Section 2254 (d) by its terms thus applies to factual determinations made by state courts, whether the court be a trial court or an appellate court. Cf. Swenson v. Stidham, 409 U. S. 224, 230 (1972). This interest in federalism recognized by Congress in enacting § 2254 (d) requires deference by federal courts to factual determinations of all state courts. This is true particularly in a case such as this where a federal court makes its determination based on the identical record that was considered by the state appellate court and where there was no reason for the state trial court to consider the issue because respondent failed to raise the issue at that level. See Souza v. Howard, 488 F. 2d 462 (CA1 1973). In fact, if the state appellate court here had declined to rule on the “identification” issue because it had not been properly raised in the trial court, the federal court would have been altogether barred from considering it absent a showing of “cause” and “prejudice.” Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977).
Given the applicability of § 2254 (d) to the present case, it is apparent that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not apply the “presumption of correctness” which is mandated by the statute to the factual determinations made by the California state courts. Indeed, the court did not even refer in its opinion to § 2254 (d). Last Term we denied certiorari in Lombard v. Taylor, 445 U. S. 946 (1980), in which a New York prosecutor sought certiorari from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court had held in a § 2254 action that the habeas petitioner had been the victim of knowing use of perjured testimony at his trial, and reversed the District Court’s refusal to grant the writ. In that case, however, the Federal Court of Appeals indicated in the course of its opinion full awareness of § 2254 (d), and after an examination of the same documentary evidence on which the state court relied, it expressly concluded that the state-court finding to the contrary was not entitled to deference by reason of § 2254 (d). Taylor v. Lombard, 606 F. 2d 371, 375 (1979). The approach of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the instant case was quite different. Its only reference to the previous state-court decision and collateral proceedings was to state in one sentence that “[t]he Petition followed the appellant’s conviction of murder in a California state court and his exhaustion of all available state court remedies.” 611 F. 2d, at 755. From this statement, its opinion went directly to a discussion of the “facts” and constitutional merits of the respondent’s claims.
Undoubtedly, a court need not elaborate or give reasons for rejecting claims which it regards as frivolous or totally without merit. This, however, was not the situation presented here. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals reached a conclusion which was in conflict with the conclusion reached by every other state and federal judge after reviewing the exact same record. Reading the court’s opinion in conjunction with § 2254 (d), it is clear that the court could not have even implicitly relied on paragraphs 1 through 7 of § 2254 (d) in reaching its decision. It is impossible to tell whether the majority of the court relied on paragraph 8 because its opinion gives no indication that § 2254 was even considered.
Obviously, if the Court of Appeals in this case or any other court of appeals had simply inserted a boilerplate paragraph in its opinion that it had considered the state record as a whole and concluded that the state appellate court’s factual determinations were not fairly supported by the record, this objection to the judgment of the Court of Appeals could not as easily be made. Just as obviously, this would be a frustration of the intent of Congress in enacting § 2254 (d). Reference can be made to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires a United States district court following a bench trial to “find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon . . . .” It is a matter of common knowledge that on some occasions a district judge will simply take findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the party whom the judge has indicated at the close of trial shall prevail and without alteration adopt them as his own. However, a requirement such as is imposed by Rule 52 undoubtedly makes a judge more aware that it is his own imprimatur that is placed on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, whoever may prepare them. When Congress provided in § 2254 (d) that a habeas court could not dispense with the “presumption of correctness” embodied therein unless it concluded that the factual determinations were not supported by the record, it contemplated at least some reasoned written references to § 2254 (d) and the state-court findings. State judges as well as federal judges swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, and there is no reason to think that because of their frequent differences of opinions as to how that document should be interpreted, all are not doing their mortal best to discharge their oath of office.
Federal habeas has been a source of friction between state and federal courts, and Congress obviously meant to alleviate some of that friction when it enacted subsection (d) in 1966 as an amendment to the original Federal Habeas Act of 1867. Accordingly, some content must be given to the provisions of the subsection if the will of Congress be not frustrated. Since the 1966 amendment, this Court has had few opportunities to address the various provisions of subsection (d), and never in a context similar to the one presented here. See, e. g., Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335 (1980); LaVallee v. Delle Rose, 410 U. S. 690 (1973). A writ issued at the behest of a petitioner under 28 U. S. C § 2254 is in effect overturning either the factual or legal conclusions reached by the state-court system under the judgment of which the petitioner stands convicted, and friction is a likely result. The long line of our cases previously referred to accepted that friction as a necessary consequence of the Federal Habeas Act of 1867, 28 U. S. C. § 2254. But it is clear that in adopting the 1966 amendment, Congress in § 2254 (d) intended not only to minimize that inevitable friction but also to establish that the findings made by the state-court system “shall be presumed to be correct” unless one of seven conditions specifically set forth in § 2254 (d) was found to exist by the federal habeas court. If none of those seven conditions were found to exist, or unless the habeas court concludes that the relevant state-court determination is not “fairly supported by the record,” “the burden shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Although arising in a much different context, we think the recent language used in Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979), has no little bearing on the issue here:
“The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). The standard serves to allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.” Id., at 423.
When it enacted the 1966 amendment to 28 U. S. C. § 2254, Congress specified that in the absence of the previously enumerated factors one through eight, the burden shall rest on the habeas petitioner, whose case by that time had run the entire gamut of a state judicial system, to establish “by convincing evidence that the factual determination of the State court was erroneous.” 28 U. S. C. §2254 (d). Thus, Congress meant to insure that a state finding not be overturned merely on the basis of the usual “preponderance of the evidence” standard in such a situation. In order to ensure that this mandate of Congress is enforced, we now hold that a habeas court should include in its opinion granting the writ the reasoning which led it to conclude that any of the first seven factors were present, or the reasoning which led it to conclude that the state finding was “not fairly supported by the record.” Such a statement tying the generalities of § 2254 (d) to the particular facts of the case at hand will not, we think, unduly burden federal habeas courts even though it will prevent the use of the “boilerplate” language to which we have previously adverted. Moreover, such a statement will have the obvious value of enabling courts of appeals and this Court to satisfy themselves that the congressional mandate has been complied with. No court reviewing the grant of an application for habeas corpus should be left to guess as to the habeas court’s reasons for granting relief notwithstanding the provisions of § 2254 (d). Cf. Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U. S. App. D. C. 383, 444 F. 2d 841, 851 (1970)
Having said this, we are not to be understood as agreeing or disagreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeals on the merits of the issue of impermissibly suggestive identification procedures. Both the California courts and the federal courts relied on the basic Simmons case for their legal analysis. Applying the same test, the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a different determination than had all the other courts which considered the issue. Assuredly this is not the first nor the last time that such a result will occur. We do think, however, that Congress was intent on some sort of written explanation of the § 2254 (d) factors when such a result does occur. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is accordingly vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun concurs in the result. He would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and merely remand the case to that court for reconsideration in light of 28 U. S. C. §2254 (d).
This Court previously reserved the question in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 341, n. 5 (1980). The Courts of Appeals, without extensive analysis, have reached differing conclusions as to whether findings of fact made by a state appellate court can be considered “determination [s] after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254 (d). Compare Drayton v. Hayes, 589 F. 2d 117, 122, n. 9 (CA2 1979); White v. Finkbeiner, 570 F. 2d 194, 201 (CA7 1978), appeal after remand, 611 F. 2d 186 (1979); Payne v. Cardwell, 436 F. 2d 577 (CA6 1971); Hill v. Nelson, 466 F. 2d 1346, 1348 (CA9 1972), with Souza v. Howard, 488 F. 2d 462 (CA1 1973); and United States ex rel. Harris v. Illinois, 457 F. 2d 191 (CA7 1972).
The dissent contends that any argument premised on § 2254 (d) was “abandoned” because petitioner raised his § 2254 (d) argument before the District Court, but did not do so in his appellate brief. Post, at 554. Presumably this contention does not mean to imply that petitioner conceded error with regard to the state-court factual determinations, but instead that he “abandoned” his right to rely on § 2254 (d) as a reason for not rejecting these factual determinations. Whether or not the petitioner specifically directed the Court of Appeals’ attention to § 2254 (d) makes no difference as to the outcome of this case. The present codification of the federal habeas statute is the successor to “the first congressional grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts,” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 485 (1973), and the 1966 amendments embodied in § 2254 (d) were intended by Congress as limitations on the exercise of that jurisdiction. As we held in Louisville & Nashville B. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149, 152 (1908), and have repeatedly since reaffirmed, “it is the duty of this [C]ourt to see to it that the jurisdiction of the [district court], which is defined and limited by statute, is not exceeded.” Having had the benefit of the full briefing and argument from the parties on the § 2254 (d) issue, we are simply following the well-established doctrine of the Mottley case in deciding the § 2254 (d) issue.
In addition to minimizing the “friction” between the state and federal courts, the limited nature of the review provided by § 2254 also serves the interest that both society and the individual criminal defendant have “in insuring that there will at some point be the certainty that comes with an end to litigation, and that attention will ultimately be focused not on whether a conviction was free from error but rather on whether the prisoner can be restored to a useful place in the community.” Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1, 24-25 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting). See also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 262 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these two cases, the United States purports to hold federal tax liens on Pennsylvania and California real properties which are concededly junior to defaulted mortgages held on the same properties by the other parties to the suits. The basic issue in each case is whether the federal lien was effectively extinguished by state proceedings to which the United States was not, nor was required under state law to be, a party.
The course of proceedings giving rise to this issue was as follows: In No. 137, involving a tract of Pennsylvania land, the respondent mortgagees, under a confession-of-judgment provision of the mortgage bond, obtained an in personam judgment against the mortgagor-taxpayer, pursuant to which the property was sold under a writ of fieri jadas. Subsequently, the United States instituted this suit under 26 U. S. C. § 7403, seeking an enforcement of its tax lien by foreclosure and sale. The District Court held that the Government's lien on the property in question had been effectively extinguished by the Pennsylvania proceedings, and it entered judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 264 F. 2d 762.
In No. 183, California real and personal properties, subject to a deed of trust and two chattel mortgages, were sold by the trustee-mortgagee pursuant to powers of sale contained in the respective instruments. The United States received no actual notice of the sale. Thereafter, the mortgagee, which had bought in at the sale, brought this suit against the Government under 28 U. S. C. § 2410 to quiet its title, claiming that the exercise of the powers of sale had effectively extinguished the federal tax lien. The Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court, dismissed the suit, holding that the federal lien could be divested “only with the consent of the United States and in the manner prescribed by Congress.” 265 F. 2d 862, 869. The Court did not reach the question of the effect which California law purports to give to the exercise of the power of sale upon junior liens.
We brought the cases here, 361 U. S. 811, because of the importance of the issue in the administration of the tax laws and the conflict between the decisions of the Third and Ninth Circuits.
I.
Federal tax liens are wholly creatures of federal statute. Detailed provisions govern their creation, continuance, validity, and release. Consequently, matters directly affecting the nature or operation of such liens are federal questions, regardless of whether the federal statutory scheme specifically deals with them or not. See Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363. Yet because federal liens intrude upon relationships traditionally governed by state law, it is inevitable that the Court, in developing the federal law defining the incidents of such liens, should often be called upon to determine whether, as a matter of federal policy, local policy should be adopted as the governing federal law, or whether a uniform nationwide federal rule should be formulated.
In determining the extent of the “property and rights to property” (§ 6321) to which a government tax lien attaches, we have looked to state law. United States v. Bess, 357 U. S. 51, 55. The mortgagees claim that the present cases are governed by the principle of Bess. They assert that since the taxpayer-mortgagors’ interests were subject to being terminated by means of the state proceedings here invoked, their “property and rights to property” were limited to that extent; that under Bess, the Government’s lien attaches only to property rights created under state law; and that therefore, the Government’s interest was subject to being similarly terminated.
The fallacy of this contention is evident. In Bess, we held that a deceased’s property in insurance policies on his own life was limited to their cash surrender value and did not extend to their proceeds, which he could never enjoy. Here, however, the mortgagors owned the entire fee interests in the properties, subject only to the mortgages. This Court has repeatedly rejected the contention that because a fee owned by a taxpayer was already encumbered by a lien which enjoyed seniority under state law, the Government’s lien necessarily attached subject to that lien. A fortiori, the “property” to which the federal lien can attach is not diminished by the particular means of enforcement possessed by a competing lienor to whom federal law concedes priority.
II.
We nevertheless believe it desirable to adopt as federal law state law governing divestiture of federal tax liens, except to the extent that Congress may have entered the field. It is true that such liens form part of the machinery for the collection of federal taxes, the objective of which is “uniformity, as far as may be.” United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U. S. 361, 364. However, when Congress resorted to the use of liens, it came into an area of complex property relationships long since settled and regulated by state law. We believe that, so far as this Court is concerned, the need for uniformity in this instance is outweighed by the severe disclocation to local property relationships which would result from our disregarding state procedures. Long accepted non judicial means of enforcing private liens would be embarrassed, if not nullified where federal liens are involved, and many titles already secured by such means would be cast in doubt. We think it more harmonious with the tenets of our federal system and more consistent with what Congress has already done in this area, not to inject ourselves into the network of competing private property interests, by displacing well-established state procedures governing their enforcement, or superimposing on them a new federal rule. Cf. Board of Comm’rs v. United States, 308 U. S. 343.
III.
This conclusion would not, of course, withstand a congressional direction to the contrary. The Government argues that by the enactment of certain statutes relating to judicial proceedings for the enforcement and extinguishment of federal liens, Congress has, at least impliedly, so spoken.
As early as 1868, Congress had authorized a suit by the United States to enforce its own tax lien. A similar provision now appears as 26 U. S. C. § 7403. However, it was already then well established that the United States was an indispensable party to any suit affecting-property in which it had an interest, and that such a suit was therefore a suit against the United States which could not be maintained without its consent. Furthermore, the laws of many States themselves required all persons claiming an interest in property to be joined as parties to any suit to foreclose a lien or quiet title to the property. Thus there was no way in which a party who held a lien on property senior to that of the United States could get a judicial decree extinguishing the Government’s interest.
To remedy this situation, Congress in 1924 passed the predecessor of 26 U. S. C. § 7424, which gives the holder of a prior-filed, lien the right to enforce it by civil action against the United States, subject to the exhaustion of certain administrative remedies. The court is to proceed to “a final determination of all claims to or liens upon the property in question” in the same manner as if the action had been brought by the Government to enforce its lien under § 7403. The latter section requires the court to determine the merits of all claims to the property, and in case the United States establishes such a claim, permits, but does not require, the court to order a judicial sale. The details of the procedure to be followed in case of judicial sale are not specified, nor is the United States expressly given any right to redeem.
In 1931, Congress, for similar reasons, passed the predecessor of 28 U. S. C. § 2410, which gives a private lienor the right to name the United States a party in any action or suit to foreclose a mortgage or lien or to quiet title to property on which the United States claims any kind of mortgage or lien, whether or not a tax lien. The action can be brought in a state court, but is removable to a federal court. If a judicial sale is conducted in such an action or suit, it is to have the same effect as it would have under local law, but the United States is given one year to redeem.
These statutes on their face evidence no intent to exclude otherwise available state procedures. Their only apparent purpose is to lift the bar of sovereign immunity which had theretofore been considered to work a particular injustice on private lienors. Several features of the statutes make this clear:
(1) Both sections are purely permissive in tenor. A private lienor “may . . . file a petition in the district court” under § 7424, or “the United States may be named a party” under § 2410. (Emphasis added.)
(2) Under neither section is there a federally imposed requirement that there be any judicial sale at all. Nor is there any uniformity of procedure under the statutes. Under § 7424, the court “may decree a sale” of the property, but no guidance is given as to the procedure to be followed. Under § 2410, a judicial sale is to have the same effect as it would have under local law, but nothing in the section indicates when a judicial sale is to be had. While the Government is guaranteed a one-year right to redeem if the plaintiff proceeds under § 2410, it is guaranteed no such right if he proceeds under § 7424.
(3) The specific permission of § 2410 (a) to institute a quiet-title suit against the United States obviously contemplates a declaration by the federal courts of previously created legal consequences. If § 7424 or § 2410 were invoked to extinguish a federal lien, a subsequent suit to quiet title obviously would not be necessary. Therefore, Congress must have recognized the possibility that state procedures might affect federal liens.
The Government, however, argues that the legislative history indicates that Congress believed a suit against the United States to be the only way in which a federal lien could be extinguished. But the statements relied on reveal simply a recognition that competing lienors were put at an unfair disadvantage because of inability to join effectively the Government as a party to judicial proceedings. As to the extent of that disadvantage, it is not clear whether Congress thought that the Government's sovereign immunity barred an attempt to affect a federal lien in any manner; that a non judicial procedure might be effective to divest federal liens but that state procedures by and large required junior lienors to be joined as parties to judicial proceedings; or that regardless of the existence and effectiveness of state procedures, a cloud on the title could only be removed conclusively by a judicial determination binding on the United States. In any event, the basic question is not what the existing state of the law was, or even what Congress believed it to be, but whether Congress intended to exclude the application of all state procedures, whatever their existence or effectiveness might be. No such inference can be drawn from the legislative statements referred to.
IV.
The question remains whether the state procedures followed in these cases were nonetheless ineffective to defeat the government liens because they should be regarded as being unconsented suits against the United States. Because no judicial proceeding was there involved, No. 183 presents no such problem, unless we are now to hold, beyond anything this Court has heretofore decided, that because the private sale of its own force was effective under California law to extinguish all junior liens, what was done in this instance amounted to a “suit” against the United States. We do not think that the doctrine of sovereign immunity reaches so far.
No. 137, however, presents a different and more difficult question on this score. Under Pennsylvania law the Sheriff’s sale of the mortgaged land under a writ of fieri facias was a judicial sale, having the effect of extinguishing junior liens even though their holders were not, nor required to be made, parties to the proceedings. Under the decisions of this Court, a judicial proceeding against property in which the Government has an interest is a suit against the United States which cannot be maintained without its consent. The Siren, 7 Wall. 152; Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382; United States v. Alabama, 313 U. S. 274. It has been suggested that this principle applies only where the Government holds a fee interest or such other interest in the property as to render it an indispensable party under state law. See United States v. Cless, 254 F. 2d 590, 592. That, however, seems a dubious distinction,' since whether or not the United States is an indispensable party to a judicial proceeding cannot depend on state law. See Minnesota v. United States, supra, at p. 386. Nevertheless, no case in this Court, so far as we can find, has yet applied the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the precise situation before us. Much can be said for the view that this Pennsylvania procedure should not be considered as being an unconsented suit against the United States, any more than the wholly private proceeding in the California case. In both cases, the practical effect upon junior liens is exactly the same.
Be that as it may, we shall not so extend the principle of sovereign immunity. To do so would not only produce incongruous results as between these two cases, but would trespass upon the considerations which have led to our refusal to fashion a federal rule of uniformity respecting the extinguishment of federal junior liens under state procedures. It must be recognized that the factors supporting a federal rule of uniformity in this field, and those militating against the dislocation of long-standing state procedures, are full of competing considerations. They involve many imponderables which this Court is ill-equipped to assess, on which Congress has not yet spoken, and which we think are best left to that body to deal with in light of their full illumination. A wise solution of such a far-reaching problem cannot be achieved within the confines of a lawsuit. Until Congress otherwise determines, we think that state law is effective to divest government junior liens in cases such as these.
The judgment in No. 137 is affirmed, and that in No. 183 is reversed.
r, • , , It is so ordered.
Subsequent to the entry of judgment, but prior to the sale, the mortgagees attempted to join the United States as a party under 28 U. S. C. § 2410. We agree with the District Court that that attempt did not comply with the statute.
Alternatively, in the event the District Court found that the Government had been properly joined as a party to the state proceedings, the Government sought a decree that it had properly exercised its right of redemption. That issue is not pressed by the Government and is not before us.
See 26 U. S. C. § 6321 (Lien for taxes); § 6322 (Period of lien); § 6323 (Validity against mortgagees, pledgees, purchasers, and judgment creditors); and § 6325 (Release of lien or partial discharge of property).
United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U. S. 47; United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U. S. 81; United States v. Acri, 348 U. S. 211; United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., Ltd., 348 U. S. 215; United States v. Scovil, 348 U. S. 218; United States v. Colotta, 350 U. S. 808; United States v. White Bear Brewing Co., 350 U. S. 1010; United States v. Vorreiter, 355 U. S. 15; United States v. Ball Construction Co., Inc., 355 U. S. 587; United States v. Hulley, 358 U. S. 66.
Act of July 20, 1868, c. 186, § 106, 15 Stat. 167.
Ҥ 7403. Action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax.
“(a) Filing. In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof, whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney General or his delegate, at the request of the Secretary or his delegate, may direct a civil action to be filed in a district court of the United States to enforce the lien of the United States under this title with respect to such tax or liability or to subject any property, of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or liability.
“(b) Parties. All persons having liens upon or claiming any interest in the property involved in such action shall be made parties thereto.
“(c) Adjudication and decree. The court shall, after the parties have been duly notified of the action, proceed to adjudicate all matters involved therein and finally determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the property, and, in all cases where a claim or interest of the United States therein is established, may decree a sale of such property, by the proper officer of the court, and a distribution of' the proceeds of such sales according to the findings of the court in respect to the interests of the parties and of the United States.
“(d) Receivership. In any such proceeding, at the instance of the United States, the court may appoint a receiver to enforce the lien, -or, upon certification by the Secretary or his delegate during the pendency of such proceedings that it is in the public interest, may appoint a receiver with all the powers of a receiver in equity.”
The Siren, 7 Wall. 152; Minnesota v. United States, 305 U. S. 382, 386; United States v. Alabama, 313 U. S. 274, 282.
43 Stat. 253. Section 7424 now provides:
Ҥ 7424. Civil action to clear title to property.
“(a) Obtaining leave to file.
“(1) Request for institution of proceedings by United States. Any person having a lien upon or any interest in the property referred to in section 7403, notice of which has been duly filed of record in the jurisdiction in which the property is located, prior to the filing of notice of the lien of the United States as provided in section 6323, or any person purchasing the property at a sale to satisfy such prior lien or interest, may make written request to the Secretary or his delegate to authorize the filing of a civil action as provided in section 7403.
“(2) Petition to court. If the Secretary or his delegate fails to authorize the filing of such civil action within 6 months after receipt of such written request, such person or purchaser may, after giving notice to the Secretary or his delegate, file a petition in the district court of the United States for the district in which the property is located, praying leave to file a civil action for a final determination of all claims to or liens upon the property in question.
“(3) Court order. After a full hearing in open court, the district court may in its discretion enter an order granting leave to file such civil action, in which the United States and all persons having liens upon or claiming any interest in the property shall be made parties.
“(b) Adjudication. Upon the filing of such civil action, the district court shall proceed to adjudicate the matters involved therein, in the same manner as in the case of civil actions filed under section 7403. For the purpose of such adjudication, the assessment of the tax upon which the lien of the United States is based shall be conclusively presumed to be valid.”
46 Stat. 1528, as amended, 56 Stat. 1026. As presently codified, 28 U. S. C. § 2410 provides:
Ҥ 2410. Actions affecting property on which United States has lien.
“(a) Under the conditions prescribed in this section and section 1444 of this title for the protection of the United States, the United States may be named a party in any civil action or suit in any district court, or in any State court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, to quiet title to or for the foreclosure of a mortgage or other lien upon real or personal property on which the United States has or claims a mortgage or other lien.
“(b) The complaint shall set forth with particularity the nature of the interest or lien of the United States. In actions in the State courts service upon the United States shall be made by serving the process of the court with a copy of the complaint upon the United States attorney for the district in which the action is brought or upon an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee designated by the United States attorney in writing filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is brought and by sending copies of the process and complaint, by registered mail, to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, District of Columbia. In such actions the United States may appear and answer, plead or demur within sixty days after such service or such further time as the court may allow.
“(c) A judicial sale in such action or suit shall have the same effect respecting the discharge of the property from liens and encumbrances held by the United States as may be provided with respect to such matters by the local law of the place where the property is situated. . . . Where a sale of real estate is made to satisfy a lien prior to that of the United States, the United States shall have one year from the date of sale within which to redeem. In any case where the debt owing the United States is due, the United States may ask, by way of affirmative relief, for the foreclosure of its own lien and where property is sold to satisfy a first lien held by the United States, the United States may bid at the sale such sum, not exceeding the amount of its claim with expenses of sale, as may be directed by the head of the department or agency of the United States which has charge of the administration of the laws in respect of which the claim of the United States arises.”
28 U. S. C. § 1444.
The Senate Committee which reported the bill which became the predecessor of § 7424 stated (S. Rep. No. 398, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 46):
“At the present time, in cases in which the lien prior in time to that of the United States equals or exceeds in amount the value of the property, there is no method whereby the lien for taxes may be discharged without payment. Although the lien may thus be valueless to the United States, it remains a cloud on the title which the prior lienor is powerless to remove. The subdivision gives the lienor a remedy in this case.”
The House Committee which reported a bill designed to achieve the same objective as § 2410 stated (H. R. Rep. No. 95, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. 1-3) :
“This legislation has been recommended for a number of years by the American Bar Association through its committee on removal of Government liens on real estate, the United States League of Local Building and Loan Associations, and by numerous land title companies, in order to relieve against the injustice with which mortgagees are confronted under the present state of the law who find, when it is necessary to foreclose their mortgages, that there has been filed against the property a junior lien by the Federal Government for some debt due the United States by the owner of the equity in the property, and for which the mortgagee owes no obligation either legal or moral. In such circumstances, the mortgagee finds himself at an impasse. It is impossible for him to bring about a judicial sale of the property owing to the cloud upon the title created by the Government's lien. He can not remove the lien as there is no method by which he may bring the United States in as one of the parties to the foreclosure proceeding. He is, therefore, in effect defeated of his own right to foreclose unless he is willing to pay off the Government lien, a debt for which he is in no way responsible and he being a person to whom the Government would in no event look for its payment.
“The purpose of this bill is to provide a simple and just method of proceeding in such cases ....
“This bill will provide relief from a situation that has caused a. great deal of injustice to innocent holders of liens against real estate. The number of liens filed under the revenue laws has been steadily growing. . . . The law provides and,equity dictates that the Government's lien in such circumstances should have a junior status, yet under the present practice the inability of the plaintiff to bring the United States in as a party to the proceeding to foreclose or have execution and sale on a court judgment where a Government lien is found to have been placed upon the property subsequently to the time of the plaintiff’s encumbrance ties the hands of a prior lien holder by making it impossible for him to grant a clear title to the property and thus for no just reason deprives him of the benefits of his security or court judgment as the case may be.”
During the debates leading to the enactment of the predecessor of § 2410, Representative Graham, who had reported the bill from the Judiciary Committee, explained it as follows (72 Cong. Rec. 3119):
“It is simply a provision by which whenever a mortgagee, for instance, holding a mortgage .upon real estate, finds that a lien to the Government has been filed . . . the owner of that mortgage may go into the State court and foreclose his mortgage, but this would do him no good unless he could get the United States made a party to the proceeding in some way so that the lien would be relieved on the part of the Government.”
Subsequently, the following colloquy took place with respect to a provision of the bill which authorized administrative release of questionable or worthless federal liens (72 Cong. Rec. 3121-3122):
“Mr. BURTNESS [of North Dakota], So that some of us may understand a little better the relief that is suggested simply as an administrative act and the cases to which it would apply. I understand, for instance, it would apply to a case of this sort: In many States foreclosure by advertisement is permitted, with the right of redemption. Assume that a prior lien is foreclosed, the Government has a junior lien, the time for redemption expires and the purchaser at the foreclosure sale of the prior lien gets title through the foreclosure proceedings under State laws. Presumably in a case of that sort the enforcibility of the Federal lien as a practical proposition has been wiped out, but it is still a cloud on the title. Now, in that sort of a case, could the administrative officers give relief under the amendment that is proposed without going into court in any way?
“Mr. HAWLEY [of Oregon]. If at any time they find as a matter of fact that the Government lien is valueless they are authorized to release that lien by the pending amendment.
“Mr. BURTNESS. And it may become valueless for several reasons, for instance, depreciation in the value of the property, the amount of prior liens foreclosed in legal proceedings, or anything else.
“Mr. GRAHAM [of Pennsylvania]. The foreclosure the gentleman speaks of could not possibly discharge the Government’s lien.
“Mr. BURTNESS. I understand it would not be discharged, but, of course, the holder of the property would have been subro-gated to the rights acquired under the foreclosure of the prior lien, I take it.”
In 1941, Attorney General Jackson sent a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging that the predecessor of § 2410 be amended to include suits to quiet title. The letter stated (S. Rep. No. 1646, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 2):
“It should be observed in this connection that under existing law there is no provision whereby the owner of real estate may clear his title to such real estate of the cloud of a Government mortgage or lien. Welch v. Hamilton (S. D. Calif.), 33 F. (2d) 224, and U. S. v. Turner (C. C. A. 8), 47 F. (2d) 86.
“In many instances persons acting in good faith have purchased real estate without knowledge of the Government lien or in the belief that the lien had been extinguished. In other instances, mortgagees have foreclosed on property and have failed to join the United States. It appears that justice and fair dealing would require that a method be provided to clear real-estate titles of questionable or valueless Government liens. Accordingly, I suggest that the bill be amended by inserting the phrase 'to quiet title or’ between the words ‘matter’ and ‘for the foreclosure of’ in line 4 of page 2 of the bill.”
Cal. Civ. Code § 2932; Bracey v. Gray, 49 Cal. App. 2d 274, 121 P. 2d 770; Bohn v. California Pac. Title Ins. Co., 124 Cal. App. 2d 757, 269 P. 2d 223; 34 Cal. Jur. 2d, Mortgages and Trust Deeds § 463.
Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, § 2447; Liss v. Medary Homes, Inc., 388 Pa. 139, 130 A. 2d 137; State College Borough v. Leathers, 19 Pa. D. & C. 405; Moore v. Schell, 99 Pa. Super. 81; Standard Pennsylvania Practice, c. 68, § 32. See also Commonwealth v. Keystone Graphite Co., 257 Pa. 249, 101 A. 766; Standard Pennsylvania Practice, c. 68, § 4, n. 20.
If state procedures undertook to discriminate against the United States with respect to joinder, questions of a different order would be presented.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether two instruments, a conventional certificate of deposit and a business agreement between two families, could be considered securities under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
J — I
Respondents, Sam and Alice Weaver, purchased a $50,000 certificate of deposit from petitioner Marine Bank on February 28, 1978. The certificate of déposit has a 6-year maturity, and it is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Weavers subsequently pledged the certificate of deposit to Marine Bank on March 17, 1978, to guarantee a $65,000 loan made by the bank to Columbus Packing Co. Columbus was a wholesale slaughterhouse and retail meat market which owed the bank $33,000 at that time for prior loans and was also substantially overdrawn on its checking account with the bank.
In consideration for guaranteeing the bank’s new loan, Columbus’ owners, Raymond and Barbara Piccirillo, entered into an agreement with the Weavers. Under the terms of the agreement, the Weavers were to receive 50% of Columbus’ net profits and $100 per month as long as they guaranteed the loan. It was also agreed that the Weavers could use Columbus’ barn and pasture at the discretion of the Piccirillos, and that they had the right to veto future borrowing by Columbus.
The Weavers allege that bank officers told them Columbus would use the $65,000 loan as working capital but instead it was immediately applied to pay Columbus’ overdue obligations. The bank kept approximately $42,800 to satisfy its prior loans and Columbus’ overdrawn checking account. All but $3,800 of the remainder was disbursed to pay overdue taxes and to satisfy other creditors; the bank then refused to permit Columbus to overdraw its checking account. Columbus became bankrupt four months later. Although the bank had not yet resorted to the Weavers’ certificate of deposit at the time this litigation commenced, it acknowledged that its other security was inadequate and that it intended to claim the pledged certificate of deposit.
These allegations were asserted in a complaint filed in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in support of a claim that the bank violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. § 78j(b). The Weavers also pleaded pendent claims for violations of the Pennsylvania Securities Act and for common-law fraud by the bank. The Weavers alleged that bank officers actively solicited them to guarantee the $65,000 loan to Columbus while knowing, but not disclosing, Columbus’ financial plight or the bank’s plans to repay itself from the new loan guaranteed by the Weavers’ pledged certificate of deposit. Had they known of Columbus’ precarious financial condition and the bank’s plans, the Weavers allege they would not have guaranteed the loan and pledged the certificate of deposit. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank. It concluded that if a wrong occurred it did not take place “in connection with the purchase . or sale of any security,” as required for liability under § 10(b). The District Court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. 637 F. 2d 157 (1980). A divided court held that a finder of fact could reasonably conclude that either the certificate of deposit or the agreement between the Weavers and the Piccirillos was a security. It therefore remanded for further consideration of the claim based on the federal securities laws. The Court of Appeals also reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the pendent state-law claims.
We granted certiorari, 452 U. S. 904 (1981), and we reverse. We hold that neither the certificate of deposit nor the agreement between the Weavers and the Piceirillos is a security under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. We remand the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the pendent state claims should now be entertained.
II
The definition of “security” in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is quite broad. The Act was adopted to restore investors’ confidence in the financial markets, and the term “security” was meant to include “the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security.” H. R. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1933); quoted in United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U. S. 837, 847-848 (1975). The statutory definition excludes only currency and notes with a maturity of less than nine months. It includes ordinary stocks and bonds, along with the “countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits . . . .” SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U. S. 293, 299 (1946). Thus, the coverage of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws is not limited to instruments traded at securities exchanges and over-the-counter markets, but extends to uncommon and irregular instruments. Superintendent of Insurance of New York v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 404 U. S. 6, 10 (1971); SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U. S. 344, 351 (1943). We have repeatedly held that the test “ ‘is what character the instrument is given in commerce by the terms of the offer, the plan of distribution, and the economic inducements held out to the prospect.”’ SEC v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co., 387 U. S. 202, 211 (1967), quoting SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., supra, at 352-353.
The broad statutory definition is preceded, however, by the statement that the terms mentioned are not to be considered securities if “the context otherwise requires . . . .” Moreover, we are satisfied that Congress, in enacting the securities laws, did not intend to provide a broad federal remedy for all fraud. Great Western Bank & Trust v. Kotz, 532 F. 2d 1252, 1253 (CA9 1976); Bellah v. First National Bank, 495 F. 2d 1109, 1114 (CA5 1974).
Ill
The Court of Appeals concluded that the certificate of deposit purchased by the Weavers might be a security. Examining the statutory definition, n. 3, supra, the court correctly noted that the certificate of deposit is not expressly excluded from the definition since it is not currency and it has a maturity exceeding nine months. It concluded, however, that the certificate of deposit was the functional equivalent of the withdrawable capital shares of a savings and loan association held to be securities in Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332 (1967). The court also reasoned that, from an investor’s standpoint, a certificate of deposit is no different from any other long-term debt obligation. Unless distinguishing features were found on remand, the court concluded that the certificate of deposit should be held to be a security.
Tcherepnin is not controlling. The withdrawable capital shares found there to be securities did not pay a fixed rate of interest; instead, purchasers received dividends based on the association’s profits. Purchasers also received voting rights. In short, the withdrawable capital shares in Tcherepnin were much more like ordinary shares of stock and “the ordinary concept of a security,” supra, at 556, than a certificate of deposit.
The Court of Appeals’ also concluded that a certificate of deposit is similar to any other long-term debt obligation commonly found to be a security. In our view, however, there is an important difference between a bank certificate of deposit and other long-term debt obligations. This certificate of deposit was issued by a federally regulated bank which is subject to the comprehensive set of regulations governing the banking industry. Deposits in federally regulated banks are protected by the reserve, reporting, and inspection requirements of the federal banking laws; advertising relating to the interest paid on deposits is also regulated. In addition, deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Since its formation in 1933, nearly all depositors in failing banks insured by the FDIC have received payment in full, even payment for the portions of their deposits above the amount insured. 1980 Annual Report of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 18-21 (1981).
We see, therefore, important differences between a certificate of deposit purchased from a federally regulated bank and other long-term debt obligations. The Court of Appeals failed to give appropriate weight to the important fact that the purchaser of a certificate of deposit is virtually guaranteed payment in full, whereas the holder of an ordinary long-term debt obligation assumes the risk of the borrower’s insolvency. The definition of “security” in the 1934 Act provides that an instrument which seems to fall within the broad sweep of the Act is not to be considered a security if the context otherwise requires. It is unnecessary to subject issuers of bank certificates of deposit to liability under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws since the holders of bank certificates of deposit are abundantly protected under the federal banking laws. We therefore hold that the certificate of deposit purchased by the Weavers is not a security.
t> H-*
The Court of Appeals also held that a finder of fact could conclude that the separate agreement between the Weavers and the Piccirillos is a security. Examining the statutory language, n. 3, supra, the court found that the agreement might be a “certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement” or an “investment contract.” It stressed that the agreement gave the Weavers a share in the profits of the slaughterhouse which would result from the efforts of the Piccirillos. Accordingly, in that court’s view, the agreement fell within the definition of “investment contract” stated in Howey, because “the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.” 328 U. S., at 301.
Congress intended the securities laws to cover those instruments ordinarily and commonly considered to be securities in the commercial world, but the agreement between the Weavers and the Piccirillos is not the type of instrument that comes to mind when the term “security” is used and does not fall within “the ordinary concept of a security.” Supra, at 556. The unusual instruments found to constitute securities in prior cases involved offers to a number of potential investors, not a private transaction as in this case. In Howey, for example, 42 persons purchased interests in a citrus grove during a 4-month period. 328 U. S., at 295. In C. M. Joiner Leasing, offers to sell oil leases were sent to over 1,000 prospects. 320 U. S., at 346. In C. M, Joiner Leasing, we noted that a security is an instrument in which there is “common trading.” Id., at 351. The instruments involved in C. M. Joiner Leasing and Howey had equivalent values to most persons and could have been traded publicly.
Here, in contrast, the Piccirillos distributed no prospectus to the Weavers or to other potential investors, and the unique agreement they negotiated was not designed to be traded publicly. The provision that the Weavers could use the bam and pastures of the slaughterhouse at the discretion of the Piccirillos underscores the unique character of the transaction. Similarly, the provision that the Weavers could veto future loans gave them a measure of control over the operation of the slaughterhouse not characteristic of a security. Although the agreement gave the Weavers a share of the Piccirillos’ profits, if any, that provision alone is not sufficient to make that agreement a security. Accordingly, we hold that this unique agreement, negotiated one-on-one by the parties, is not a security.
V
Whatever may be the consequences of these transactions, they did not occur in connection with the purchase or sale of “securities.” The Weavers allege that the bank manipulated them so that they would suffer the loss the bank would have borne from the failure of the Columbus Packing Co. Their pendent state-law claims against the bank are not before the Court since the Court of Appeals did not treat the issue of those claims. Accordingly, the case is remanded for consideration of whether the District Court should now entertain the pendent claims.
Reversed and remanded.
The certificate of deposit pays 772% interest and provides that, if the bank permits early withdrawal, the depositor will earn interest at the bank’s current savings passbook rate on the amount withdrawn, except that no interest will be paid for the three months prior to withdrawal. When the Weavers purchased the certificate of deposit, it could only be insured up to $40,000 by the FDIC. The ceiling on insured deposits is now $100,000. Act of Mar. 31, 1980, Pub. L. 96-221, 94 Stat. 147, § 308(b)(1), 12 U. S. C. § 1724(b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV).
The Court of Appeals also concluded that the pledge of a security is a sale, an issue on which the Federal Circuits were split. We held in Rubin v. United States, 449 U. S. 424 (1981), that a pledge of stock is equivalent to a sale for the purposes of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Accordingly, in determining whether fraud may have occurred here “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security,” the only issue now before the Court is whether a security was involved.
Section 3(a)(10) of the 1934 Act, as set forth in 15 U. S. C. § 78c(a)(10), provides:
“(a) . . . When used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires—
“(10) The term ‘security’ means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, pre-organization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit, for a security, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a ‘security’; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker’s acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity is likewise limited.”
We have consistently held that the definition of “security” in the 1934 Act is essentially the same as the definition of “security” in § 2(1) of the Securities Act of 1933,15 U. S. C. § 77(b)(1), United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U. S. 837, 847, n. 12 (1975).
Fitzgibbon, What is a Security? A Redefinition Based on Eligibility to Participate in the Financial Markets, 64 Minn. L. Rev. 893, 912-918 (1980).
The definition of a “security” in the 1934 Act, n. 3, supra, includes the term, “certificate of deposit, for a security.” However, this term does not refer to certificates of deposit such as the Weavers purchased. Instead, “certificate of deposit, for a security” refers to instruments issued by protective committees in the course of corporate reorganizations. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Fingland, 615 F. 2d 465, 468 (CA7 1980).
In addition, the Court of Appeals noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission had taken the position that certificates of deposit are securities. However, the SEC has filed a brief as amicus curiae in this case, jointly with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which argues that the Weavers’ certificate of deposit is not a security.
In Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U. S. 551 (1979), we held that a honcon-tributory, compulsory pension plan was not a security. One of our reasons for our holding in Daniel was that the pension plan was regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA): “The existence of this comprehensive legislation governing the use and terms of employee pension plans severely undercuts all arguments for extending the Securities Acts to noncontributory, compulsory pension plans.” Id., at 569-570. Since ERISA regulates the substantive terms of pension plans, and also requires certain disclosures, it was unnecessary to subject pension plans to the requirements of the federal securities laws as well.
See, e. g., 12 U. S. C. §461(b) (1976 ed., Supp. IV) (reserve requirements); 12 U. S. C. §§ 161, 324, and 1817 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV) (reporting requirements); 12 U. S. C. §§481, 483, and 1820(b) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV) (inspection requirements); 12 CFR §§217.6 and 329.8 (1981) (advertising).
We reject respondents’ argument that the certificate of deposit was somehow transformed into a security when it was pledged, even though it was not a security when purchased.
Cf. Great Western Bank & Trust v. Kotz, 532 F. 2d 1252, 1260-1262 (CA9 1976) (Wright, J., concurring) (unsecured note, the terms of which were negotiated face-to-face, given to a bank in return for a business loan, is not a security).
It does not follow that a certificate of deposit or business agreement between transacting parties invariably falls outside the definition of a “security” as defined by the federal statutes. Each transaction must be analyzed and evaluated on the basis of the content of the instruments in question, the purposes intended to be served, and the factual setting as a whole.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Acting on a complaint from a resident of the 4300 block of Reisterstown Road, Baltimore, Maryland, that there were rats in her basement, Gentry, an inspector of the Baltimore City Health Department, began an. inspection of the houses in the vicinity looking for the source of the rats. In the middle of the afternoon of February 27, 1958, Gentry knocked on the door of appellant’s detached frame home at 4335 Reisterstown Road. After receiving no response he proceeded to inspect the area outside the house. This inspection revealed that the house was in an “extreme state of decay,” and that in the rear of the house there was a pile later identified as “rodent feces mixed with, straw and trash and debris to approximately half a ton.” During this inspection appellant came around the side of the house and asked Gentry to explain, his presence. Gentry responded that he had evidence of rodent infestation and asked appellant for permission to inspect the basement area. Appellant refused. At no time did Gentry have a warrant authorizing him to enter. The next forenoon Gentry, in the company of two police officers, returned to appellant’s house. After receiving no response to his knock, he reinspécted the exterior of the premises. He then swore out a warrant for appellant’s arrest alleging a violation of § 120 of Art. 12 of the Baltimore City Code. That section provides: Appellant was arrested on March 5, and the next'day was found guilty of the offense alleged in the warrant by a Police Justice for the Northern District .of Baltimore and fined twenty dollars. Ón appeal, the Criminal Court of Baltimore, in a de novo proceeding, also found appellant guilty. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certio-rari. . The case came here under a challenge, 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2), to the validity of § 120 to determine whether appellant’s conviction for resisting an inspection of his house without a warrant was obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Whenever the Commissioner of Health shall have cause to suspect that a nuisance exists in any house, cellar or enclosure, he may demand entry therein in the day time, and if the owner or occupier shall refuse or delay to open the same and admit a free examination, he shall forfeit and pay for every such refusal the sum of Twenty Dollars.”
The Health.Code of the City of Baltimore, of which § 120 is an important part, deals with many of the multiform aspects of hygiene in modern urban, areas. A vital portion concerns the hygiene of housing. Typical of the content and method of enforcing its provisions is the section requiring that-“[e]very'dwelling and every part thereof shall.be kept clean and free-from any accumulation- of dirt, filth, rubbish, garbage or similar matter, and shall be kept free from vermin or rodent infestation.” Baltimore City Code; Art. 12, § 112. If the occupant of a building fails to meet this standard, he is notified by the Commissioner of Health to abate the substandard conditions. Failure to remove these hazards to community health gives- rise to criminal prosecution. Ibid. The attempted inspection of appellant’s home was merely to ascertain the existence of evils to be corrected upon due notification or, in default of such correction, to be made the basis of punishment.
We have said that “[t]he security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police” is fundamental to a free society and as such protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27. Application of the broad, restraints of due process compels inquiry into the naturé of the demand being made upon individual freedom in a particular context and the justification of social need on which the demand rests.
The history of the constitutional protection against official invasion of the citizen’s home makes explicit the human concerns which it was meant to respect. In years prior to the Revolution leading voices in England and the Colonies protested against the ransacking by Crown officers of the homes of citizens in séarch of evidence of crime or of illegally imported goods. The vivid memory by the newly independent Americans of these abuses produced the Fourth Amendment as a safeguard against such arbitrary official action by officers of the new Union, as like provisions had already found their way into State Constitutions.
In 1765, in England, what is properly called the great case of Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell’s State Trials, col. 1029, announced the principle of English law which became part of the Bill of Rights and whose basic protection has become imbedded in the concept of due process of law. It was there decided that English law did not allow officers of the Crown to break into a citizen’s home, under cover of a general executive warrant, to search for evidence of the utterance of libel. Among the reasons given for that decision were these:
“It is very certain, that the law obligeth no man to accuse himself; because the necessary means of compelling self-accusation, falling upon the innocent' as well as the guilty, would be both cruel and unjust; and it should seem, that search for evidence is disallowed upon the -same principle. There tod the innocent would be confounded with the guilty.” Id., at col. 1073.
These were not novel pronouncements to the colonists. A few years earlier, in Boston, revenue' officers had been authorized to uso-Writs of Assistance, empowering them to search suspected places, inclúding private houses, for smuggled goods. In 1761 the validity of the use of the Writs was contested in the historic proceedings in Boston. James Otis attacked the Writ of Assistance because its use placed “the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” His powerful argument so impressed itself first on his audience and later on the people of all the Colonies that President Adams' was in retrospect moved to say that “American Independence was then and there bórn.” Many years later this Court, in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, carefully reviewed, this history and pointed "out, as did. Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington, that
“. . ., the ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give
evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the. Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man 'in a criminal case to be a witness against himself,’ which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” ' 116 U. S., at 633.
Against this background two protections emerge from the broad constitutional proscription of official invasion. The first of these is the right to be secure from intrusion into personal privacy, the right to shut* the door on officials óf the state unless their entry is under proper authority of law. The second, and intimately related protection, is self-protection: the right to resist unauthorized entry which has as its design the securing of information to fortify the coercive power of the state against the individual, information which may be used to effect a further deprivation of life or liberty or property. Thus, evidence of criminal action may not, save in very limited and closely confined situations, be seized without a judicially issued search warrant. It is this aspect of the constitutional protection to. which the quoted passages from Entick v. Carrington and Boyd v. United States refer. Certainly it is not necessary to accept any particular theory of the interrelationship of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to realize what history makes plain, that it was on the issue of the right to be secure from searches for evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions or for forfeitures that the great battle for fundamental liberty was fought. While these concerns for individual rights were the historic impulses behind the Fourth Amendment and its analogues in state constitutions, the application of the Fourth Amendment and\the extent to which the essential right of privacy is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are of course not restricted within these historic bounds.
But giving the fullést scope to this constitutional right to privacy, its protection cannot be here invoked. The attempted inspection of appellant’s home is -merely to determine whether conditions exist which the Baltimore Health Code proscribes. If they do appellant is notified to remedy the infringing conditions. No evidence for criminal prosecution is sought to be seized. Appellant is simply directed to do what he could have been ordered to do without any inspection, and what he cannot properly resist, namely, act in a manner consistent with the maintenance of minimum community standards of health and well-being, including his own. Appellant’s resistance can only, be based, not on admissible self-protection, but on a rarely voiced denial of any official justification for seeking to enter his home. The constitutional “liberty” that is asserted is the absolute right to refuse consent for an inspéction designed and pursued solely for the protection of the community’s health, even when the inspection is conducted with due regard for every convenience of time and place.
• The power of inspection granted by the Baltimore City Code is strictly limited, moré exacting than the analogous provisions of many other municipal codes. ' Valid grounds for suspicion of the existence of a nuisance must exist. Certainly the presence of a pile of filth in the back yard combined with the run-down condition of the house gave adequate grounds for such suspicion. The inspection must be made in the day time. Here was no midnight knock on the door, but an orderly visit in the middle of the afternoon with no suggestion that the hour was inconvenient. Moreover, the inspector has no power to force entry and did not attempt it. A. fine is imposed for resistance, but officials are not authorized to break past the unwilling occupant.
Thus, not only does the inspection touch at most upon the periphery of the important interests safeguarded by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against official intrusion, but it is hedged about with safeguards designed to make the least possible demand on .the individual occupant, and to cause only the slightest restriction on his claims of privacy. Such a demand must be assessed in the light of thé needs which have produced it.
Inspection without a warrant, as an adjunct to a regulatory scheme for the general welfare, of the community and not as a means of enforcing the criminal law, has antecedents deep in our history. For more than 200 years Maryland has empowered its officers to enter upon ships, carriages', shops, and homes in the service of the common welfare. In pre-revolutionary days trade, on which the viability oh the struggling Colonies depended, was of primary concern. Thus, at a time when the' tobacco trade was a vital part of Maryland’s economy, inspections of ships and carriages without a warrant could be made' to enforce uniform' standards for packing and shipping tobacco. Similarly, suspected evasion of import duties on liquor and other goods could be found out by-inspection of stores and homes. Generally the power of entry' was carefully limited,, requiring that ground for suspicion must exist and that the inspection be conducted between “the rising and the setting of the sun.”
In 1776 the newly independent State of Maryland incorporated, as part of its basic Declaration of Rights, the principle
“That all warrants, without oath or affirmation, to search suspected places, or to seize any person or property, are grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants — to search suspected places, or to apprehend suspected persons, without naming or describing the place, or the person in special — are illegal, and ought not to be granted.” See 3 Thorpe, Federal-and State Constitutions (1909), 1688.
This provision was a product of the same history of abuse and protest that gave birth to the Fourth ■ Amendment. It remains today as an essential part of Maryland’s Constitution. Yet, the years following its proclamation saw not a decline but a'marked increase in statutory authorization for inspection of the citizen’s home. Not only were the old regulations continued, but the power of inspection was extended to new community concerns. In 1782, Commissioners were empowered to “enter upon the lots, grounds, and possessions, of any person or persons . ...” in order to regulate and keep in repair the common sewerage systems. Five years later similar entries on private property were allowed for the purpose of keeping the public roads in repair. Typical of the regulatory statutes enacted in this period was an act permitting the clerk of the market “to examine and weigh all such bread, and to seize, for the use of the poor of the county, all such as they shall find deficient in weight or fineness, and not baked or marked as aforesaid . .,. .” The penalty for resisting the entry of the clerk was “five pounds current money.” And so; when, in 1801, the power of inspection without a warrant became an instrument of the enforcement of the Baltimore health laws, no novel or untried procedures' were being invoked. The ordinance now challenged derives from this 1801 ordinance. It provided:
“And be it enanted and ordained, That when, and as often as. the said commissioners of health, or any of them, shall have cause-to suspect a nuisance dangerous to the health of the city exists in any house, cellar or inclosure shut up from public view, they, or any one of them, may demand entry therein in the day time for the purpose of examining the same, and if the owner or occupier thereof shall refuse or delay to open the same and to admit a free examination, he shall forfeit and pay for every such refusal the sum of twenty dollars, for the use of the corporation.”
From the passage of this ordinance to the present the prevention and abatement of “nuisances” on private property has been one-of the chief concerns of the Baltimore City Health Department. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, in the years following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, thousands upon thousands of inspections were made under authority df this ordinance.. Thus - the system of inspection here under attack, having its beginning in Maryland’s colonial history, has been an integral part of the enforcement of Baltimore’s health laws for more than a century and a half. The legal significance of such a long and consistent history of state practice has been illuminated for us by Mr. Justice Holmes:
“The Fourteenth Amendment, itself a historical product, did not destroy history for the States and substitute mechanical compartments of law all exactly alike. If a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it, . . . .” Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U. S. 22, 31. (As to the constitutional significance of a “time-honored procedure” see Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, and Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94.)
Of course, this wise reminder, that what free people have found consistent' with their enjoyment of freedom for centuries is hardly to be deemed to violate due process, does not freeze due process within the confines of historical facts or discredited attitudes. “It is of the very nature of a free .society to advance in its standards of what is deemed reasonable and right. Representing as it does a living principle, due process is not confined within a permanent catalogue of whgt may at a given time be deemed the limits or the essentials of fundamental rights.” Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27.
The power here challenged rests not only on a long history of its exercise. It is a power which was continually strengthened and applied to wider concerns through those very years when the right of individuals to be free, from peremptory official invasion received increasing legislative and judicial protection. Nor is this a situation where a new body of knowledge displaces previous premises of action. There is a total want of important modification in the circumstances or the structure of society which calls for a disregard of so much history. On the contrary, the problems which gave rise to these ordinances have multiplied manifold, as have the difficulties of enforcement. The need to maintain basic, minimal standards of housing, to prevent the spread of disease and of that pervasive breakdown in the fiber of a people which is produced by slums and the absence of the barest essentials of civilized living, has mounted to a major concern of American government. The growth of cities, the crowding of populations, the increased awareness of the responsibility of the state for the living conditions of its citizens, all have combined to create problems of the enforcement of minimum standards of far greater magnitude than the writers of these ancient inspection laws ever dreamed. Time and experience have -forcefully taúght that the power to inspect dwelling places, either as a matter of. systematic área-by-area search or, as here, to treat a specific problem, is of indispensable importance to the maintenance of community health; a power that would be greatly hobbled by the blanket requirement of the safeguards necessary for a search of evidence of criminal acts. The need for preventive action is great, and city after city has seen this need and granted the power of inspection to its health officials; and these inspections are apparently welcomed by all but an insignificant few. Certainly, the nature of our society has not vitiated the need for inspections first thought necessary 158 years;ago, nor has experience revealed any abuse or inroad on freedom in meeting this need by means that history and dominant public opinion have sanctioned.
That there is “a total unlikeness” between “official acts and proceedings,” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624, for which the legal protection of privacy requires a search warrant under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the situation now under consideration is laid bare by the suggestion that the kind of an' inspection by a health official with which we are concerned may be satisfied by what is, in effect, a synthetic search warrant, an authorization “for periodic inspections.” L a search warrant •be constitutionally required, the requirement cannot be flexibly interpreted to dispense with the rigorous constitutional restrictions for its issue. A loose basis for granting a search warrant for the situation before us is to enter by way of the back door to a recognition of the fact that by reason of their intrinsic elements, their historic sanctions, and their safeguards, the Maryland proceedings .requesting permission to make a search without intruding when permission is denied, do not offend the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In light of the long history of this kind of inspection and of modern needs, we cannot say that the carefully circumscribed demand which Maryland here makes on appellant’s freedom has deprived him of due process of law.
Affirmed.
If the nuisance constitutes an actual menace to health the Commissioner may abate it forthwith. Baltimore City Code, Art. 12, §112.
Tudor, Life of James Otis (1823), 66. No complete text of the Otis speech is extant, but see notes of Horace Gray, Jr. in Quincy’s Massachusetts Reports for 1761-1762, App. I, pp. 469 et seq. Tudor’s life contains an account of it as well as of the events leading to the. speech and the reaction to it-.
Id., at 61. Adams said:
“Otis was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a ’ rapid torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before him. American Independence was then and there born. The seeds of patriots and heroes, to defend the Non sine Diis animosus infans; to defend the vigorous youth, were then and there sown. Every man of an immense crouded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of Assistance. Then and there, was the first scene of . the first act of opposition, to the arbitrary claims- of Great Britain. Then and there, the child Independence was born. In fifteen years, i. e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood, and declared himself free.” Id., at 60-61.
The Court in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, relied heavily on the interrelationship between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, a view challenged by Professor Wigmore. See 8 Wigmore; Evidence. (3d ed. 19.40), §2264.
Nearly all the early Maryland statutes are contained in Records of the States of the United States of America, a collection compiled by the Library of Congress in association with .the University of North Carolina in 1949. This collection is on microfilm. Many volumes of the early Maryland Session Laws are available in various library collections throughout the country. No complete collection is known to exist. A typical tobacco inspection statute is Maryland Laws, November 1773, c. 1, §§ LXXIV, LXXX. At times a warrant was required for inspections. of homes. Id., § LXXIII. See also Maryland Laws, 1717, c. VII. Other Colonies also had statutes allowing inspection to enforce standards for the manufacture or shipping of various items of trade. See, e. g., Virginia Laws, 15 Geo. II (1742), c. IV (pork and beef); Virginia Laws, 12 Geo. Ill (1772), c. ll (flour and bread); Pennsylvania Laws, 1722,' c. CCLII (flour and bread); Pennsylvania Laws, 1727, c. CCXCV (beef and pork); Pennsylvania Laws, 1729-1730, c. CCCXVI (hemp).
See, e. g., Maryland. Laws, 1715, e. XLVI (tobacco); Maryland Laws, May 1756, p. 5, §XLVI; Maryland Laws, March 1758, p. 3, §X.
Ibid.
See Givner v. State, 210 Md. 484, 492-494, 124 A. 2d 764, 768-769. The Maryland Court of Appeals has said that this provision of its Declaration of Rights (originally Article 23, now Article 26) is “in pari materia” with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id., at 492.
Maryland Laws, Nov. 1782, c. XVII, § VII. A similar law had been in force in Pennsylvania since 1761. Pennsylvania Laws, 1761— 1762, c. C.CCCLXXX.
Maryland Laws, April 1787, c. XXIII. See also Pennsylvania Laws, 1782, ci MXXXI.
Maryland Laws, Nov. 1789, c. VIII, § 5. ■ See also Maryland Laws, Nov. 1792, c. LXV, § VII; Maryland Laws. 1793, c. LVI; Maryland Laws, 1784, c. VII.
Baltimore Ordinances, 1801-1802, No. 23, §6. The Baltimore City Health Department may be the oldest in the country. See 35 Am. J. of Public Health (Jan. 1945), 49.
See Howard, Public Health Administration and the Natural History of Disease in Baltimore, Maryland, 1797-1920 (1924), 140.
See, id., at 145-146. For example, in 1880 there were 4,292 nuisances inspected by sanitary inspectors. In 1890 there were 34,138 such inspections. Ibid.
Compare Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs, 330 U. S. 552, and Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94, with Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483.
The Baltimore Health Department keeps á record of the number of inspections made annually. All but a few of these are inspections of dwellings. The figures for the last five years are as follows: 1954, 28,081 inspections; 1955, 25,021 inspections; 1956, 35,120 inspections; 1957, 33,573 inspections; 1958, 36,119 inspections. Memorandum of Appellee at Request of Court 2. The Health Commissioner of Baltimore estimates that the number of prosecutions under §120 average one per year.
Of 57 cities whose health codes were studied by the Urban Renewal Administration, 36 empowered their officers to enter and inspect for violations. See Provisions of Housing Codes in Various American Cities, Urban Renewal Bulletin No. 3 (published by Urban Renewal Administration of the Housing and Home Finance Agency 1956).
For a discussion of some of the problems of Urban Renewal, see Note, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 504.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves a question of procedure under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Does a defendant in a state criminal proceeding lose the right to contend that a confession was coerced because of his testimony that the confession was in fact never made?
Petitioner, a 17-year-old Negro, was indicted by a grand jury in Mississippi on a charge of assault with intent to ravish a female of previous chaste character. During the course of the trial, the state offered the testimony of two city detectives as to an alleged oral confession obtained by them from petitioner. Objection was made that this confession had been secured as the result of duress, threats and violence inflicted upon petitioner by two unidentified police officers several hours prior to the confession. The jury retired and a preliminary hearing was held before the trial judge as to the voluntariness of this confession. After various witnesses appeared, including the petitioner himself, the judge concluded that the confession was voluntary and that the testimony in relation thereto was admissible. This testimony proved to be the crucial element leading to the jury’s conviction of petitioner. His sentence was fixed at 18 years in prison.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal, rejecting petitioner’s contention that the introduction of the testimony in question contravened his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. It stated that the conduct of the two unidentified officers alleged to have struck and threatened petitioner was, if true, indefensible and warranted condemnation. But it felt that “the issue of fact as well as credibility was for the trial judge upon such preliminary qualification, and we are not willing to disturb his conclusion.” 201 Miss. 423, 432,29 So. 2d 211, 212.
This constitutional contention was treated quite differently by the court on the filing of a suggestion of error. It found that petitioner’s testimony at the preliminary hearing that he had been threatened prior to making the confession was entirely undisputed in the record. But it also found that petitioner had steadfastly testified, both at the preliminary hearing and at the trial on the merits before the jury, that he did not in fact admit to the city detectives that he had committed the crime. The court then stated: “If the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herein because of the fact that his testimony as to the threat made to him during the forenoon by the plain clothes men is wholly undisputed, the jailer not having been asked about this threat, and having testified only that he was not struck by anyone in his presence after his arrest for this crime. But, we think that one accused of crime cannot be heard to say that he did not make a confession at all, and at the same time contend that an alleged confession was made under the inducement of fear.” 201 Miss. 423, 435, 30 So. 2d 74, 75. The suggestion of error was accordingly overruled.
The incomplete record before us precludes our determination of whether petitioner did deny in the trial court that he had confessed the crime. But assuming that he did so testify, we cannot agree with the court below that he was thereby estopped from asserting his constitutional right to due process of law. The important fact is that the oral confession was introduced, admitted and used as evidence of petitioner’s guilt. Not only may this confession have been influential in inducing the jury’s verdict, but it formed an essential part of the evidentiary basis of the conviction now under review. His alleged denial of the confession went only to the original issue of whether he actually made the confession, an issue that is no longer open. That question was at most a disputed one; but the jury resolved the matter against petitioner and, like the court below, we accept that determination. The sole concern now is with the validity of the conviction based upon the use of the oral confession.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment invalidates a state court conviction grounded in whole or in part upon a confession which is the product of other than reasoned and voluntary choice. A conviction resulting from such use of a coerced confession, however, is no less void because the accused testified at some point in the proceeding that he had never in fact confessed, -voluntarily or involuntarily. Testimony of that nature can hardly legalize a procedure which conflicts with the accepted principles of due process. And since our constitutional system permits a conviction to be sanctioned only if in conformity with those principles, inconsistent testimony as to the confession should not and cannot preclude the accused from raising the due process issue in an appropriate manner. White v. Texas, 310 U. S. 530, 531-532. Indeed, such a foreclosure of the right to complain “of a wrong so fundamental that it made the whole proceeding a mere pretense of a trial and rendered the conviction and sentence wholly void,” Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 286, would itself be a denial of due process of law.
The judgment below must be reversed. Since the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the conviction solely because it thought petitioner was not entitled to raise the constitutional issue, we remand the case to that court so that it may definitively express its views on that issue.
Reversed.
The transcript of the trial on the merits is not before us. At the preliminary hearing on the voluntariness of the confession, the transcript of which is before us, petitioner stated in regard to the alleged confession: “I don’t know what all he asked and all I said, but I didn’t admit I did it.” He also denied having confessed various details of the crime. Such testimony, however, might be construed as nothing more than a layman’s inexact way of stating that his answers did not amount to a voluntary confession. But in the absence of the complete record, we express no opinion on the matter.
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227; Canty v. Alabama, 309 U. S. 629; White v. Texas, 309 U. S. 631, 310 U. S. 530; Lomax v. Texas, 313 U. S. 544; Vernon v. Alabama, 313 U. S. 547; Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219; Ward v. Texas, 316 U. S. 547; Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 327 U. S. 274; Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596; Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401; Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. 596.
See, in general, Boskey and Pickering, “Federal Restrictions on State Criminal Procedure,” 13 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 266, 282-295.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On December 21, 1971, the Supreme Court of New Jersey announced the adoption of Rule 1:21-7, effective January 31, 1972, establishing a graduated schedule of maximum contingent fees applicable to tort litigation conducted by New Jersey attorneys. Appellants, representing members of the New Jersey bar, brought this action to enjoin the enforcement of the rules on the grounds that they violate several provisions of the Constitution, including the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial judge convened a three-judge court. 28 U. S. C. § 2281.
After hearing argument on the merits, the District Court pointed out that:
“ [Essentially the case poses a dispute between a state’s highest court and those persons authorized by that court to practice law in the state. The relationship between the parties thus is an extremely delicate one. Under such circumstances federal courts generally have considered it appropriate, before attempting any direct federal intervention at the outset, first to permit the state courts to process the dispute. Cf. Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82, 85-87 (1970).”
The court added that “[a]s was true in Reetz the initial issue is whether the state constitution authorized the enactment challenged.” The court therefore granted defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss.
By timely motion under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 59 (e), appellants sought an order amending the judgment by either
“(A) Retaining jurisdiction, but staying proceedings in this Court pending determination of the issues of state law in the courts of New Jersey, or until efforts to obtain such a determination have been exhausted; or
“(B) Ordering that the dismissal be without prejudice, so that the suits for determination of the federal constitutional issues may be reinstituted after exhausting state recourse with respect to state law issues.” Jurisdictional Statement 10.
The motion was denied and appellants brought this appeal.
“[AJbstention 'does not, of course, involve the abdication of federal jurisdiction, but only the postponement of its exercise.’ ” England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 416 (1964), quoting from Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 177 (1959). For that reason, we have held that a dismissal on grounds of abstention so as to permit a state court to pass on an issue of state law must not be with prejudice. Doud v. Hodge, 350 U. S. 485 (1956); Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498 (1972). The proper course is for the District Court to retain jurisdiction pending the proceedings in the state courts. Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, supra, at 512-513; Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 244-245, n. 4 (1967). Although the District Court may have intended its judgment of dismissal to be without prejudice to the right of appellants to litigate their federal claims in federal court at the conclusion of the state proceeding, the court did deny appellants’ motion for an amendment to the judgment making clear that no prejudice would attach. The motion should have been granted. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Rule 1:21-7 provides in part:
“(c) In any matter where, a client’s claim for damages is based upon the alleged tortious conduct of another, including products liability claims, and the client is not a subrogee, an attorney shall not contract for, charge, or collect a contingent fee in excess of the following limits:
“(1) 50% on the first $1000 recovered;
“(2) 40% on the next $2000 recovered;
“(3) 33%% on the next $47,000 recovered;
“(4) 20% on the next $50,000 recovered;
“(5) 10% on any amount recovered over $100,000 . . . .”
Appellee maintained below, as it maintains before this Court, that a three-judge court need not have been convened because the constitutional question presented is insubstantial. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (1962). It insists, however, that if the claim is substantial then it must be heard by a court of three judges, 28 U. S. C. § 2281. In view of the posture of the case on this appeal, we do not, of course, express any view on the merits of the question presented.
The validity of the District Court’s decision to abstain is not at issue on this appeal.
“It is better practice, in a case raising a federal constitutional or statutory claim [where the doctrine of abstention is applied], to retain jurisdiction, rather than to dismiss . . . .” Zwickler, supra, at 244 n. 4.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment below is reversed. Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea, ante, p. 676.
Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Goldberg concur in the judgment of the Court for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Goldberg's opinion in United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington and Meat Cutters v. Jewel Teg, ante, at 697.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether 42 U. S. C. § 1983 authorizes an award of compensatory damages based on the factfinder’s assessment of the value or importance of a substantive constitutional right.
M
Respondent Edward Stachura is a tenured teacher in the Memphis, Michigan, public schools. When the events that led to this case occurred, respondent taught seventh-grade life science, using a textbook that had been approved by the School Board. The textbook included a chapter on human reproduction. During the 1978-1979 school year, respondent spent six weeks on this chapter. As part of their instruction, students were shown pictures of respondent’s wife during her pregnancy. Respondent also showed the students two films concerning human growth and sexuality. These films were provided by the County Health Department, and the Principal of respondent’s school had approved their use. Both films had been shown in past school years without incident.
After the showing of the pictures and the films, a number of parents complained to school officials about respondent’s teaching methods. These complaints, which appear to have been based largely on inaccurate rumors about the allegedly sexually explicit nature of the pictures and films, were discussed at an open School Board meeting held on April 23, 1979. Following the advice of the School Superintendent, respondent did not attend the meeting, during which a number of parents expressed the view that respondent should not be allowed to teach in the Memphis school system. The day after the meeting, respondent was suspended with pay. The School Board later confirmed the suspension, and notified respondent that an “administration evaluation” of his teaching methods was underway. No such evaluation was ever made. Respondent was reinstated the next fall, after filing this lawsuit.
Respondent sued the School District, the Board of Education, various Board members and school administrators, and two parents who had participated in the April 23 School Board meeting. The complaint alleged that respondent’s suspension deprived him of both liberty and property without due process of law and violated his First Amendment right to academic freedom. Respondent sought compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for these constitutional violations.
At the close of trial on these claims, the District Court instructed the jury as to the law governing the asserted bases for liability. Turning to damages, the court instructed the jury that on finding liability it should award a sufficient amount to compensate respondent for the injury caused by petitioners’ unlawful actions:
“You should consider in this regard any lost earnings; loss of earning capacity; out-of-pocket expenses; and any mental anguish or emotional distress that you find the Plaintiff to have suffered as a result of conduct by the Defendants depriving him of his civil rights.” App. 94.
In addition to this instruction on the standard elements of compensatory damages, the court explained that punitive damages could be awarded, and described the standards governing punitive awards. Finally, at respondent’s request and over petitioners’ objection, the court charged that damages also could be awarded based on the value or importance of the constitutional rights that were violated:
“If you find that the Plaintiff has been deprived of a Constitutional right, you may award damages to compensate him for the deprivation. Damages for this type of injury are more difficult to measure than damages for a physical injury or injury to one’s property. There are no medical bills or other expenses by which you can judge how much compensation is appropriate. In one sense, no monetary value we place upon Constitutional rights can measure their importance in our society or compensate a citizen adequately for their deprivation. However, just because these rights are not capable of precise evaluation does not mean that an appropriate monetary amount should not be awarded.
“The precise value you place upon any Constitutional right which you find was denied to Plaintiff is within your discretion. You may wish to consider the importance of the right in our system of government, the role which this right has played in the history of our republic, [and] the significance of the right in the context of the activities which the Plaintiff was engaged in at the time of the violation of the right.” Id., at 96.
The jury found petitioners liable, and awarded a total of $275,000 in compensatory damages and $46,000 in punitive damages. The District Court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to one of the defendants, reducing the total award to $266,750 in compensatory damages and $36,000 in punitive damages.
In an opinion devoted primarily to liability issues, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that respondent’s suspension had violated both procedural due process and the First Amendment. Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F. 2d 211 (1985). Responding to petitioners’ contention that the District Court improperly authorized damages based solely on the value of constitutional rights, the court noted only that “there was ample proof of actual injury to plaintiff Stachura both in his effective discharge . . . and by the damage to his reputation and to his professional career as a teacher. Contrary to the situation in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247 (1978) . . . , there was proof from which the jury could have found, as it did, actual and important damages.” Id., at 214.
We granted certiorari limited to the question whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the damages award in the light of the District Court’s instructions that authorized not only compensatory and punitive damages, but also damages for the deprivation of “any constitutional right.” 474 U. S. 918 (1985). We reverse, and remand for a new trial limited to the issue of compensatory damages.
l — H
Petitioners challenge the jury instructions authorizing damages for violation of constitutional rights on the ground that those instructions permitted the jury to award damages based on its own unguided estimation of the value of such rights. Respondent disagrees with this characterization of the jury instructions, contending that the compensatory damages instructions taken as a whole focused solely on respondent’s injury and not on the abstract value of the rights he asserted.
We believe petitioners more accurately characterize the instructions. The damages instructions were divided into three distinct segments: (i) compensatory damages for harm to respondent, (ii) punitive damages, and (iii) additional “compensat[ory]” damages for violations of constitutional rights. No sensible juror could read the third of these segments to modify the first. On the contrary, the damages instructions plainly authorized — in addition to punitive damages — two distinct types of “compensatory” damages: one based on respondent’s actual injury according to ordinary tort law standards, and another based on the “value” of certain rights. We therefore consider whether the latter category of damages was properly before the jury.
HH I — I h-H
A
We have repeatedly noted that 42 U. S. C. § 1983 creates “‘a species of tort liability’ in favor of persons who are deprived of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured’ to them by the Constitution.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 253 (1978), quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976). See also Smith v. Wade, 461 U. S. 30, 34 (1983); Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247, 258-259 (1981). Accordingly, when § 1983 plaintiffs seek damages for violations of constitutional rights, the level of damages is ordinarily determined according to principles derived from the common law of torts. See Smith v. Wade, supra, at 34; Carey v. Piphus, supra, at 257-258; cf. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 196, and n. 5 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring).
Punitive damages aside, damages in tort cases are designed to provide “compensation for the injury caused to plaintiff by defendant’s breach of duty.” 2 F. Harper, F. James, & O. Gray, Law of Torts §25.1, p. 490 (2d ed. 1986) (emphasis in original), quoted in Carey v. Piphus, supra, at 255. See also Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 395, 397 (1971); id., at 408-409 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). To that end, compensatory-damages may include not only out-of-pocket loss and other monetary harms, but also such injuries as “impairment of reputation . . . , personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 350 (1974). See also Carey v. Piphus, supra, at 264 (mental and emotional distress constitute compensable injury in § 1983 cases). Deterrence is also an important purpose of this system, but it operates through the mechanisrn of damages that are compensatory — damages grounded in determinations of plaintiffs’ actual losses. E. g., 4 Harper, James, & Gray, supra, § 25.3 (discussing need for certainty in damages determinations); D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 3.1, pp. 135-136 (1973). Congress adopted this common-law system of recovery when it established liability for “constitutional torts.” Consequently, “the basic purpose” of § 1983 damages is “to compensate persons for injuries that are caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S., at 254 (emphasis added). See also id., at 257 (“damages awards under § 1983 should be governed by the principle of compensation”).
Carey v. Piphus represents a straightforward application of these principles. Carey involved a suit by a high school student suspended for smoking marijuana; the student claimed that he was denied procedural due process because he was suspended without an opportunity to respond to the charges against him. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that even if the suspension was justified, the student could recover substantial compensatory damages simply because of the insufficient procedures used to suspend him from school. We reversed, and held that the student could recover compensatory damages only if he proved actual injury caused by the denial of his constitutional rights. Id., at 264. We noted: “Rights, constitutional and otherwise, do not exist in a vacuum. Their purpose is to protect persons from injuries to particular interests . . . Id., at 254. Where no injury was present, no “compensatory” damages could be awarded.
The instructions at issue here cannot be squared with Carey, or with the principles of tort damages on which Carey and § 1983 are grounded. The jurors in this case were told that, in determining how much was necessary to “compensate [respondent] for the deprivation” of his constitutional rights, they should place a money value on the “rights” themselves by considering such factors as the particular right’s “importance ... in our system of government,” its role in American history, and its “significance ... in the context of the activities” in which respondent was engaged. App. 96. These factors focus, not on compensation for provable injury, but on the jury’s subjective perception of the importance of constitutional rights as an abstract matter. Carey establishes that such an approach is impermissible. The constitutional right transgressed in Carey — the right to due process of law — is central to our system of ordered liberty. See In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 20-21 (1967). We nevertheless held that no compensatory damages could be awarded for violation of that right absent proof of actual injury. Carey, 435 U. S., at 264. Carey thus makes clear that the abstract value of a constitutional right may not form the basis for § 1983 damages.
Respondent nevertheless argues that Carey does not control here, because in this case a substantive constitutional right — respondent’s First Amendment right to academic freedom — was infringed. The argument misperceives our analysis in Carey. That case does not establish a two-tiered system of constitutional rights, with substantive rights afforded greater protection than “mere” procedural safeguards. We did acknowledge in Carey that “the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages” might vary depending on the interests protected by the constitutional right at issue. Id., at 264-265. But we emphasized that, whatever the constitutional basis for § 1983 liability, such damages must always be designed “to compensate injuries caused by the [constitutional] deprivation.” Id., at 265 (emphasis added). See also Hobson v. Wilson, 237 U. S. App. D. C. 219, 277-279, 737 F. 2d 1, 59-61 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1084 (1985); cf. Smith v. Wade, 461 U. S. 30 (1983). That conclusion simply leaves no room for noncompensatory damages measured by the jury’s perception of the abstract “importance” of a constitutional right.
Nor do we find such damages necessary to vindicate the constitutional rights that § 1983 protects. See n. 11, supra. Section 1983 presupposes that damages that compensate for actual harm ordinarily suffice to deter constitutional violations. Carey, supra, at 256-257 (“To the extent that Congress intended that awards under §1983 should deter the deprivation of constitutional rights, there is no evidence that it meant to establish a deterrent more formidable than that inherent in the award of compensatory damages”). Moreover, damages based on the “value” of constitutional rights are an unwieldy tool for ensuring compliance with the Constitution. History and tradition do not afford any sound guidance concerning the precise value that juries should place on constitutional protections. Accordingly, were such damages available, juries would be free to award arbitrary amounts without any evidentiary basis, or to use their unbounded discretion to punish unpopular defendants. Cf. Gertz, 418 U. S., at 350. Such damages would be too uncertain to be of any great value to plaintiffs, and would inject caprice into determinations of damages in §1983 cases. We therefore hold that damages based on the abstract “value” or “importance” of constitutional rights are not a permissible element of compensatory damages in such cases.
B
Respondent further argues that the challenged instructions authorized a form of “presumed” damages — a remedy that is both compensatory in nature and traditionally part of the range of tort law remedies. Alternatively, respondent argues that the erroneous instructions were at worst harmless error.
Neither argument has merit. Presumed damages are a substitute for ordinary compensatory damages, not a supplement for an award that fully compensates the alleged injury. When a plaintiff seeks compensation for an injury that is likely to have occurred but difficult to establish, some form of presumed damages may possibly be appropriate. See Carey, 435 U. S., at 262; cf. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U. S. 749, 760-761 (1985) (opinion of Powell, J.); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 349. In those circumstances, presumed damages may roughly approximate the harm that the plaintiff suffered and thereby compensate for harms that may be impossible to measure. As we earlier explained, the instructions at issue in this case did not serve this purpose, but instead called on the jury to measure damages based on a subjective evaluation of the importance of particular constitutional values. Since such damages are wholly divorced from any compensatory purpose, they cannot be justified as presumed damages. Moreover, no rough substitute for compensatory damages was required in this case, since the jury was fully authorized to compensate respondent for both monetary and nonmone-tary harms caused by petitioners’ conduct.
Nor can we find that the erroneous instructions were harmless. See 28 U. S. C. § 2111; McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U. S. 548 (1984). When damages instructions are faulty and the verdict does not reveal the means by which the jury calculated damages, “[the] error in the charge is difficult, if not impossible, to correct without retrial, in light of the jury’s general verdict.” Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S., at 256, n. 12. The jury was authorized to award three categories of damages: (i) compensatory damages for injury to respondent, (ii) punitive damages, and (iii) damages based on the jury’s perception of the “importance” of two provisions of the Constitution. The submission of the third of these categories was error. Although the verdict specified an amount for punitive damages, it did not specify how much of the remaining damages was designed to compensate respondent for his injury and how much reflected the jury’s estimation of the value of the constitutional rights that were infringed. The effect of the erroneous instruction is therefore unknowable, although probably significant: the jury awarded respondent a very substantial amount of damages, none of which could have derived from any monetary loss. It is likely, although not certain, that a major part of these damages was intended to “compensate” respondent for the abstract “value” of his due process and First Amendment rights. For these reasons, the case must be remanded for a new trial on compensatory damages.
> hH
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Brennan and Justice Stevens join the opinion of the Court and also join Justice Marshall’s opinion concurring in the judgment.
One member of the School Board described the meeting as follows:
“At this time, the public was in a total uproar and completely out of control. . . . People were hollering and shouting and the statement was made from the public that if Mr. Stachura was allowed to return in the morning, they would be there to picket the school.
“At this point of total panic, [the School Superintendent] stated in order to maintain peace in our school district, we would suspend Mr. Stachura with full pay and get this mess straightened out.” Tr. 583-584, quoted in Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F. 2d 211, 214 (CA6 1985).
Petitioners do not challenge the award of punitive damages in this Court.
The jury found petitioners liable based both on the alleged deprivation of procedural due process and on the alleged violation of respondent’s First Amendment rights.
The bulk of the award was against the School Board, which was assessed $233,750 in compensatory damages. Three of the individual defendants were each assessed $8,250, while six others were each charged $2,750. Nine individual defendants were assessed punitive damages, ranging from $1,000 to $15,000.
Since our decision in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247 (1978), several of the Courts of Appeals have concluded that damages awards based on the abstract value of constitutional rights are proper, at least as long as the right in question is substantive. E. g., Bell v. Little Axe Independent School Dist. No. 70, 766 F. 2d 1391 (CA10 1985); Herrera v. Valentine, 653 F. 2d 1220, 1227-1229 (CA8 1981); Konczak v. Tyrrell, 603 F. 2d 13, 17 (CA7 1979) (dicta), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 1016 (1980). See also Love, Damages: A Remedy for the Violation of Constitutional Rights, 67 Calif. L. Rev. 1242 (1979). Other courts have determined that our reasoning in Carey forecloses such awards. E. g., Hobson v. Wilson, 237 U. S. App. D. C. 219, 278-279, 737 F. 2d 1, 60-61 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1084 (1985); Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F. 2d 391, 402 (CA5 1980); Davis v. Village Park II Realty Co., 578 F. 2d 461, 463 (CA2 1978). Cf. Freeman v. Franzen, 695 F. 2d 485, 492-494 (CA7 1982), cert. denied, 463 U. S. 1214 (1983).
Respondent argues that petitioners did not preserve their challenge to the jury instructions below. Petitioners’ counsel expressly objected to the authorization of damages based on the value of constitutional rights, on the ground that such damages were impermissible under Carey v. Piphus, supra, and on the ground that they required the jury to “speculate as to what the value of the Constitutional right is.” App. 97-98. The District Court responded by stating that it relied on Herrera v. Valentine, supra, at 1227, and on Corriz v. Naranjo, 667 F. 2d 892 (CA10), cert. dism’d, 458 U. S. 1123 (1982). App. 98. Both of those cases held that jury instructions similar to those used here were permissible under Carey. This exchange satisfies us that counsel for petitioners “stat[ed] distinctly the matter to which he objeet[ed] and the grounds of his objection,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 51, and that the District Court understood the objection.
The jurors were given written copies of the instructions for use in their deliberations. App. 96.
Section 1983 reads:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
The purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant for his willful or malicious conduct and to deter others from similar behavior. E. g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(1) (1979); W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 9 (5th ed. 1984); C. McCormick, Law of Damages 275 (1935). See also Electrical Workers v. Foust, 442 U. S. 42, 48 (1979); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 350 (1974). In Smith v. Wade, 461 U. S. 30 (1983), the Court held that punitive damages may be available in a proper § 1983 case. As the punitive damages instructions used in this case explained, however, such damages are available only on a showing of the requisite intent. App. 94-95 (authorizing punitive damages for acts “maliciously, or wantonly, or oppressively done”); Smith v. Wade, supra, at 51.
Respondent does not, and could not reasonably, contend that the separate instructions authorizing damages for violation of constitutional rights were equivalent to punitive damages instructions. In these separate instructions, the jury was authorized to find damages for constitutional violations without any finding of malice or ill will. Moreover, the jury instructions separately authorized punitive damages, and the District Court expressly labeled the “constitutional rights” damages compensatory. The instructions concerning damages for constitutional violations are thus impermissible unless they reasonably could be read as authorizing compensatory damages.
See generally Whitman, Constitutional Torts, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 5 (1980).
We did approve an award of nominal damages for the deprivation of due process in Carey. 435 U. S., at 266. Our discussion of that issue makes clear that nominal damages, and not damages based on some undefinable “value” of infringed rights, are the appropriate means of “vindicating” rights whose deprivation has not caused actual, provable injury:
“Common-law courts traditionally have vindicated deprivations of certain ‘absolute’ rights that are not shown to have caused actual injury through the award of a nominal sum of money. By making the deprivation of such rights actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, the law recognizes the importance to organized society that those rights be scrupulously observed; but at the same time, it remains true to the principle that substantial damages should be awarded only to eompen-sate actual injury or, in the case of exemplary or punitive damages, to deter or punish malicious deprivations of rights.” Ibid, (footnote omitted).
Our grant of certiorari in this case does not encompass the question whether respondent stated or proved a claim under either the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment. We therefore treat the Court of Appeals’ decision on all liability issues as final for purposes of our decision.
Carey recognized that “the task ... of adapting common-law rules of damages to provide fair compensation for injuries caused by the deprivation of a constitutional right” is one “of some delicacy.” Id., at 258. We also noted that “the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of one constitutional right are not necessarily appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of another.” Id., at 264-265. See also Hobson v. Wilson, 237 U. S. App. D. C., at 279-281, 737 F. 2d, at 61-63. This “delicate” task need not be undertaken here. None of the parties challenges the portion of the jury instructions that permitted recovery for actual harm to respondent, and the instructions that are challenged simply do not authorize compensation for injury. We therefore hold only that damages based on the “value” or “importance” of constitutional rights are not authorized by § 1983, because they are not truly compensatory.
For the same reason, Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 (1927), and similar cases do not support the challenged instructions. In Nixon, the Court held that a plaintiff who was illegally prevented from voting in a state primary election suffered compensable injury. Accord, Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939). This holding did not rest on the “value” of the right to vote as an abstract matter; rather, the Court recognized that the plaintiff had suffered a particular injury — his inability to vote in a particular election — that might be compensated through substantial money damages. See 273 U. S., at 540 (“the petition . . . seeks to recover for private damage”).
Nixon followed a long line of cases, going back to Lord Holt’s decision in Ashby v. White, 2 Ld. Raym. 938, 92 Eng. Rep. 126 (1703), authorizing substantial money damages as compensation for persons deprived of their right to vote in particular elections. E. g., Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58, 65 (1900); Wayne v. Venable, 260 F. 64, 66 (CA8 1919). Although these decisions sometimes speak of damages for the value of the right to vote, their analysis shows that they involve nothing more than an award of presumed damages for a nonmonetary harm that cannot easily be quantified:
“In the eyes of the law th[e] right [to vote] is so valuable that damages are presumed from the wrongful deprivation of it without evidence of actual loss of money, property, or any other valuable thing, and the amount of the damages is a question peculiarly appropriate for the determination of the jury, because each member of the jury has personal knowledge of the value of the right.” Ibid.
See also Ashby v. White, supra, at 955, 92 Eng. Rep., at 137 (Holt, C. J.) (“As in an action for slanderous words, though a man does not lose a penny by reason of the speaking [of] them, yet he shall have an action”). The “value of the right” in the context of these decisions is the money value of the particular loss that the plaintiff suffered — a loss of which “each member of the jury has personal knowledge.” It is not the value of the right to vote as a general, abstract matter, based on its role in our history or system of government. Thus, whatever the wisdom of these decisions in the context of the changing scope of compensatory damages over the course of this century, they do not support awards of noncompensatory damages such as those authorized in this case.
Throughout his suspension, respondent continued to receive his teacher’s salary.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 BREYERdelivered the opinion of the Court.
The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and the Alabama Democratic Conference appeal a three-judge Federal District Court decision rejecting their challenges to the lawfulness of Alabama's 2012 redistricting of its State House of Representatives and State Senate. The appeals focus upon the appellants' claims that new district boundaries create "racial gerrymanders" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g.,Shaw v. Hunt,517 U.S. 899, 907-908, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996)(Shaw II) (Fourteenth Amendment forbids use of race as " 'predominant' " district boundary-drawing " 'factor' " unless boundaries are "narrowly tailored" to achieve a " 'compelling state interest' " (citations omitted)). We find that the District Court applied incorrect legal standards in evaluating the claims. We consequently vacate its decision and remand the cases for further proceedings.
I
The Alabama Constitution requires the legislature to reapportion its State House and Senate electoral districts following each decennial census. Ala. Const., Art. IX, §§ 199-200. In 2012 Alabama redrew the boundaries of the State's 105 House districts and 35 Senate districts. 2012 Ala. Acts no. 602 (House plan); id.,at no. 603 (Senate plan) (Acts). In doing so, Alabama sought to achieve numerous traditional districting objectives, such as compactness, not splitting counties or precincts, minimizing change, and protecting incumbents. But it placed yet greater importance on achieving two other goals. See Alabama Legislature Reapportionment Committee Guidelines in No. 12-cv-691, Doc. 30-4, pp. 3-5 (Committee Guidelines).
First, it sought to minimize the extent to which a district might deviate from the theoretical ideal of precisely equal population. In particular, it set as a goal creating a set of districts in which no district would deviate from the theoretical, precisely equal ideal by more than 1%-i.e., a more rigorous deviation standard than our precedents have found necessary under the Constitution. See Brown v. Thomson,462 U.S. 835, 842, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983)(5% deviation from ideal generally permissible). No one here doubts the desirability of a State's efforts generally to come close to a one-person, one-vote ideal.
Second, it sought to ensure compliance with federal law, and, in particular, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.At the time of the redistricting Alabama was a covered jurisdiction under that Act. Accordingly § 5 of the Act required Alabama to demonstrate that an electoral change, such as redistricting, would not bring about retrogression in respect to racial minorities' "ability... to elect their preferred candidates of choice." 52 U.S.C. § 10304(b). Specifically, Alabama believed that, to avoid retrogression under § 5, it was required to maintain roughly the same black population percentage in existing majority-minority districts. See Appendix B, infra.
Compliance with these two goals posed particular difficulties with respect to many of the State's 35 majority-minority districts (8 in the Senate, 27 in the House). That is because many of these districts were (compared with the average district) underpopulated. In order for Senate District 26, for example, to meet the State's no-more-than-1% population-deviation objective, the State would have to add about 16,000 individuals to the district. And, prior to redistricting, 72.75% of District 26's population was black. Accordingly, Alabama's plan added 15,785 new individuals, and only 36 of those newly added individuals were white.
This suit, as it appears before us, focuses in large part upon Alabama's efforts to achieve these two goals. The Caucus and the Conference basically claim that the State, in adding so many new minority voters to majority-minority districts (and to others), went too far. They allege the State created a constitutionally forbidden "racial gerrymander"-a gerrymander that (e.g.,when the State adds more minority voters than needed for a minority group to elect a candidate of its choice) might, among other things, harm the very minority voters that Acts such as the Voting Rights Act sought to help.
After a bench trial, the Federal District Court held in favor of the State, i.e.,against the Caucus and the Conference, with respect to their racial gerrymandering claims as well as with respect to several other legal claims that the Caucus and the Conference had made. With respect to racial gerrymandering, the District Court recognized that electoral districting violates the Equal Protection Clause when (1) race is the "dominant and controlling" or "predominant" consideration in deciding "to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district," Miller v. Johnson,515 U.S. 900, 913, 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995), and (2) the use of race is not "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest," Shaw II,517 U.S., at 902, 116 S.Ct. 1894; see also Shaw v. Reno,509 U.S. 630, 649, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993)(Shaw I ) (Constitution forbids "separat[ion of] voters into different districts on the basis of race" when the separation "lacks sufficient justification"); Bush v. Vera,517 U.S. 952, 958-959, 976, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996)(principal opinion of O'Connor, J.) (same). But, after trial the District Court held (2 to 1) that the Caucus and the Conference had failed to prove their racial gerrymandering claims. The Caucus along with the Conference (and several other plaintiffs) appealed. We noted probable jurisdiction with respect to the racial gerrymandering claims. 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2697, 189 L.Ed.2d 739 (2014).
We shall focus upon four critical District Court determinations underlying its ultimate "no violation" conclusion. They concern:
1. The Geographical Nature of the Racial Gerrymandering Claims. The District Court characterized the appellants' claims as falling into two categories. In the District Court's view, both appellants had argued "that the Acts as a wholeconstitute racial gerrymanders," 989 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1287 (M.D.Ala.2013)(emphasis added), and one of the appellants (the Conference) had also argued that the State had racially gerrymandered four specific electoral districts, Senate Districts 7, 11, 22, and 26, id., at 1288.
2. Standing. The District Court held that the Caucus had standing to argue its racial gerrymandering claim with respect to the State "as a whole." But the Conference lacked standing to make any of its racial gerrymandering claims-the claim requiring consideration of the State "as a whole," and the claims requiring consideration of four individual Senate districts. Id., at 1292.
3. Racial Predominance. The District Court held that, in any event, the appellants' claims must fail because race "was not the predominant motivating factor" either (a) "for the Acts as a whole" or (b) with respect to "Senate Districts 7, 11, 22, or 26." Id., at 1293.
4. Narrow Tailoring/Compelling State Interest. The District Court also held that, even were it wrong about standing and predominance, the appellants' racial gerrymandering claims must fail. That is because any predominant use of race in the drawing of electoral boundaries was "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling state interest," id., at 1306-1307, namely the interest in avoiding retrogression with respect to racial minorities' "ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice." § 10304(b).
In our view, each of these determinations reflects an error about relevant law. And each error likely affected the District Court's conclusions-to the point where we must vacate the lower court's judgment and remand the cases to allow appellants to reargue their racial gerrymandering claims. In light of our opinion, all parties remain free to introduce such further evidence as the District Court shall reasonably find appropriate.
II
We begin by considering the geographical nature of the racial gerrymandering claims. The District Court repeatedly referred to the racial gerrymandering claims as claims that race improperly motivated the drawing of boundary lines of the State considered as a whole. See, e.g.,989 F.Supp.2d, at 1293("Race was not the predominant motivating factor for the Acts as a whole"); id., at 1287(construing plaintiffs' challenge as arguing that the "Acts as a whole constitute racial gerrymanders"); id., at 1292(describing the plaintiffs' challenge as a "claim of racial gerrymandering to the Acts as a whole"); cf. supra, at 1264 - 1265(noting four exceptions).
A racial gerrymandering claim, however, applies to the boundaries of individual districts. It applies district-by-district. It does not apply to a State considered as an undifferentiated "whole." We have consistently described a claim of racial gerrymandering as a claim that race was improperly used in the drawing of the boundaries of one or more specific electoral districts. See, e.g.,Shaw I,509 U.S., at 649, 113 S.Ct. 2816(violation consists of "separat[ing] voters into different districtson the basis of race" (emphasis added)); Vera,517 U.S., at 965, 116 S.Ct. 1941(principal opinion) ("[Courts] must scrutinize each challenged district..." (emphasis added)). We have described the plaintiff's evidentiary burden similarly. See Miller, supra,at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475(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" (emphasis added)).
Our district-specific language makes sense in light of the nature of the harms that underlie a racial gerrymandering claim. Those harms are personal. They include being "personally... subjected to [a] racial classification," Vera, supra,at 957, 116 S.Ct. 1941(principal opinion), as well as being represented by a legislator who believes his "primary obligation is to represent only the members" of a particular racial group, Shaw I, supra,at 648, 113 S.Ct. 2816. They directly threaten a voter who lives in the districtattacked. But they do not so keenly threaten a voter who lives elsewhere in the State. Indeed, the latter voter normally lacks standing to pursue a racial gerrymandering claim. United States v. Hays,515 U.S. 737, 744-745, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995).
Voters, of course, can present statewide evidence in order to prove racial gerrymandering in a particular district. See Miller, supra,at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475. And voters might make the claim that every individual district in a State suffers from racial gerrymandering. But this latter claim is not the claim that the District Court, when using the phrase "as a whole," considered here. Rather, the concept as used here suggests the existence of a legal unicorn, an animal that exists only in the legal imagination.
This is not a technical, linguistic point. Nor does it criticize what might seem, in effect, a slip of the pen. Rather, here the District Court's terminology mattered. That is because the District Court found that racial criteria had not predominated in the drawing of some Alabama districts. And it found that fact (the fact that race did not predominate in the drawing of some, or many districts) sufficient to defeat what it saw as the basic claim before it, namely a claim of racial gerrymandering with respect to the State as an undifferentiated whole. See, e.g.,989 F.Supp.2d, at 1294(rejecting plaintiffs' challenge because "[the legislature] followed no bright-line rule" with respect to every majority-minority district); id., at 1298-1299, 1301(citing examples of majority-minority districts in which black population percentages were reduced and examples of majority-white districts in which precincts were split).
A showing that race-based criteria did not significantly affect the drawing of someAlabama districts, however, would have done little to defeat a claim that race-based criteria predominantly affected the drawing of other Alabama districts, such as Alabama's majority-minority districts primarily at issue here. See id., at 1329(Thompson, J., dissenting) ("[T]he drafters['] fail [ure] to achieve their sought-after percentage in one district does not detract one iota from the fact that they did achieve it in another"). Thus, the District Court's undifferentiated statewide analysis is insufficient. And we must remand for consideration of racial gerrymandering with respect to the individual districts subject to the appellants' racial gerrymandering challenges.
The State and principal dissent argue that (but for four specifically mentioned districts) there were in effect no such districts. The Caucus and the Conference, the State and principal dissent say, did not seek a district-by-district analysis. And, the State and principal dissent conclude that the Caucus and the Conference have consequently waived the right to any further consideration. Brief for Appellees 14, 31; post,at 1276 - 1280 (opinion of SCALIA, J.).
We do not agree. We concede that the District Court's opinion suggests that it was the Caucus and the Conference that led the Court to consider racial gerrymandering of the State "as a whole." 989 F.Supp.2d, at 1287. At least the District Court interpreted their filings to allege only that kind of claim. Ibid. But our review of the record indicates that the plaintiffs did not claim only that the legislature had racially gerrymandered the State "as" an undifferentiated "whole." Rather, their evidence and their arguments embody the claim that individual majority-minority districts were racially gerrymandered. And those are the districts that we believe the District Court must reconsider.
There are 35 majority-minority districts, 27 in the House and 8 in the Senate. The District Court's opinion itself refers to evidence that the legislature's redistricting committee, in order to satisfy what it believed the Voting Rights Act required, deliberately chose additional black voters to move into underpopulated majority-minority districts, i.e., a specific set of individual districts. See, e.g.,989 F.Supp.2d, at 1274(referring to Senator Dial's testimony that the Committee "could have used," but did not use, "white population within Jefferson County to repopulate the majority-black districts" because "doing so would have resulted in the retrogression of the majority-black districts and potentially created a problem for [Justice Department] preclearance"); id., at 1276(stating that Representative Jim McClendon, also committee cochair, "testified consistently with Senator Dial"); id., at 1277(noting that the committee's expert, Randolph Hinaman, testified that "he needed to add population" to majority-black districts "without significantly lowering the percentage of the population in each district that was majority-black").
The Caucus and the Conference presented much evidence at trial to show that the legislature had deliberately moved black voters into these majority-minority districts-again, a specific set of districts -in order to prevent the percentage of minority voters in each district from declining. See, e.g., Committee Guidelines 3-5; 1 Tr. 28-29, 36-37, 55, 63, 67-68, 77, 81, 96, 115, 124, 136, 138 (testimony of Senator Dial); Deposition of Gerald Dial in No. 12-cv-691 (May 21, 2013), Doc. 123-5, pp. 17, 39-41, 62, 100 (Dial Deposition); 3 Tr. 222 (testimony of Representative McClendon); id., at 118-119, 145-146, 164, 182-183, 186-187 (testimony of Hinaman); Deposition of Randolph Hinaman in No. 12-cv-691 (June 25, 2013), Doc. 134-4, pp. 23-24, 101 (Hinaman Deposition).
In their post-trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the plaintiffs stated that the evidence showed a racial gerrymander with respect to the majority of the majority-minority districts; they referred to the specific splitting of precinct and county lines in the drawing of many majority-minority districts; and they pointed to much district-specific evidence. E.g., Alabama Legislative Black Caucus Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in No. 12-cv-691, Doc. 194, pp. 9-10, 13-14, 30-35, 40 (Caucus Post-Trial Brief); Newton Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in No. 12-cv-691, Doc. 195, pp. 33-35, 56-61, 64-67, 69-74, 82-85, 108, 121-122 (Conference Post-Trial Brief); see also Appendix A, infra(organizing these citations by district).
We recognize that the plaintiffs relied heavily upon statewide evidence to prove that race predominated in the drawing of individual district lines. See generally Caucus Post-Trial Brief 1, 3-7, 48-50; Conference Post-Trial Brief 2, 44-45, 105-106. And they also sought to prove that the use of race to draw the boundaries of the majority-minority districts affected the boundaries of other districts as well. See, e.g., 1 Tr. 36-37, 48, 55, 70-71, 93, 111, 124 (testimony of Dial); 3 Tr. 142, 162 (testimony of Hinaman); see generally Caucus Post-Trial Brief 8-16. Such evidence is perfectly relevant. We have said that the plaintiff's burden in a racial gerrymandering case is "to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district's shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district." Miller,515 U.S., at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475. Cf. Easley v. Cromartie,532 U.S. 234, 258, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001)(explaining the plaintiff's burden in cases, unlike these, in which the State argues that politics, not race, was its predominant motive). That Alabama expressly adopted and applied a policy of prioritizing mechanical racial targets above all other districting criteria (save one-person, one-vote) provides evidence that race motivated the drawing of particular lines in multiple districts in the State. And neither the use of statewide evidence nor the effort to show widespread effect can transform a racial gerrymandering claim about a set of individual districts into a separate, general claim that the legislature racially gerrymandered the State "as" an undifferentiated "whole."
We, like the principal dissent, recognize that the plaintiffs could have presented their district-specific claims more clearly, post,at 1277 - 1278, 1279 - 1280 (opinion of SCALIA, J.), but the dissent properly concedes that its objection would weaken had the Conference "developed such a claim in the course of discovery and trial." Post, at 1277. And that is just what happened.
In the past few pages and in Appendix A, we set forth the many record references that establish this fact. The Caucus helps to explain the complaint omissions when it tells us that the plaintiffs unearthed the factual basis for their racial gerrymandering claims when they deposed the committee's redistricting expert. See Brief for Appellants in No. 13-895, pp. 12-13. The State neither disputes this procedural history nor objects that plaintiffs' pleadings failed to conform with the proof. Indeed, throughout, the plaintiffs litigated these claims not as if they were wholly separate entities but as if they were a team. See, e.g., Caucus Post-Trial Brief 1 ("[We] support the additional claims made by the [Conference] plaintiffs"); but cf. post,at 1275 - 1280 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (treating separately Conference claims from Caucus claims). Thus we, like the dissenting judge below (who also lived with these cases through trial), conclude that the record as a whole shows that the plaintiffs brought, and their argument rested significantly upon, district-specific claims. See 989 F.Supp.2d, at 1313(Thompson, J., dissenting) (construing plaintiffs as also challenging "each majority-Black House and Senate District").
The principal dissent adds that the Conference waived its district-specific claims on appeal. Cf. post,at 1278. But that is not so. When asked specifically about its position at oral argument, the Conference stated that it was relying on statewide evidence to prove its district-specific challenges. Tr. of Oral Arg. 15-16. Its counsel said that "the exact same policy was applied in every black-majority district," id.,at 15, and "[b]y statewide, we simply mean a common policy applied to every district in the State," id.,at 16. We accept the Conference's clarification, which is consistent with how it presented these claims below.
We consequently conclude that the District Court's analysis of racial gerrymandering of the State "as a whole" was legally erroneous. We find that the appellants did not waive their right to consideration of their claims as applied to particular districts. Accordingly, we remand the cases. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint,456 U.S. 273, 291, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982)(remand is required when the District Court "failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law"); Rapanos v. United States,547 U.S. 715, 757, 126 S.Ct. 2208, 165 L.Ed.2d 159 (2006)(same).
III
We next consider the District Court's holding with respect to standing. The District Court, sua sponte,held that the Conference lacked standing-either to bring racial gerrymandering claims with respect to the four individual districts that the court specifically considered (i.e., Senate Districts 7, 11, 22, and 26) or to bring a racial gerrymandering claim with respect to the "State as a whole." 989 F.Supp.2d, at 1292.
The District Court recognized that ordinarily
"[a]n association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when its members would have standing to sue in their own right,the interests at stake are germane to the organization's purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires individuals members' participation in the lawsuit." Id., at 1291(quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.,528 U.S. 167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000); emphasis added).
It also recognized that a "member" of an association "would have standing to sue" in his or her "own right" when that member "resides in the district that he alleges was the product of a racial gerrymander." 989 F.Supp.2d, at 1291(citing Hays,515 U.S., at 744-745, 115 S.Ct. 2431). But, the District Court nonetheless denied standing because it believed that the "record" did "not clearly identify the districts in which the individual members of the [Conference] reside," and the Conference had "not proved that it has members who have standing to pursue any district-specific claims of racial gerrymandering." 989 F.Supp.2d, at 1292.
The District Court conceded that Dr. Joe Reed, a representative of the Conference, testified that the Conference "has members in almost every county in Alabama." Ibid. But, the District Court went on to say that "the counties in Alabama are split into many districts." Ibid. And the "Conference offered no testimony or evidence that it has members in all of the districts in Alabama or in any of the [four] specific districts that it challenged." Ibid.
The record, however, lacks adequate support for the District Court's conclusion. Dr. Reed's testimony supports, and nothing in that record undermines, the Conference's own statement, in its post-trial brief, that it is a "statewide political caucus founded in 1960." Conference Post-Trial Brief 3. It has the "purpose" of "endors[ing] candidates for political office who will be responsible to the needs of the blacks and other minorities and poor people." Id.,at 3-4. These two statements (the second of which the principal dissent ignores), taken together with Dr. Reed's testimony, support an inference that the organization has members in all of the State's majority-minority districts, other things being equal, which is sufficient to meet the Conference's burden of establishing standing. That is to say, it seems highly likely that a "statewide" organization with members in "almost every county," the purpose of which is to help "blacks and other minorities and poor people," will have members in each majority-minority district. But cf. post, at 1275 - 1277 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).
At the very least, the common sense inference is strong enough to lead the Conference reasonably to believe that, in the absence of a state challenge or a court request for more detailed information, it need not provide additional information such as a specific membership list. We have found nothing in the record, nor has the State referred us to anything in the record, that suggests the contrary. Cf. App. 204-205, 208 (State arguing lack of standing, not because of inadequate member residency but because an association "lives" nowhere and that the Conference should join individual members). The most the State argued was that "[n]one of the individual[p]laintiffs [who brought the case with the Conference] claims to live in" Senate District 11, id.,at 205 (emphasis added), but the Conference would likely not have understood that argument as a request that itprovide a membership list. In fact, the Conference might have understood the argument as an indication that the State did not contest its membership in every district.
To be sure, the District Court had an independent obligation to confirm its jurisdiction, even in the absence of a state challenge. See post,at 1276 - 1277 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). But, in these circumstances, elementary principles of procedural fairness required that the District Court, rather than acting sua sponte,give the Conference an opportunity to provide evidence of member residence. Cf. Warth v. Seldin,422 U.S. 490, 501-502, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)(explaining that a court may "allow or [r]equire" a plaintiff to supplement the record to show standing and that "[i]f, after this opportunity,the plaintiff's standing does not adequately appear from all materials of record, the complaint must be dismissed" (emphasis added)). Moreover, we have no reason to believe that the Conference would have been unable to provide a list of members, at least with respect to the majority-minority districts, had it been asked. It has filed just such a list in this Court. See Affidavit of Joe L. Reed Pursuant to this Court's Rule 32.3 (Lodging of Conference affidavit listing members residing in each majority-minority district in the State); see also Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1,551 U.S. 701, 718, 127 S.Ct. 2738, 168 L.Ed.2d 508 (2007)(accepting a lodged affidavit in similar circumstances). Thus, the District Court on remand should reconsider the Conference's standing by permitting the Conference to file its list of members and permitting the State to respond, as appropriate.
IV
The District Court held in the alternative that the claims of racial gerrymandering must fail because "[r]ace was not the predominant motivating factor" in the creation of any of the challenged districts. 989 F.Supp.2d, at 1293. In our view, however, the District Court did not properly calculate "predominance." In particular, it judged race to lack "predominance" in part because it placed in the balance, among other nonracial factors, legislative efforts to create districts of approximately equal population. See, e.g., id., at 1305(the "need to bring the neighboring districts into compliance with the requirement of one person, one vote served as the primary motivating factorfor the changes to [Senate] District 22" (emphasis added)); id., at 1297(the "constitutional requirement of one person, one vote trumped every other districting principle"); id., at 1296(the "record establishes that the drafters of the new districts, above all, had to correct [for] severe malapportionment..."); id., at 1306(the "inclusion of additional precincts [in Senate District 26] is a reasonable response to the underpopulation of the District").
In our view, however, an equal population goal is not one factor among others to be weighed against the use of race to determine whether race "predominates." Rather, it is part of the redistricting background, taken as a given, when determining whether race, or other factors, predominate in a legislator's determination as to how equal population objectives will be met.
To understand this conclusion, recall what "predominance" is about: A plaintiff pursuing a racial gerrymandering claim 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." Miller,515 U.S., at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475. To do so, the "plaintiff must prove that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles... to racial considerations." Ibid. (emphasis added).
Now consider the nature of those offsetting "traditional race-neutral districting principles." We have listed several, including "compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests," ibid., incumbency protection, and political affiliation, Vera,517 U.S., at 964, 968, 116 S.Ct. 1941(principal opinion).
But we have not listed equal population objectives. And there is a reason for that omission. The reason that equal population objectives do not appear on this list of "traditional" criteria is that equal population objectives play a different role in a State's redistricting process. That role is not a minor one. Indeed, in light of the Constitution's demands, that role may often prove "predominant" in the ordinary sense of that word. But, as the United States points out, "predominance" in the context of a racial gerrymandering claim is special. It is not about whether a legislature believes that the need for equal population takes ultimate priority. Rather, it is, as we said, whether the legislature "placed" race "above traditional districting considerations in determining which persons were placed in appropriately apportioned districts." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae19 (some emphasis added). In other words, if the legislature must place 1,000 or so additional voters in a particular district in order to achieve an equal population goal, the "predominance" question concerns which voters the legislature decides to choose, and specifically whether the legislature predominately uses race as opposed to other, "traditional" factors when doing so.
Consequently, we agree with the United States that the requirement that districts have approximately equal populations is a background rule against which redistricting takes place. Id., at 12. It is not a factor to be treated like other nonracial factors when a court determines whether race predominated over other, "traditional" factors in the drawing of district boundaries.
Had the District Court not taken a contrary view of the law, its "predominance" conclusions, including those concerning the four districts that the Conference specifically challenged, might well have been different. For example, once the legislature's "equal population" objectives are put to the side-i.e.,seen as a background principle-then there is strong, perhaps overwhelming, evidence that race did predominate as a factor when the legislature drew the boundaries of Senate District 26, the one district that the parties have discussed here in depth.
The legislators in charge of creating the redistricting plan believed, and told their technical adviser, that a primary redistricting goal was to maintain existing racial percentages in each majority-minority district, insofar as feasible. See supra,at 1278 - 1279 (compiling extensive record testimony in support of this point). There is considerable evidence that this goal had a direct and significant impact on the drawing of at least some of District 26's boundaries. See 3 Tr. 175-180 (testimony of Hinaman); Appendix C, infra(change of district's shape from rectangular to irregular). Of the 15,785 individuals that the new redistricting laws added to the population of District 26, just 36 were white-a remarkable feat given the local demographics. See, e.g., 2 Tr. 127-128 (testimony of Senator Quinton Ross); 3 Tr. 179 (testimony of Hinaman). Transgressing their own redistricting guidelines, Committee Guidelines 3-4, the drafters split seven precincts between the majority-black District 26 and the majority-white District 25, with the population in those precincts clearly divided on racial lines. See Exh. V in Support of Newton Plaintiffs' Opposition to Summary Judgment in No. 12-cv-691, Doc. 140-1, pp. 91-95. And the District Court conceded that race "was a factor in the drawing of District 26," and that the legislature "preserved" "the percentage of the population that was black." 989 F.Supp.2d, at 1306.
We recognize that the District Court also found, with respect to District 26, 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:
|
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 these cases we consider what pretermination process must be accorded a public employee who can be discharged only for cause.
I
In 1979 the Cleveland Board of Education, petitioner in No. 83-1362, hired respondent James Loudermill as a security guard. On his job application, Loudermill stated that he had never been convicted of a felony. Eleven months later, as part of a routine examination of his employment records, the Board discovered that in fact Loudermill had been convicted of grand larceny in 1968. By letter dated November 3, 1980, the Board’s Business Manager informed Loudermill that he had been dismissed because of his dishonesty in filling out the employment application. Loudermill was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the charge of dishonesty or to challenge his dismissal. On November 13, the Board adopted a resolution officially approving the discharge.
Under Ohio law, Loudermill was a “classified civil servant.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §124.11 (1984). Such employees can be terminated only for cause, and may obtain administrative review if discharged. § 124.34. Pursuant to this provision, Loudermill filed an appeal with the Cleveland Civil Service Commission on November 12. The Commission appointed a referee, who held a hearing on January 29, 1981. Loudermill argued that he had thought that his 1968 larceny conviction was for a misdemeanor rather than a felony. The referee recommended reinstatement. On July 20, 1981, the full Commission heard argument and orally announced that it would uphold the dismissal. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law followed on August 10, and Loudermill’s attorneys were advised of the result by mail on August 21.
Although the Commission’s decision was subject to judicial review in the state courts, Loudermill instead brought the present suit in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleged that § 124.34 was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide the employee an opportunity to respond to the charges against him prior to removal. As a result, discharged employees were deprived of liberty and property without due process. The complaint also alleged that the provision was unconstitutional as applied because discharged employees were not given sufficiently prompt postremoval hearings.
Before a responsive pleading was filed, the District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). It held that because the very statute that created the property right in continued employment also specified the procedures for discharge, and because those procedures were followed, Loudermill was, by definition, afforded all the process due. The post-termination hearing also adequately protected Loudermill’s liberty interests. Finally, the District Court concluded that, in light of the Commission’s crowded docket, the delay in processing Loudermill’s administrative appeal was constitutionally acceptable. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 83-1362, pp. A36-A42.
The other case before us arises on similar facts and followed a similar course. Respondent Richard Donnelly was a bus mechanic for the Parma Board of Education. In August 1977, Donnelly was fired because he had failed an eye examination. He was offered a chance to retake the examination but did not do so. Like Loudermill, Donnelly appealed to the Civil Service Commission. After a year of wrangling about the timeliness of his appeal, the Commission heard the case. It ordered Donnelly reinstated, though without backpay. In a complaint essentially identical to Louder-mill’s, Donnelly challenged the constitutionality of the dismissal procedures. The District Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, relying on its opinion in Loudermill.
The District Court denied a joint motion to alter or amend its judgment, and the cases were consolidated for appeal. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. 721 P. 2d 550 (1983). After rejecting arguments that the actions were barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies and by res judicata — arguments that are not renewed here — the Court of Appeals found that both respondents had been deprived of due process. It disagreed with the District Court’s original rationale. Instead, it concluded that the compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. Id., at 56Í-562. With regard to the alleged deprivation of liberty, and Loudermill’s 9-month wait for an administrative decision, the court affirmed the District Court, finding no constitutional violation. Id., at 563-564.
The dissenting judge argued that respondents’ property-interests were conditioned by the procedural limitations accompanying the grant thereof. He considered constitutional requirements satisfied because there was a reliable pre-termination finding of “cause,” coupled with a due process hearing at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Id., at 566.
Both employers petitioned for certiorari. Nos. 83-1362 and 83-1363. In a cross-petition, Loudermill sought review of the rulings adverse to him. No. 83-6392. We granted all three petitions, 467 U. S. 1204 (1984), and now affirm in all respects.
II
Respondents’ federal constitutional claim depends on their having had a property right in continued employment. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 576-578 (1972); Reagan v. United States, 182 U. S. 419, 425 (1901). If they did, the State could not deprive them of this property without due process. See Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1978); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565, 573-574 (1975).
Property interests are not created by the Constitution, “they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law . . . .” Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 577. See also Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 709 (1976). The Ohio statute plainly creates such an interest. Respondents were “classified civil service employees,” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 124.11 (1984), entitled to retain their positions “during good behavior and efficient service,” who could not be dismissed “except . . . for . . . misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office,” § 124.34. The statute plainly supports the conclusion, reached by both lower courts, that respondents possessed property rights in continued employment. Indeed, this question does not seem to have been disputed below.
The Parma Board argues, however, that the property right is defined by, and conditioned on, the legislature’s choice of procedures for its deprivation. Brief for Petitioner in No. 83-1363, pp. 26-27. The Board stresses that in addition to specifying the grounds for termination, the statute sets out procedures by which termination may take place. The procedures were adhered to in these cases. According to petitioner, “[t]o require additional procedures would in effect expand the scope of the property interest itself.” Id., at 27. See also Brief for State of Ohio et al. as Amici Curiae 5-10.
This argument, which was accepted by the District Court, has its genesis in the plurality opinion in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (1974). Arnett involved a challenge by a former federal employee to the procedures by which he was dismissed. The plurality reasoned that where the legislation conferring the substantive right also sets out the procedural mechanism for enforcing that right, the two cannot be separated:
“The employee’s statutorily defined right is not a guar-' antee against removal without cause in the abstract, but such a guarantee as enforced by the procedures which Congress has designated for the determination of cause.
“[WJhere the grant of a substantive right is inextricably intertwined with the limitations on the procedures which are to be employed in determining that right, a litigant in the position of appellee must take the bitter with the sweet.” Id., at 152-154.
This view garnered three votes in Arnett, but was specifically rejected by the other six Justices. See id., at 166-167 (Powell, J., joined by Blackmun, J.,); id., at 177-178, 185 (White, J.,); id., at 211 (Marshall, J., joined by Douglas and Brennan, JJ.). Since then, this theory has at times seemed to gather some additional support. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 355-361 (1976) (White, J., dissenting); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S., at 586-587 (Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Blackmun and Rehnquist, JJ., dissenting). More recently, however, the Court has clearly rejected it. In Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 491 (1980), we pointed out that “minimum [procedural] requirements [are] a matter of federal law, they are not diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action.” This conclusion was reiterated in Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U. S. 422, 432 (1982), where we reversed the lower court’s holding that because the entitlement arose from a state statute, the legislature had the prerogative to define the procedures to be followed to protect that entitlement.
In light of these holdings, it is settled that the “bitter with the sweet” approach misconceives the constitutional guarantee. If a clearer holding is needed, we provide it today. The point is straightforward: the Due Process Clause provides that certain substantive rights — life, liberty, and property — cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. The categories of substance and procedure are distinct. Were the rule otherwise, the Clause would be reduced to a mere tautology. “Property” cannot be defined by the procedures provided for its deprivation any more than can life or liberty. The right to due process “is conferred, not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee. While the legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in [public] employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards.” Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, at 167 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in result in part); see id., at 185 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In short, once it is determined that the Due Process Clause applies, “the question remains what process is due.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972). The answer to that question is not to be found in the Ohio statute.
1 — i HH ) — I
An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property “be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). We have described “the root requirement” of the Due Process Clause as being “that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 379 (1971) (emphasis in original); see Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 542 (1971). This principle requires “some kind of a hearing” prior to the discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S., at 569-570; Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 599 (1972). As we pointed out last Term, this rule has been settled for some time now. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U. S. 183, 192, n. 10 (1984); id., at 200-203 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Even decisions finding no constitutional violation in termination procedures have relied on the existence of some pretermination opportunity to respond. For example, in Arnett six Justices found constitutional min-ima satisfied where the employee had access to the material upon which the charge was based and could respond orally and in writing and present rebuttal affidavits. See also Barry v. Barchi, 443 U. S. 55, 65 (1979) (no due process violation where horse trainer whose license was suspended “was given more than one opportunity to present his side of the story”).
The need for some form of pretermination hearing, recognized in these cases, is evident from a balancing of the competing interests at stake. These are the private interest in retaining employment, the governmental interest in the expeditious removal of unsatisfactory employees and the avoidance of administrative burdens, and the risk of an erroneous termination. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976).
First, the significance of the private interest in retaining employment cannot be gainsaid. We have frequently recognized the severity of depriving a person of the means of livelihood. See Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379, 389 (1975); Bell v. Burson, supra, at 539; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 264 (1970); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337, 340 (1969). While a fired worker may find employment elsewhere, doing so will take some time and is likely to be burdened by the questionable circumstances under which he left his previous job. See Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U. S. 70, 83-84 (1973).
Second, some opportunity for the employee to present his side of the case is recurringly of obvious value in reaching an accurate decision. Dismissals for cause will often involve factual disputes. Cf. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 686 (1979). Even where the facts are clear, the appropriateness or necessity of the discharge may not be; in such cases, the only meaningful opportunity to invoke the discretion of the decisionmaker is likely to be before the termination takes effect. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S., at 583-584; Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778, 784-786 (1973).
The cases before us illustrate these considerations. Both respondents had plausible arguments to make that might have prevented their discharge. The fact that the Commission saw fit to reinstate Donnelly suggests that an error might have been avoided had he been provided an opportunity to make his case to the Board. As for Loudermill, given the Commission’s ruling we cannot say that the discharge was mistaken. Nonetheless, in light of the referee’s recommendation, neither can we say that a fully informed decision-maker might not have exercised its discretion and decided not to dismiss him, notwithstanding its authority to do so. In any event, the termination involved arguable issues, and the right to a hearing does not depend on a demonstration of certain success. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 266 (1978).
The governmental interest in immediate termination does not outweigh these interests. As we shall explain, affording the employee an opportunity to respond prior to termination would impose neither a significant administrative burden nor intolerable delays. Furthermore, the employer shares the employee’s interest in avoiding disruption and erroneous decisions; and until the matter is settled, the employer would continue to receive the benefit of the employee’s labors. It is preferable to keep a qualified employee on than to train a new one. A governmental employer also has an interest in keeping citizens usefully employed rather than taking the possibly erroneous and counterproductive step of forcing its employees onto the welfare rolls. Finally, in those situations where the employer perceives a significant hazard in keeping the employee on the job, it can avoid the problem by suspending with pay.
IV
The foregoing considerations indicate that the pretermination “hearing,” though necessary, need not be elaborate. We have pointed out that “[t]he formality and procedural requisites for the hearing can vary, depending upon the importance of the interests involved and the nature of the subsequent proceedings.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S., at 378. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 894-895 (1961). In general, “something less” than a full evi-dentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 343. Under state law, respondents were later entitled to a full administrative hearing and judicial review. The only question is what steps were required before the termination took effect.
In only one case, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), has the Court required a full adversarial evidentiary hearing prior to adverse governmental action. However, as the Goldberg Court itself pointed out, see id., at 264, that case presented significantly different considerations than are present in the context of public employment. Here, the pre-termination hearing need not definitively resolve the propriety of the discharge. It should be an initial check against mistaken decisions — essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S., at 540.
The essential requirements of due process, and all that respondents seek or the Court of Appeals required, are notice and an opportunity to respond. The opportunity to present reasons, either in person or in writing, why proposed action should not.be taken is a fundamental due process requirement. See Friendly, “Some Kind of Hearing,” 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1281 (1975). The tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S., at 170-171 (opinion of Powell, J.); id., at 195-196 (opinion of White, J.); see also Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S., at 581. To require more than this prior to termination would intrude to an unwarranted extent on the government’s interest in quickly removing an unsatisfactory employee.
V
Our holding rests in part on the provisions in Ohio law for a full post-termination hearing. In his cross-petition Louder-mill asserts, as a separate constitutional violation, that his administrative proceedings took too long. The Court of Appeals held otherwise, and we agree. The Due Process Clause requires provision of a hearing “at a meaningful time.” E. g., Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965). At some point, a delay in the post-termination hearing would become a constitutional violation. See Barry v. Barchi, 443 U. S., at 66. In the present case, however, the complaint merely recites the course of proceedings and concludes that the denial of a “speedy resolution” violated due process. App. 10. This reveals nothing about the delay except that it stemmed in part from the thoroughness of the procedures. A 9-month adjudication is not, of course, unconstitutionally lengthy per se. Yet Loudermill offers no indication that his wait was unreasonably prolonged other than the fact that, it took nine months. The chronology of the proceedings set out in the complaint, coupled with the assertion that nine months is too long to wait, does not state a claim of a constitutional deprivation.
VI
We conclude that all the process that is due is provided by a pretermination opportunity to respond, coupled with post-termination administrative procedures as provided by the Ohio statute. Because respondents allege in their complaints that they had no chance to respond, the District Court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The statute authorizes the Commission to “affirm, disaffirm, or modify the judgment of the appointing authority.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 124.34 (1984). Petitioner Parma Board of Education interprets this as authority to reinstate with or without backpay and views the Commission’s decision as a compromise. Brief for Petitioner in No. 83-1363, p. 6, n. 3; Tr. of Oral. Arg. 14. The Court of Appeals, however, stated that the Commission lacked the power to award backpay. 721 F. 2d 550, 554, n. 3 (1983). As the decision of the Commission is not in the record, we are unable to determine the reasoning behind it.
In denying the motion, the District Court no longer relied on the principle that the state legislature could define the necessary procedures in the course of creating the property right. Instead, it reached the same result under a balancing test based on Justice Powell’s concurring opinion in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 168-169 (1974), and the Court’s opinion in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976). App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 83-1362, pp. A54-A57.
Of course, the Due Process Clause also protects interests of life and liberty. The Court of Appeals’ finding of a constitutional violation was based solely on the deprivation of a property interest. We address below Loudermill’s contention that he has been unconstitutionally deprived of liberty. See n. 13, infra.
The relevant portion of § 124.34 provides that no classified civil servant may be removed except “for ineompetency, inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, violation of such sections or the rules of the director of administrative services or the commission, or any other failure of good behavior, or any other acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, or non-feasance in office.”
The Cleveland Board of Education now asserts that Loudermill had no property right under state law because he obtained his employment by lying on the application. It argues that had Loudermill answered truthfully he would not have been hired. He therefore lacked a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to the position. Brief for Petitioner in No. 83-1362, pp. 14-15.
For several reasons, we must reject this submission. First, it was not raised below. Second, it makes factual assumptions — that Loudermill lied, and that he would not have been hired had he not done so — that are inconsistent with the allegations of the complaint and inappropriate at this stage of the litigation, which has not proceeded past the initial pleadings stage. Finally, the argument relies on a retrospective fiction inconsistent with the undisputed fact that Loudermill was hired and did hold the security guard job. The Board cannot escape its constitutional obligations by rephrasing the basis for termination as a reason why Loudermill should not have been hired in the first place.
After providing for dismissal only for cause, see n. 4, supra, § 124.34 states that the dismissed employee is to be provided with a copy of the order of removal giving the reasons therefor. Within 10 days of the filing of the order with the Director of Administrative Services, the employee may file a written appeal with the State Personnel Board of Review or the Commission. “In the event such an appeal is filed, the board or commission shall forthwith notify the appointing authority and shall hear, or appoint a trial board to hear, such appeal within thirty days from and after its filing with the board or commission, and it may affirm, disaffirm, or modify the judgment of the appointing authority.” Either side may obtain review of the Commission’s decision in the State Court of Common Pleas.
There are, of course, some situations in which a postdeprivation hearing will satisfy due process requirements. See Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U. S. 594 (1950); North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306 (1908).
This is not to say that where state conduct is entirely discretionary the Due Process Clause is brought into play. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 228 (1976). Nor is it to say that a person can insist on a hearing in order to argue that the decisionmaker should be lenient and depart from legal requirements. See Dixon v. Love, 431 U. S. 105, 114 (1977). The point is that where there is an entitlement, a prior hearing facilitates the consideration of whether a permissible course of action is also an appropriate one. This is one way in which providing “effective notice and informal hearing permitting the [employee] to give his version of the events will provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action. At least the [employer] will be alerted to the existence of disputes about facts and arguments about cause and effect. . . . [H]is discretion will be more informed and we think the risk of error substantially reduced.” Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S., at 583-584.
Loudermill’s dismissal turned not on the objective fact that he was an ex-felon or the inaccuracy of his statement to the contrary, but on the subjective question whether he had lied on his application form. His explanation for the false statement is plausible in light of the fact that he received only a suspended 6-month sentence and a fine on the grand larceny conviction. Tr. of Oral Arg. 35.
In the cases before us, no such danger seems to have existed. The examination Donnelly failed was related to driving school buses, not repairing them. Id., at 39-40. As the Court of Appeals stated, “[n]o emergency was even conceivable with respect to Donnelly.” 721 F. 2d, at 562. As for Loudermill, petitioner states that “to find that we have a person who is an ex-felon as our security guard is very distressful to us.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 19. But the termination was based on the presumed misrepresentation on the employment form, not on the felony conviction. In fact, Ohio law provides that an employee “shall not be disciplined for acts,” including criminal convictions, occurring more than two years previously. See Ohio Admin. Code §124-3-04 (1979). Petitioner concedes that Loudermill’s job performance was fully satisfactory.
LoudermilPs hearing before the referee occurred two and one-half months after he filed his appeal. The Commission issued its written decision six and one-half months after that. Administrative proceedings in Donnelly’s case, once it was determined that they could proceed at all, were swifter. A writ of mandamus requiring the Commission to hold a hearing was issued on May 9, 1978; the hearing took place on May 30; the order of reinstatement was issued on July 6.
Section 124.34 provides that a hearing is to be held within 30 days of the appeal, though the Ohio courts have ruled that the time limit is not mandatory. E. g., In re Bronkar, 53 Ohio Misc. 13, 17, 372 N. E. 2d 1345, 1347 (Com. PI. 1977). The statute does not provide a time limit for the actual decision.
It might be argued that once we find a due process violation in the denial of a pretermination hearing we need not and should not consider whether the post-termination procedures were adequate. See Barry v. Barchi, 443 U. S. 55, 72-74 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part). We conclude that it is appropriate to consider this issue, however, for three reasons. First, the allegation of a distinct due process violation in the administrative delay is not an alternative theory supporting the same relief, but a separate claim altogether. Second, it was decided by the court below and is raised in the cross-petition. Finally, the existence of post-termination procedures is relevant to the necessary scope of pre-termination procedures.
The cross-petition also argues that Loudermill was unconstitutionally deprived of liberty because of the accusation of dishonesty that hung over his head during the administrative proceedings. As the Court of Appeals found, 721 F. 2d, at 563, n. 18, the failure to allege that the reasons for the dismissal were published dooms this claim. See Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 348 (1976).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri affirming a decree, which enjoined the appellants from continuing a strike against a St. Louis public utility. The judgment upheld the constitutionality of certain provisions of a Missouri law, commonly known as the King-Thomps'on Act, which authorizes the Governor on behalf of the State to take possession of and operate a public utility affected by a work stoppage when in his opinion “the public interest, health and welfare are jeopardized/' and “the exercise of such authority is necessary to insure the operation of such public utility.”
In the state courts and in this Court the appellants have contended that the Missouri law conflicts with federal legislation enacted under the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution, and that ifviolates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of doubt as to whether the controversy was moot, we postponed further consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing of the case on the merits. 359 U. S. 982.
The appellants áre labor unions which represent employees of the Laclede Gas Company, a corporation engaged .in the business of selling natural gas in the St. Louis area. In the spring of 1956 the appellants notified Laclede of their desire to negotiate changes in the terms of the collective bargaining agreement which was to expire in that year! Extended negotiations were conducted, but no new agreement was reached, and upon expiration of the existing contract on June 30, 1956, the employees went out on strike.
Five days later the Governor of Missouri issued a proclamation stating that after investigation he believed that the public interest, health, and welfare were in jeopardy, and that seizure under authority of the state law was necessary to insure the company’s continued operation. In an executive order issued the same day the Governor took “possession” of Laclede “for the use and operation by the State of Missouri in the public interest.” A second executive order provided that all the “rules and regulations . . . governing the internal management and organization of the company, and its duties and responsibilities, shall remain in force and effect throughout the term of operation by the State of Missouri.”
After the seizure the appellants continued the strike in violation of the statute, and the State of Missouri filed suit for an injunction against them in the Circuit Court of St. Louis. At the end of a three-day hearing the trial court entered an order enjoining the appellants from continuing the strike, and in an amendment to the decree declared the entire King-Thompson Act constitutional and valid. On July 14, 1956, the day after the injunction issued, the strike was terminated. On August 1Ó, 1956, the appellants and Laclede signed a new labor agreement, and on October 31, 1956, the Governor ended the seizure.
On appeal the Supreme Court of Missouri, although noting that the injunction had “expired by its own terms,” nevertheless proceeded to consider the merits of certain of the appellants’ contentions. The court restricted its consideration, however, to those sections of the King-Thompson Act “directly involved” — “Section 295.180, relating to the power of seizure, and subparagraphs (1) and (6) of Section 295.200 RSMo, V.A.M.S., making unlawful a strike or concerted refusal to work after seizure and giving the state courts power to enforce the provisions of the Act by injunction or other means.” 317 S. W. 2d, at 316. In upholding the constitutionality of these sections of the Act, the court explicitly declined to pass on other provisions which the appellants sought to attack, stating: “The sections which we have considered are severable from and may stand independently of the remainder of the Act. Although the defendants argue strenuously to the contrary, no case is made in this record for determination of the constitutionality of section 295.090, pertaining to a written labor agreement of a minimum duration and section 295.200, subparagraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, relating to monetary penalties and loss of seniority. We, therefore, refrain ffom expressing any opinion with reference thereto.” 317 S. W. 2d, at 323. Accordingly, the court “limited and modified” the judgment of the trial court so as to remove all possible intimation that any provisions of the Act had been held constitutional, other than those necessarily upheld in sustaining the validity of the injunction.
Because that injunction has long since “expired by its own terms,” we cannot escape the conclusion that there remain for this Court no “actual matters in controversy essential to the decision of the particular case before it.” United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U. S. 113, 116. Whatever the practice in the courts of Missouri, the duty of this Court “is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653. See Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U. S. 416. To express an opinion upon the merits of the appellants’ contentions would be to ignore this basic limitation upon the duty and function of the Court, and to disregard principles of judicial administration long established and repeatedly followed.
In Harris v. Battle, 348 U. S. 803, these principles were given concrete application in a context so parallel as explicitly to control disposition of the primary issue here. That case originated as an action to enjoin the enforcement of a Virginia statute, markedly similar to the King-Thompson Act, under which the Governor had ordered that “possession” be taken of a transit company whose employees were on strike. Although. the labor dispute was subsequently settled and the seizure terminated, the trial court nevertheless proceeded to decide the merits of the case, holding that the seizure was constitutional. Harris v. Battle, 32 L. R. R. M. 83. The Virginia Supreme Court refused an appeal. Harris v. Battle, 195 Va. lxxxviii. In this Court it was urged that the controversy was not moot because of the continuing threat of state seizure in future labor disputes. It was argued that the State’s abandonment of alleged unconstitutional activity after its objective had been accomplished should not be permitted to forestall decision as to the .validity of the statute under which the State had purported to act. It was contended that the situation was akin to cases like Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U. S. 498, 514-516. In finding that the controversy was moot, the Court necessarily rejected all these contentions. 348 U. S. 803. Upon the authority of that decision the same contentions must be rejected in the present case. See also Barker Co. v. Painters Union, 281 U. S. 462; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360.
However, as the appellants point out, the decision in Harris v. Battle is not completely dispositive here because, unlike the Virginia statute, the King-Thompson Act contains provisions which impose: (1) monetary penalties upon labor unions'which continue a strike after seizure; and (2) loss of seniority for employees participating in such a strike. The Missouri court found that these separable provisions of the Act were not involved in the present case, and it carefully refrained from passing on their validity. The court noted that liability for monetary penalties had been asserted in a separate lawsuit, 317 S. W. 2d, at 314, and the parties have informed us that the action is still pending in the state courts.
We cannot agree that the pendency of that litigation gives life to the present appeal. When that claim is litigated it will be subject to review, but it is not for us now ' to anticipate its outcome. “ ‘Constitutional questions are not to be dealt with abstractly’. : . . They will not be anticipated. but will be dealt with only as they are appropriately raised upon a record before us. . . . Nor will we assume in advance that a State will so'construe its law as to bring it into conflict with the federal Constitution or an act of Congress.” Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Board, 315 U. S. 740, at 746.
■ The guiding principle is well illustrated in American Book Co. v. Kansas,. 193 U. S. 49. There the Kansas Supreme Court had ousted the appellant from doing business in the State until it complied with provisions of the local law governing foreign corporations. Pending appeal the appellant satisfied the judgment by complying with the requirements of the statute; But meanwhile the State had brought another action against the appellant to void contracts it had made prior to the date of its compliance. Because of this pending litigation the. appellant argued that “‘there still exists a controversy, undeter-, mined and unsettled,’ involving the right of the State to enforce the statute against a corporation engaged in interstate commerce.” 193 U. S., at 51. What the Court said in rejecting that argument and dismissing the appeal as' moot is entirely "elevan t here. “ [T]hat suit is not before us. We have not now jurisdiction of it or its issues. Our power only extends over and is limited by the conditions of the case now before us.” 193 U. S., at 52. See Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U. S. 528.
The asserted threat to the seniority rights of Laclede employees is even more speculative. Almost four years have passed since the strike, and the appellants concede that no action has been taken to deprive any employees of their seniority. Moreover, the section of the Act which relates to seniority rights imposes no legal sanctions on the employees or their unions, but makes unlawful only the action of the utility company which rehires the employees without loss of seniority. In the unlikely event'that a . legal proceeding should now be brought against Laclede for having done so, there is no way to know what the outcome of such a proceeding in the Missouri courts might be.
The decision we are asked to review upheld only the validity of an injunction, an injunction that expired by its own terms more than three years ago. Any judgment of ours at this late date “would be wholly ineffectual for want of a subject matter on which it could operate. An affirmance would ostensibly require something to be done which had'already taken place. A reversal would ostensibly avoid an event which had already passed beyond recall. One tyould be as vain as the other. To adjudicate a cause which no longer exists is á proceeding which this Court uniformly has declined to entertain.” Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216, 217-218.
The' judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is vacated, and the cause is remanded for such proceedings as by that court may be deemed appropriate.
Vacated and remanded.
The King-Thompson Act is Chapter 295 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1949. The section of the statute which authorizes seizure by the Governor on behalf of the State is Mo. Rev. Stat., 1949, § 295.180.
All employees represented by the appellants, approximately 2,200, participated in the strike; approximately 300 supervisors and others not in the bargaining units represented by the appellants remained at work.
Missouri Rev. Stat., 1949, §295.200, par. 1, provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person, employee, or representative as defined in this chapter to call, incite, support or participate in any strike or concerted refusal to work for any utility or for the state after any plant, equipment or facility has been taken over by the state under this chapter, as means of enforcing any demands against the utility or against the state.”
Missouri Rev. Stat., 1949, § 295.200, par. 6, provides: “The courts of this state shall have power to enforce by injunction or other legal or equitable, remedies any provision of this chapter' or any rule or regulation prescribed by the governor hereunder.”
See notes R“'3 and 4, supra.
The court did reaffirm an earlier decision (State ex rel. State Board of Mediation v. Pigg, 362 Mo. 798; 244 S. W. 2d 75) upholding the constitutionality of provisions of the King-Thompson Act relating to the State Board of Mediation and public hearing panels, “[t]o the extent that those sections are a necessary predicate for the additional sections . . . with which we are now concerned . . . .” 317 S. W. 2d, at 315.
See, e. g., Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696; California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U. S. 49; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360; United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U. S. 113; Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U. S. 528; Barker Co. v. Painters Union, 281 U. S. 462.
See jurisdictional statement in Harris v. Battle, No. 111, O. T. 1954, pp. 12-13.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Missouri Rev. Stat., 1949, § 295.200, par. 3, provides: “Any labor organization or labor union which violates paragraph 1 of this section shall forfeit and pay to the state of Missouri for the use of the public school fund of the state, the sum of ten thousand dollars for each day any work stoppage resulting from any strike which it has called, incited, or supported, continues, to be recovered by civil action in the name of the state and against the labor organization or labor union in its commonly used name.”
Missouri Rev. Stat., 1949, §295.200, par. 2, provides: “It shall be unlawful for any public utility to employ any person or employee who has violated paragraph 1 of this section except that such person or employee may be employed only as a new employee.”
See pp. 366-367, supra. Since neither the statutory penalties nor possible loss of seniority turns on the validity of the injunction, this case is quite unlike Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U. S. 383, where the very judgment in controversy imposed financial liability. Nor did this case involve a “perpetual” injunction. See Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U. S. 416, n., at 417-418.
See note 12, supra. ■
The appellee asserts and the appellants do not deny that the statute imposes no penalty for violation of the seniority provisions.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mb. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In I960, the President, acting under the authority of Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, of the Constitution, commuted petitioner Maurice L. Schick’s sentence from death to life imprisonment, subject to the condition that he would not thereafter be eligible for parole. The petitioner challenges the validity of the condition, and we granted certiorari to determine the enforceability of that commutation as so conditioned.
The pertinent facts are undisputed. In 1964 petitioner, then a master sergeant in the United States Army stationed in Japan, was tried before a court-martial for the brutal murder of an eight-year-old girl. He admitted the killing, but contended that he was insane at the time that he committed it. Medical opinion differed on this point. Defense experts testified that petitioner could neither distinguish between right and wrong nor adhere to the right when he killed the girl; a board of psychiatrists testifying on behalf of the prosecution concluded that petitioner was suffering from a nonpsychotic behavior disorder and was mentally aware of and able to control his actions. The court-martial rejected petitioner’s defense and he was sentenced to death on March 27, 1954, pursuant to Art. 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. § 918. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by an Army Board of Review and, following a remand for consideration of additional psychiatric reports, by the Court of Military Appeals. 7 U. S. C. M. A. 419, 22 C. M. R. 209 (1956).
The case was then forwarded to President Eisenhower for final review as required by Art. 71 (a) of the UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 871 (a). The President acted on March 25, 1960:
“[PJursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, the sentence to be put to death is hereby commuted to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances becoming due on and after the date of this action, and confinement at hard labor for the term of his [petitioner’s] natural life. This commutation of sentence is expressly made on the condition that the said Maurice L. Schick shall never have any rights, privileges, claims, or benefits arising under the parole and suspension or remission of sentence laws of the United States and the regulations promulgated thereunder governing Federal prisoners confined in any civilian or military penal institution (18 U. S. C. 4201 et seq., 10 USC 3662 et seq., 10 USC 871, 874), or any acts amendatory or supplementary thereof.” App. 35.
The action of the President substituted a life sentence for the death sentence imposed in 1954, subject to the conditions described in the commutation. Petitioner was accordingly discharged from the Army and transferred to the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pa. He has now served 20 years of his sentence. Had he originally received a sentence of life imprisonment he would have been eligible for parole consideration in March 1969; the condition in the President’s order of commutation barred parole at any time.
In 1971, while appeals challenging the validity of the death penalty were pending in this Court, petitioner filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require the members of the United States Board of Parole to consider him for parole. The District Court granted the Board of Parole’s motion for summary-judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, unanimously upholding the President’s power to commute a sentence upon condition that the prisoner not be paroled. In addition, it rejected by a 2-1 vote petitioner’s argument that Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, decided on June 29, 1972, requires that he be resentenced to a simple life term, the alternative punishment for murder under Art. 118. 157 U. S. App. D. C. 263, 483 F. 2d 1266. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
When the death sentence was imposed in 1954 it was, as petitioner concedes, valid under the Constitution of the United States and subject only to final action by the President. Absent the commutation of March 25, 1960, the sentence could, and in all probability would, have been carried out prior to 1972. Only the President’s action in commuting the sentence under his Art. II powers, on the conditions stipulated, prevented execution of the sentence imposed by the court-martial.
The essence of petitioner’s case is that, in light-of this Court’s holding in Furman v. Georgia, supra, which he could not anticipate, he made a “bad bargain” by accepting a no-parole condition in place of a death sentence. He does not cast his claim in those terms, of course. Rather, he argues that the conditions attached to the commutation put him in a worse position than he would have been in had he contested his death sentence — and remained alive — until the Furman case was decided 18 years after, that sentence was originally imposed.
It is correct that pending death sentences not carried out prior to Furman were thereby set aside without conditions such as were attached to petitioner’s-commutation. However, petitioner’s death sentence was not pending in 1972 because it had long since been commuted. The question here is whether Furman must now be read as nullifying the condition attached to that commutation when it was granted in 1960. Alternatively, petitioner argues that even in 1960 President Eisenhower exceeded his powers under Art. II by imposing a condition not expressly authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In sum, petitioner’s claim gives rise to three questions: First, was the conditional commutation of his death sentence lawful in I960; second, if so, did Furman retroactively void such conditions; and third, does that case apply to death sentences imposed by military courts where the asserted vagaries of juries are not present as in other criminal cases? Our disposition of the case will make it unnecessary to reach the third question.
II
The express power of Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, from which the Presidential power to commute criminal sentences derives, is to “grant Reprieves and Pardons . .. except in Cases of Impeachment.” Although the authors of this clause surely did not act thoughtlessly, neither did they devote extended debate to its meaning. This can be explained in large part by the fact that the draftsmen were well acquainted with the English Crown authority to alter and reduce punishments as it existed in 1787. The history of that power, which was centuries old, reveals a gradual contraction to avoid its abuse and misuse. Changes were made as potential or actual abuses were perceived; for example, Parliament restricted the power to grant a pardon to one who transported a prisoner overseas to evade the Habeas Corpus Act, because to allow such pardons would drain the Great Writ of its vitality. There were other limits, but they were few in number and similarly specifically defined.
At the time of the drafting and adoption of our Constitution it was considered elementary that the prerogative of the English Crown could be exercised upon conditions:
“It seems agreed, That the king may extend his mercy on what terms he pleases, and consequently may annex to his pardon any condition that he thinks fit, whether precedent or subsequent, on the performance whereof the validity of the pardon will depend.” 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 557 (6th ed. 1787).
Various types of conditions, both penal and nonpenal in nature, were employed. For example, it was common for a pardon or commutation to be granted on condition that the felon be transported to another place, and indeed our own Colonies were the recipients of numerous subjects .of “banishment.” This practice was never questioned despite the fact that British subjects generally could not be' forced to leave the realm without an Act of Parliament and banishment was rarely authorized as a punishment for crime. The idea later developed that the subject’s consent to transportation was necessary, but in most cases he was simply “agreeing” that his life should be spared. Thus, the requirement of consent was a legal fiction at best; in reality, by granting pardons or commutations conditional upon banishment, the Crown was exercising a power that was the equivalent and completely independent of legislative authorization. 11 W. Holds-worth, History of English Law 569-575 (1938). In short, by 1787 the English prerogative to pardon was unfettered except for a few specifically enumerated limitations.
The history of our executive pardoning power reveals a consistent pattern of adherence to the English common-law practice. The records of the Constitutional Convention, as noted earlier, reveal little discussion or debate on § 2, cl. 1, of Art. II. The first report of the Committee on Detail proposed that the pertinent clause read: “He [the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons; but his pardon shall not be pleadable in bar of an impeachment.” This limitation as to impeachments tracked a similar restriction upon the English royal prerogative which existed in 1787. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *399-400. An effort was made in the Convention to amend what finally emerged as § 2, cl. 1, and is reflected in James Madison’s Journal for August 25, 1787, where the following note appears:
“Mr. Sherman moved to amend the ‘power to grant reprieves and pardons’ so as to read ‘to grant reprieves until the next session of the Senate, and pardons with consent of the Senate.’ ” 2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 419 (1911).,
The proposed amendment was rejected by a vote of 8-1. Ibid. This action confirms that, as in England in 1787, the pardoning power was intended to be generally free from legislative control.
Later Edmund Randolph proposed to add the words “ ‘except cases of treason.’ ” Madison’s description of Randolph’s argument reflects familiarity with the English form and practice: “The prerogative of pardon in these [treason] cases was too great a trust.” Id., at 626 (emphasis added). Randolph’s proposal was rejected by a vote of 8-2, and the clause was adopted in its present form. Thereafter, Hamilton’s Federalist No. 69 summarized the proposed § 2 powers, including the power to pardon, as “resembl[ing] equally that of the King of Great-Britain and the Governor of New-York.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 464 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).
We see, therefore, that the draftsmen of Art. II, § 2, spoke in terms of a “prerogative” of the President, which ought not be “fettered or embarrassed.” In light of the English common law from which such language was drawn, the conclusion is inescapable that the pardoning power was intended to include the power to commute sentences on conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution, but which are not specifically provided for by statute.
The few cases decided in this area are consistent with the view of the power described above. In United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 (1833), this Court was confronted with the question of whether a pardon must be pleaded in order to be effective. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall held for the Court that it must, because that was the English common-law practice:
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Id., at 160.
Similarly, in Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307 (1856), the petitioner had been convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged. President Fillmore granted a pardon “ 'upon condition that he be imprisoned during his natural life; that is, the sentence of death is hereby commuted to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary of Washington.’ ” Id., at 308. Later, Wells sought release by habeas corpus, contending that the condition annexed to the pardon and accepted by him was illegal. His argument was remarkably similar to that made by petitioner here:
“[A] President granting such a pardon assumes a power not conferred by the constitution — that he legislates a new punishment into existence, and sentences the convict to suffer it; in this way violating the legislative and judicial powers of the government, it being the province of the first, to enact laws for the punishment of offences . . . , and that of the judiciary, to sentence .. . according to them.” Id., at 309.
However, the Court was not persuaded. After an extensive review of the English common law and that of the States, which need not be repeated here, it concluded:
“The real language of [Art. II, § 2, cl. 1] is general, that is, common to the class of pardons, or extending the power to pardon to all kinds of pardons known in the law as such, whatever may be their denomination. We have shown that a conditional pardon is one of them. . . .
“In this view of the constitution, by giving to its words their proper meaning, the power to pardon conditionally is not one of inference at all, but one conferred in terms.
“. . . [T]he power to offer a condition, without ability to enforce its acceptance, when accepted by the convict, is the substitution, by himself, of a lesser punishment than the law has imposed upon him, and he cannot complain if the law executes the choice he has made.
“ ‘. . . And a man condemned to be hung cannot be permitted to escape the punishment altogether, by pleading that he had accepted his life by duress per minas.’ ” Id., at 314-315.
In other words, this Court has long read the Constitution as authorizing the President to deal with individual cases by granting conditional pardons. The very essence of the pardoning power is to treat each case individually.
The teachings of Wilson and Wells have been followed consistently by this Court. See, e. g., Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87 (1925) (upholding a Presidential pardon of a contempt of court against an argument that it violated the principle of separation of powers); Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (1867). Additionally, we note that Presidents throughout our history as a Nation have exercised the power to pardon or commute sentences upon conditions that are not specifically authorized by statute. Such conditions have generally gone unchallenged and, as in the Wells case, attacks have been firmly rejected by the courts. See 41 Op. Atty. Gen. 251 (1955). These facts are not insignificant for our interpretation of Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, because, as observed by Mr. Justice Holmes: “If a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case” to overturn it. Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U. S. 22, 31 (1922).
Ill
A fair reading of the history of the English pardoning power, from which our Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, derives, of the language of that clause itself, and of the unbroken practice since 1790 compels the conclusion that the power flows from the Constitution alone, not from any legislative enactments, and that it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress. Additionally, considerations of public policy and humanitarian impulses support an interpretation of that power so as to permit the attachment of any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution. The plain purpose of the broad power conferred by § 2, cl. 1, was to allow plenary authority in the President to “forgive” the convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with conditions which are in themselves constitutionally unobjectionable. If we were to accept petitioner’s contentions, a commutation of his death sentence to 25 or 30 years would be subject to the same challenge as is now made, i. e., that parole must be available to petitioner because it is to others. That such an interpretation of § 2, cl. 1, would in all probability tend to inhibit the exercise of the pardoning power and reduce the frequency of commutations is hardly open to doubt. We therefore hold that the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution and that its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself. It would be a curious logic to allow a convicted person who petitions for mercy to retain the full benefit of a lesser punishment with conditions, yet escape burdens readily assumed in accepting the commutation which he sought.
Petitioner’s claim must therefore fail. The no-parole condition attached to the commutation of his death sentence is similar to sanctions imposed by legislatures such as mandatory minimum sentences or statutes otherwise precluding parole; it does not offend the Constitution. Similarly, the President’s action derived solely from his Art. II powers; it did not depend upon Art. 118 of the UCMJ or any other statute fixing a death penalty for murder. It is not correct to say that the condition upon petitioner’s commutation was “made possible only through the court-martial’s imposition of the death sentence.” Post, at 269-270. Of course, the President may not aggravate punishment; the sentence imposed by statute is therefore relevant to a limited extent. But, as shown, the President has constitutional power to attach conditions to his commutation of any sentence. Thus, even if Furman v. Georgia applies to the military, a matter which we need not and do not decide, it could not affect a conditional commutation which was granted 12 years earlier.
We are not moved by petitioner’s argument that it is somehow “unfair” that he be treated differently from persons whose death sentences were pending at the time that Furman was decided. Individual acts of clemency inherently call for discriminating choices because no two cases are the same. Indeed, as noted earlier, petitioner’s life was undoubtedly spared by President Eisenhower’s commutation order of March 25, 1960. Nor is petitioner without further remedies since he may, of course, apply to the present President or future Presidents for a complete pardon, commutation to time served, or relief from the no-parole condition. We hold only that the conditional commutation of his death sentence was lawful when made and that intervening events have not altered its validity.
Affirmed.
See generally 6 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 203 (1938).
See 3 E. Coke, Institutes 233 (6th ed. 1680); 5 J. Comyns, Digest of the Laws of England 230 (5th ed. 1822); J. Chitty, Prerogatives of the Crown 90-91 (1820); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *398.
Typical conditions were that the felon be confined at hard labor for a stated period of time, 4 Blackstone, supra, n. 2, at *401, or that he serve in the Armed Forces. 2 D. Hume, Crimes 481 (2d ed. 1819).
In Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307 (1856), this Court expressed the view that legislative authorization was essential to the use of banishment from the realm as a commutable punishment by the English Crown. Id., at 313. However, that conclusion was no more than dictum and is historically incorrect. Indeed, about the time that Wells was decided Parliament abolished banishment as a penalty in England, but the Crown retained and continued to exercise the power to annex such conditions to pardons. 11 Holds-worth, supra, n. 1, at 575.
2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 185 (1911).
In the Federalist No. 74 Hamilton enlarged on this point:
“Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate; that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the ' sense of responsibility is always strongest in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives, which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations, which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection, that the fate of a fellow creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution: The dread of being accused of weakness or connivance would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.” The Federalist No. 74, pp. 500-501 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).
See, e. g., 21 U. S. C. § 848 (c); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., c. 265, §2 (1970); Nev. Rev. Stat., Tit. 16, c. 200.030, §6, c. 200.363, § 1 (a) (1973).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the effect of 11 U. S. C. § 522(f)(2) (1976 ed., Supp. V), which permits individual debtors in bankruptcy proceedings to avoid liens on certain property. The Court of Appeals consolidated seven appeals from the Bankruptcy Courts for the Districts of Kansas and Colorado. In each case the debtor was an individual who instituted bankruptcy proceedings after the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549 (1978 Act), became effective on October 1, 1979. In each case one of the appellees had loaned the debtor money and obtained and perfected a lien on the debtor’s household furnishings and appliances before the 1978 Act was enacted on November 6, 1978. None of these liens was possessory, and none secured purchase-money obligations.
Included within the personal property subject to the appel-lees’ liens were household items that are exempt from the property included within the debtors’ estates by virtue of subsections (b) and (d) of § 522. The debtors claimed these exemptions in their respective bankruptcy proceedings, relying on § 522(f)(2) to avoid the liens. That section provides:
“Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions, the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is—
“(2) a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in any—
“(A) household furnishings, household goods, wearing apparel, appliances, books, animals, crops, musical instruments, or jewelry that are held primarily for the personal, family, or household use of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor;
“(B) implements, professional books, or tools, of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor; or
“(C) professionally prescribed health aids for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.”
The appellees asserted that application of § 522(f)(2) to liens acquired before the enactment date would violate the Fifth Amendment. The United States intervened in each case to defend the constitutionality of the federal statute, but the Bankruptcy Courts in each case refused to apply § 522(f)(2) to abrogate liens acquired before the enactment date.
The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and affirmed the judgments of the Bankruptcy Courts. 642 F. 2d 1193 (CA10 1981). It held that the 1978 Act was intended to apply retrospectively, and thus was designed to invalidate liens acquired before the enactment date. It also held, however, that such an application violates the Fifth Amendment. The court stated that § 522(f)(2) effects a “complete taking of the secured creditors’ property interests,” and is thus invalid under Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U. S. 555 (1935). The United States appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 454 U. S. 1122 (1981).
The appellees, of course, defend the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Government argues at some length that retrospective application of § 522(f)(2) to these liens would not violate the Fifth Amendment. It contends that the enactment is a “rational” exercise of Congress’ bankruptcy power, that for “bankruptcy purposes” property interests are all but indistinguishable from contractual interests, and that these particular interests were “insubstantial” and therefore their destruction does not amount to a “taking” of property requiring compensation. We do not decide the constitutional question reached by the Court of Appeals. We address it only to determine whether the attack on the retrospective application of the statute raises substantial enough constitutional doubts to warrant the employment of the canon of statutory construction referred to infra, at 78-81.
It may be readily agreed that § 522(f)(2) is a rational exercise of Congress’ authority under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and that this authority has been regularly construed to authorize the retrospective impairment of contractual obligations. Hano ver National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 188 (1902). Such agreement does not, however, obviate the additional difficulty that arises when that power is sought to be used to defeat traditional property interests. The bankruptcy power is subject to the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without compensation. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, supra. Thus, however “rational” the exercise of the bankruptcy power may be, that inquiry is quite separate from the question whether the enactment takes property within the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment.
The Government apparently contends (Brief for United States 30-32) that because cases such as Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (1974), and Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), defined “property” for purposes of the Due Process Clause sufficiently broadly to include rights which at common law would have been deemed contractual, traditional property rights are entitled to no greater protection under the Takings Clause than traditional contract rights. It argues that “bankruptcy principles do not support a sharp distinction between the rights of secured and unsecured creditors.” Brief for United States 31. However “bankruptcy principles” may speak to this question, our cases recognize, as did the common law, that the contractual right of a secured creditor to obtain repayment of his debt may be quite different in legal contemplation from the property right of the same creditor in the collateral. Compare Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, supra, with Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, supra, and Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164 (1979).
Since the governmental action here would result in a complete destruction of the property right of the secured party, the case fits but awkwardly into the analytic framework employed in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 (1978), and PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980), where governmental action affected some but not all of the “bundle of rights” which constitute the “property” in question. The Government argues that the interest of a secured party such as was involved here is “insubstantial,” apparently in part because it is a nonpurchase-money, nonpossessory interest in personal property. The “bundle of rights” which accrues to a secured party is obviously smaller than that which accrues to an owner in fee simple, but the Government cites no cases supporting the proposition that differences such as these relegate the secured party’s interest to something less than property. And our decisions in Radford, supra, and Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40 (1960), militate against such a proposition.
In Radford, we held that the Frazier-Lemke Act, 48 Stat. 1289, violated the Takings Clause. The bank held a nonpurchase-money mortgage on Radford’s farm. Radford defaulted and instituted bankruptcy proceedings. The Frazier-Lemke Act, which by its terms applied only retrospectively, permitted the debtor to purchase the property for less than its fair market value. We held the statute was void because it effected a “taking of substantive rights in specific property acquired by the Bank prior to” its enactment. 295 U. S., at 590. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Brandéis stated:
“[T]he Fifth Amendment commands that, however great the Nation’s need, private property shall not be thus taken even for a wholly public use without just compensation. If the public interest requires, and permits, the taking of property of individual mortgagees in order to relieve the necessities of individual mortgagors, resort must be had to proceedings by eminent domain; so that, through taxation, the burden of the relief afforded in the public interest may be borne by the public.” Id., at 602.
In Armstrong, materialmen delivered materials to a prime contractor for use in constructing Navy personnel boats. Under state law, they obtained liens in the vessels. The prime contractor defaulted on his obligations to the United States, and the Government took title to and possession of the uncompleted hulls and unused materials, thus making it impossible for the materialmen to enforce their liens. We held that this constituted a taking:
“The total destruction by the Government of all value of these liens, which constitute compensable property, has every possible element of a Fifth Amendment ‘taking’ and is not a mere ‘consequential incidence’ of a valid regulatory measure.” 364 U. S., at 48.
The Government seeks to distinguish Armstrong on the ground that it was a classical “taking” in the sense that the Government acquired for itself the property in question, while in the instant case the Government has simply imposed a general economic regulation which in effect transfers the property interest from a private creditor to a private debtor. While the classical taking is of the sort that the Government describes, our cases show that takings analysis is not necessarily limited to outright acquisitions by the government for itself. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982); PruneYard, Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980); Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922).
The Government finally contends that because the resale value of household goods is generally low, and because creditors therefore view the principal value of their security as a lever to negotiate for reaffirmation of the debt rather than as a vehicle for foreclosure, the property interests involved here do not merit protection under the Takings Clause. While this contention cannot be dismissed out of hand, it seems to run counter to the State’s characterization of the interest as property, see n. 6, supra, to our reliance in other “takings” cases on state-law characterizations, see, e. g., Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S., at 179, and also to at least some of the implications of Radford, supra, and Armstrong, supra.
The foregoing discussion satisfies us that there is substantial doubt whether the retroactive destruction of the appel-lees’ liens in this case comports with the Fifth Amendment. We now consider whether, as a matter of statutory construction, § 522(f)(2) must necessarily be applied in that manner. We consider the statutory question because of the “ ‘cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the constitutional question may be avoided.’” Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 577 (1978), quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932).
The Court of Appeals thought § 522(f)(2) must apply retroactively, that is, to liens which attached before the enactment date, because “there would be no bankruptcy law applicable to cases [involving such liens if it did not].” 642 F. 2d, at 1197. The court apparently thought that if § 522(f)(2) does not apply to liens which came into existence before the enactment date, then no part of the 1978 Act could apply to cases involving such liens. This is not necessarily the case. The liens, of course, exist under state law independently of the 1978 Act. Although the 1978 Act, in general, is effective for all cases commenced after its effective date, Congress might have intended that provisions that destroy previously vested property rights apply only to interests that came into effect after the enactment date. If § 522(f)(2) is such a provision, the remainder of the 1978 Act would not affect the enforceability of these liens, but would still apply to these liens and these cases. We think that the analysis of the Court of Appeals did not adequately dispose of the question as to the retrospective effect of § 522(f), and we therefore pursue the inquiry further.
The principle that statutes operate only prospectively, while judicial decisions operate retrospectively, is familiar to every law student. Compare 1 C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 1.06 (4th ed. 1972), with Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 622-625 (1965). This Court has often pointed out:
“[T]he first rule of construction is that legislation must be considered as addressed to the future, not to the past.... The rule has been expressed in varying degrees of strength but always of one import, that a retrospective operation will not be given to a statute which interferes with antecedent rights . . . unless such be ‘the unequivocal and inflexible import of the terms, and the manifest intention of the legislature.’” Union Pacific R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards Co., 231 U. S. 190, 199 (1913) (citations omitted).
See, e. g., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States ex rel. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U. S. 306, 314 (1908) (“The presumption is very strong that a statute was not meant to act retrospectively, and it ought never to receive such a construction if it is susceptible of any other”); United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110 (1801).
This principle has been repeatedly applied to bankruptcy statutes affecting property rights. In Holt v. Henley, 232 U. S. 637 (1914), the Court had before it a new statute granting bankruptcy trustees the position of a lienholder with priority over sellers on conditional sales contracts. Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 412, §8, 36 Stat. 840. This provision, like § 522(f)(2), could be read literally to divest property interests which had been created before it was enacted. The 1910 statute, like the 1978 Act, applied to all bankruptcy cases instituted after it became effective. Nonetheless, the Court followed the lead of the lower courts in refusing to infer retroactivity absent an explicitly “expressed intent of Congress.” Arctic Ice Machine Co. v. Armstrong County Trust Co., 192 F. 114, 116 (CA3 1911). See also In re Schneider, 203 F. 589, 590 (ED Pa. 1913). In his opinion for the unanimous Court, Justice Holmes stated that “the reasonable and usual interpretation of [bankruptcy] statutes is to confine their effect, so far as may be, to property rights established after they were passed.” 232 U. S., at 639. See Auffm’ordt v. Rasin, 102 U. S. 620, 622 (1881).
The Government nonetheless contends that bankruptcy statutes are usually construed to apply to pre-existing rights. This statement is unobjectionable in the context of traditional contract rights, Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S., at 188, but none of the cases cited by the Government extend it to property rights such as those involved here.
Neither these cases, nor any other that has come to our attention, casts doubt on the principle of statutory construction deducible from Holt and Auffm’ordt: No bankruptcy law shall be construed to eliminate property rights which existed before the law was enacted in the absence of an explicit command from Congress. In light of this principle, the legislative history of the 1978 Act suggests that Congress may not have intended that § 522(f) operate to destroy pre-enactment property rights.
An early version of the 1978 Act contained an explicit requirement that all its provisions “shall apply in all cases or proceedings instituted after its effective date, regardless of the date of occurrence of any of the operative facts determining legal rights, duties, or liabilities hereunder.” § 10-108(a), H. R. 31, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), reprinted in Bankruptcy Act Revision: Hearings on H. R. 31 and H. R. 32 before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix 320-321 (1975). This provision may or may not have been deleted directly in response to the comments of witness William Plumb to the effect that retroactive invalidation of liens may be an unconstitutional taking. Id., at 2066-2067. Nonetheless, Congress’ elimination of an explicit command is some evidence that it did not intend to depart from the usual principle of construction. See Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U. S. 696, 716, n. 23 (1974) (“we are reluctant to read into the statute the very . . . limitation that Congress eliminated”).
“Accordingly, in the absence of a clear expression of Congress’ intent to” apply § 522(f)(2) to property rights established before the enactment date, “we decline to construe the Act in a manner that could in turn call upon the Court to resolve difficult and sensitive questions arising out of the guarantees of the” Takings Clause. NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U. S. 490, 507 (1979). The judgment of the Court of Appeals must therefore be
Affirmed.
The exemptions were designed to permit individual debtors to retain exempt property so that they will be able to enjoy a “fresh start” after bankruptcy.
Subsections (b) and (d) of § 522 provide in pertinent part:
“(b) [A]n individual debtor may exempt from property of the estate ... —
“(1) property that is specified under subsection (d) of this section . . .
“(d) The following property may be exempted under subsection (b)(1) of this section:
“(3) The debtor’s interest, not to exceed $200 in value in any particular item, in household furnishings, household goods, wearing apparel, appliances, books, animals, crops, or musical instruments, that are held primarily for the personal, family or household use of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.
“(4) The debtor’s aggregate interest, not to exceed $500 in value, in jewelry held primarily for the personal, family, or household use of the debtor or the dependent of the debtor.
“(6) The debtor’s aggregate interest, not to exceed $750 in value, in any implements, professional books, or tools, of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor.
“(9) Professionally prescribed health aids for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.”
See 28 U. S. C. § 2403(a).
In Schulte v. Beneficial Finance of Kansas, Inc., and Hunter v. Beneficial Finance of Kansas, Inc., 8 B. R. 12 (1980), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas noted that retrospective application of § 522(f)(2) creates constitutional problems and held that it should be applied only prospectively. In Jackson v. Security Industrial Bank, and Stevens v. Liberty Loan Corp., 4 B. R. 293 (1980), Rodrock v. Security Industrial Bank, and Knezel v. Security Industrial Bank, 3 B. R. 629 (1980), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado concluded that § 522(f)(2), as applied retrospectively, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Hoops v. Freedom Finance, 3 B. R. 635 (1980), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado concluded that § 522(f)(2), as applied retrospectively, violates “substantive due process.”
In re Gifford, 688 F. 2d 447 (CA7 1982) (en bane), holds that § 522(f)(2) constitutionally applies to liens created before the enactment date. In re Webber, 674 F. 2d 796 (CA9 1982), holds that § 522(f)(2) constitutionally applies to liens created before the Act became effective but after the enactment date. In re Ashe, 669 F. 2d 105 (CA3 1982), holds that § 522(f)(1), which permits avoidance of certain judicial liens, constitutionally applies to a cognovit note created before the enactment date.
Appellee Beneficial Finance of Kansas, Inc., asserts that the judgments should be affirmed because the Act violates Art. Ill of the Constitution by granting judicial power to non-Art. Ill bankruptcy judges. See Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50 (1982) (plurality opinion of Brennan, J.); id., at 90-91 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). Because our decision in Northern Pipeline is prospective only, id., at 87-89, and because we have stayed the issuance of our mandate in that case to December 24, 1982, post, p. 813, that decision does not affect the judgment in this case.
At oral argument the Government conceded that the liens at issue in this case are treated as property under state law. Tr. of Oral Arg. 21.
Both Kansas and Colorado have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. Although under the Code the priority among secured parties is often affected by the purchase-money or possessory character of security interests, see, e. g., §9-312, 3 U. L. A. 531 (1981), these characterizations do not affect the nature of the security interest. See § 9-107 (defining “purchase money security interest”), § 9-305 (providing for perfection of security interests by possession).
Section 101(28) of the 1978 Act defines a lien as a “charge against or interest in property to secure payment of a debt or performance of an obligation.” It does not make distinctions based on the purchase-money or possessory nature of a lien.
The Frazier-Lemke Act permitted the farmer, if the mortgagee assented, to purchase the property at its then-appraised value on a deferred payment plan. If the mortgagee refused to assent, the court was required to stay all proceedings for five years, during which time the farmer could retain possession by paying a reasonable rent. After five years the property could be reappraised, but the farmer still had the right to purchase it free and clear for the appraised value regardless of the amount of the lien. See Radford, 295 U. S., at 597-598. Given the interest rate of 1%, the present value of the deferred payments was much less than the value of the property. Id., at 591-593.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code definition, these statutory liens would be nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money liens in personal property. See n. 6, supra.
The transition provisions of the 1910 statute, § 14, 36 Stat. 842, are, in substance, the same as those of the 1978 Act. Pub. L. 95-598, Title IV, §§ 402, 403(a), 92 Stat. 2682, 2683.
Claridge Apartments Co. v. Commissioner, 323 U. S. 141 (1944), involved rights to certain tax benefits, not to property rights. Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. Cowan, 309 U. S. 382, 383 (1940), dealt with the application of new procedural rules to a bankruptcy proceeding that was pending when the new statute was enacted. Allowing an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals rather than the District Court in that case did not eliminate any property rights. Carpenter v. Wabash R. Co., 309 U. S. 23 (1940), involved a provision giving personal injury judgments the status of operating expenses and thus priority over mortgages in ongoing railroad reorganizations. Although that statute may have disadvantaged the mortgagees by reducing the amount of cash available to pay their notes, it did not affect their property right in the collateral securing the mortgages. McFaddin v. Evans-Snider-Buel Co., 185 U. S. 505 (1902), considered a curative statute providing the methods by which valid mortgages could be created in the Indian Territory. The Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 549-550 (1871), decided only that debts could be paid in legal tender as defined by Congress at the time of payment without impairing the obligation of contracts.
Because all of the liens at issue in this case were established before the enactment date we have no occasion to consider whether § 522(f)(2) should be applied to liens established after Congress passed the Act, but before it became effective.
“When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no ‘rule of law’ which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on ‘superficial examination.’. . . Obviously there is danger that the courts’ conclusion as to legislative purpose will be unconsciously influenced by the judges’ own views or by factors not considered by the enacting body. A lively appreciation of the danger is the best assurance of escape from its threat but hardly justifies an acceptance of a literal interpretation dogma which withholds from the courts available information for reaching a correct conclusion. ... A few words of general connotation appearing in the text of statutes should not be given a wide meaning, contrary to a settled policy, ‘excepting as a different purpose is plainly shown.’ ” United States v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940) (footnotes omitted).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Thomas M. Thompson was convicted in California state court of the rape and murder of Ginger Fleisehli. More than 15 years after the crime, 13 years after Thompson’s conviction, and 7 years after Thompson filed his first petition for federal habeas relief, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate denying the writ of habeas corpus. Two days before Thompson’s scheduled execution, however, the Court of Appeals, sitting en bane, recalled the mandate and granted habeas relief to Thompson. The case presents two issues: First, whether the Court of Appeals’ order recalling its mandate violated 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b) (1994 ed., Supp. II), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. 104-132, §104, 110 Stat. 1218; and second, whether the order was an abuse of the court’s discretion. The recall of the mandate was not controlled by thé precise terms of AEDPA, but this does not save the order, which, we hold, was a grave abuse of discretion.
I
A
Thompson met his 20-year-old victim, Ginger Fleischli, in the summer of 1981. Fleischli shared a Laguna Beach studio apartment with David Leiteh, with whom she had an intermittent sexual relationship. In August of that year, Fleischli moved out and Thompson moved in. Fleischli took up residence with Tracy Leiteh, the former wife of David Leiteh.
On September 11, 1981, at about 7:80 p.m., Fleischli and Tracy Leiteh encountered Thompson and David Leiteh at a pizza parlor. Fleischli told Tracy Leiteh she was afraid Thompson might kill her if she were left alone with him. The group later went to a bar together, but David and Tracy Leiteh soon departed. At 9:30 p.m., Afshin Kashani joined Thompson and Fleischli, drinking with both of them and smoking hashish with Thompson. The trio went to a second bar before walking to Thompson’s apartment around 1 a.m. At about 2 a.m., after Fleischli had gone to a nearby liquor store to buy soda, Thompson told Kashani he wanted to have sexual intercourse with Fleischli that night. He assured Kashani, however, that Kashani could “have” Fleischli after Thompson and David Leiteh left for Thailand to smuggle refugees and drugs back to the United States. App. 7.
Before Fleischli returned to the apartment, Kashani began walking to his truck, which seems to have been left at a local bar. On the way, Kashani realized he had forgotten his cigarettes. He returned to the apartment, where Thompson met him at the door. Thompson appeared nervous and made Kashani wait outside while Thompson retrieved the cigarettes. After returning to his truck, Kashani looked for Fleischli at a nearby liquor store and, not finding her, went home.
Tracy Leiteh visited Thompson’s apartment the morning of September 12, asking where Fleischli was. Lying, Thompson said she had left the Sandpiper Inn with Kashani the night before. At a party that evening,- Tracy Leiteh again asked Thompson where Fleischli was. In response, Thompson described Fleischli in the past tense, saying he had liked her. The next day, Tracy Leiteh filed a missing person’s report with the local police department.
On September 14, police found Fleischli’s body buried in a field 10 miles from the apartment shared by Thompson and David Leiteh. The body was wrapped in rope as well as a sleeping bag and blanket, both taken from the apartment. Fleischli’s head was wrapped with duet tape, two towels, a sheet, and her jacket. She had been stabbed five times in the head near the right ear. The body was bruised on the ankles, palms, and left wrist; the right wrist was crushed. Fleischli’s shirt and bra had been cut down the middle and pulled to her elbows, restraining her arms and exposing her breasts. She had on unbuttoned jeans, but no underwear, shoes, or socks. A vaginal swab revealed semen consistent with Thompson’s blood type.
Police found two footprints near the body, one smooth and one with a wavy pattern matching a shoe worn by David Leiteh. Fibers from the blanket around the body were identical to fibers found in the trunk of David Leiteh’s car. The rope around the body was smeared with paint from the ear’s trunk. Other fibers matched the carpet in the apartment, which was stained with Fleischli’s blood.
On or around the day police found the body, Thompson and David Leiteh went to Mexico. Leiteh returned to the United States, but Mexican authorities arrested Thompson on September 26,1981. He had handcuffs with him. When questioned by police after his return to the United States, Thompson claimed Fleischli had left his apartment with Ka-shani the night of the murder. He also said Fleischli had been stabbed in the head, though this information had not yet been made public. He further claimed not to have had sex with Fleischli, but later asserted they had engaged in consensual sex.
We next recount the lengthy procedural history of the case.
B
On November 4, 1983, an Orange County Superior Court jury convicted Thompson of the first-degree murder and forcible rape of Fleischli. The jury made a special finding that “the homicide of Ginger Lorraine Fleischli was an intentional killing personally committed by the defendant Thomas Martin Thompson.” 45 Cal. 3d 86, 117, n. 23, 753 P. 2d 37, 56, n. 23 (1988). The jury further found the special circumstance of murder during the commission of rape, making Thompson eligible for the death penalty. After penalty phase proceedings the jury was unanimous in recommending a capital sentence, which the trial judge imposed. In a later trial, a different jury found David Leitch guilty of second-degree murder for his role in Fleischli’s slaying.
On April 28, 1988, the California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Thompson’s rape and murder convictions and the jury’s finding of the rape special circumstance. The court also affirmed Thompson’s death sentence, with two of seven justices dissenting. The dissenters concurred in the affirmance of the murder and rape convictions and the rape special circumstance, but asserted the jury’s sentencing recommendation had been influenced in an improper manner by evidence that Thompson had solicited the murder of David Leitch. Id., at 144-145, 753 P. 2d, at 74-75. Thompson petitioned for rehearing, which the court denied in June 1988. Thompson also filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, which we denied. 488 U. S. 960 (1988).
Thompson filed his first state habeas petition, which the California Supreme Court denied in March 1989. Thompson filed a federal habeas petition in January 1990. The District Court held Thompson’s petition in abeyance while Thompson pursued unexhausted claims in state court. In January 1991, the California Supreme Court denied Thompson’s second state habeas petition. In February 1993, the California Supreme Court denied Thompson’s third state habeas petition.
In November 1993, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held an evidentiary hearing on the claims raised in Thompson’s federal habeas petition. In an order dated March 28,1995, the District Court granted habeas relief as to the rape conviction and rape special circumstance and denied relief as to the murder conviction. In the District Court’s view, Thompson’s trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel as to the rape charge. The District Court cited two failings by the attorney. First, the court held, counsel failed to contest certain of the conclusions offered by the State’s forensic expert at trial. Second, the court determined, counsel should have impeached the credibility of two jailhouse informants to a greater extent than he did. In the District Court’s view, these failings prejudiced Thompson under the rule of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). Having granted relief as to the rape special circumstance, the District Court ruled Thompson’s death sentence was invalid. As to the murder conviction, the District Court rejected Thompson’s claim he had been prejudiced by what Thompson alleged were inconsistencies between the prosecution’s theories at his trial and the later trial of David Leitch. Having read the transcripts of both trials, the court found “the trials differed mainly in emphasis.” App. 71.
The timing of later federal proceedings is critical to the issues we now resolve. On June 19, 1996, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s grant of habeas relief as to the rape conviction and rape special circumstance, affirmed the denial of habeas relief as to the murder conviction, and reinstated Thompson’s death sentence. Noting that “[t]he State presented strong evidence of rape” at Thompson’s trial, 109 F. 3d 1358, 1365 (CA9 1997), the court held that, irrespective of whether the performance of Thompson’s counsel was deficient in the manner Thompson alleged, Thompson could not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland.
On August 5,1996, Thompson filed a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en bane, which circulated to “each active judge” of the court. See U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit General Orders 5.4(a)(1), p. 30 (Aug. 1997). In an order dated March 6, 1997, the original panel denied the petition and rejected the suggestion, observing that “[t]he full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge in active service has requested a vote to rehear the matter en banc.” App. 137. In the same order, the panel reissued its opinion in the case with minor changes. Thompson filed a petition for certio-rari with this Court, which we denied on June 2,1997. 520 U. S. 1259. The Court of Appeals issued its mandate denying all habeas relief in Thompson’s ease on June 11, 1997. In response, the State of California scheduled Thompson’s execution for August 5,1997.
Thompson filed a fourth state habeas petition on July 3, 1997. In it, he alleged David Leiteh had stated in a parole hearing that he had witnessed Thompson and Fleischli engaged in what appeared to be consensual intercourse on the night of Fleisehli’s murder. The California Supreme Court denied the petition on July 16,1997.
On July 22,1997, Thompson filed a motion with the Court of Appeals to recall its mandate denying habeas relief. The following day, Thompson filed a motion in United States District Court for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). In support of both motions, Thompson cited Leiteh’s alleged statement that he had seen Thompson and Fleischli engaged in consensual sex.
The District Court denied Thompson’s Rule 60(b) motion on July 25, 1997. The court construed the motion to be a successive petition under 28 U. S. C. §2244 as amended by AEDPA, ruling that Thompson “must not be permitted to utilize a Rule 60(b) motion to make an end-run around the requirements” of AEDPA. App. 170. The court observed that the alleged new statement by Leitch conflicted with Thompson’s own account of the specifics of his encounter with Fleisehli, the physical evidence in the ease, and the previous stories told by Leitch himself. Thus, the court held, Thompson “certainly cannot make the requisite showing that he is actually innocent such that his execution would be a miscarriage of justice.” Id., at 188.
The Court of Appeals denied Thompson’s motion to recall the mandate on July 28,1997. Two days later, however, the full court voted to consider en banc whether to recall its earlier mandate “to consider whether the panel decision of our court would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” 120 F. 3d 1042, 1043. The court scheduled oral argument on this question for August 1, 1997, four days before Thompson’s scheduled execution.
Meanwhile, on July 29, 1997, the Governor of California held a hearing on whether to grant clemency to Thompson. In addition to the arguments presented by Thompson’s attorneys during the hearing, the Governor reviewed “the materials submitted on [Thompson’s] behalf, the petition and letters signed by supporters of clemency, the submissions of the Orange County District Attorney, the letters of the trial judge concerning clemency,” all the court opinions in Thompson’s ease, and “the materials and recommendation provided to [him] by the Board of Prison Terms.” App. to Brief for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae A-2 to A-3 (Decision of Governor Pete Wilson). In a comprehensive decision dated July 31, 1997, the Governor found Thompson “ha[d] not remotely approached making any” showing of innocence of rape or murder. Id., at A-16. The Governor agreed with the view of the judge who presided over Thompson’s trial, that “it would be an absolute tragedy and a travesty of justice to even seriously consider clemency in this case.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Clemency was denied.
Two days before Thompson was to be executed, a divided en banc panel of the Court of Appeals recalled the court’s mandate of June 11, 1997. This action came 53 days after the mandate had issued and almost a full year after Thompson had filed his suggestion for rehearing en banc. The Court of Appeals asserted it did not recall the mandate on the basis of Thompson’s later motion for recall, but did so sua sponte, on the basis of the claims and evidence presented in Thompson’s first federal habeas petition. Thus, the court said, its “recall of the mandate is not predicated on any new evidence or claims Thompson raises in his motion to recall the mandate.” 120 F. 3d 1045, 1049, n. 3. The court stated it had considered whether to recall the mandate sooner, but had chosen to wait until the conclusion of Thompson’s state-court proceedings before taking action.
The court presented two bases for recalling its earlier mandate. First, the court asserted that, absent certain “procedural misunderstandings within [the] court,” it would have called for en banc review of the underlying decision before issuing the mandate denying relief. Id., at 1047. These procedural misunderstandings included a mishandled law clerk transition in one judge’s chambers and the failure of another judge to notice that the original panel had issued its opinion in the case. Id., at 1067 (Kozinski, J., dissenting). Second, the en banc court asserted the decision of the original panel “would lead to a miscarriage of justice.” Id., at 1048.
Having recalled the mandate in Thompson’s case, the en banc court went on to address the merits of his first federal habeas petition. The court held that Thompson’s trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance as to the rape charge and rape special circumstance, to the defendant’s prejudice. A plurality of the court would have granted habeas relief on the additional ground of inconsistent theories by the prosecution at his trial and the later trial of David Leitch. The majority made no effort to determine whether Thompson was actually innocent of the rape and murder of Fleisehli. The court nonetheless affirmed the District Court’s grant of the writ as to the rape conviction and rape special circumstance, vacated Thompson’s death sentence, and further “remanded] the question of the murder conviction for [the District Court’s] initial consideration in light of our vacatur of the rape conviction.” Id., at 1060. Thus, almost 16 years after Fleischli’s murder, the Ninth Circuit directed the District Court to “enter the partial writ unless the State elects to retry Thompson within a reasonable time.” Ibid.
Four judges dissented. Judge Hall argued the majority’s decision allowed Thompson to evade AEDPA’s restrictions on successive petitions. Id., at 1064-1066. Judge Kozinski detailed the circumstances which led'the majority to find its en banc process had malfunctioned. He asserted that, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the court’s en banc process “operated just as it’s supposed to.” Id., at 1067. In a third dissenting opinion, Judge Kleinfeld recited in detail the evidence of Thompson’s guilt of rape. Id., at 1073.
Within hours of the Court of Appeals’ order recalling its mandate, the State of California filed with this Court a second petition for a writ of mandamus, which we construed as a petition for certiorari. We granted the petition, 521 U. S. 1136 (1997), and now reverse.
II
Although some Justices have expressed doubt on the point, see, e. g., United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U. S. 98, 102-103 (1957) (Harlan, J., dissenting), the courts of appeals are recognized to have an inherent power to recall their mandates, subject to review for an abuse of discretion. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 463 U. S. 1323, 1324 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers); see also Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U. S. 238, 249-250 (1944). In light of “the profound interests in repose” attaching to the mandate of a court of appeals, however, the power can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3938, p. 712 (2d ed. 1996). The sparing use of the power demonstrates it is one of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies.
The en banc majority asserted extraordinary circumstances justified its order recalling the mandate in Thompson’s ease because, “[b]ut for procedural misunderstandings by some judges of this court, an en bane call would have been made and voted upon at the ordinary time.” 120 F. 3d, at 1048. As noted earlier, the original panel issued its decision denying habeas relief on June 19, 1996, and Thompson filed a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en bane on August 5,1996. On January 17,1997, the panel notified the full court of its intention to reject the suggestion. Id., at 1067 (Kozinski, J., dissenting). The panel reissued its earlier opinion with minor revisions on March 6, 1997. In the March 6 order, the panel also denied Thompson’s petition for rehearing and rejected his suggestion for rehearing en banc. The panel observed that, although the full court had been advised of Thompson’s suggestion, no judge in active service had requested a vote to rehear the case en banc within the time specified in the General Orders of the Ninth Circuit. App. 137.
It appears from Judge Kozinski’s opinion that the following events also transpired. On March 12, 1997, an off-panel judge wrote to the panel, requesting an opportunity to make a belated call for a vote to rehear the ease en bane. The judge stated that the panel’s decision had been “circulated shortly before a law clerk transition” in the judge’s chambers, and that “the old and new law clerks assigned to the case failed to communicate.” 120 F. 3d, at 1067 (dissenting opinion). Another judge seconded the request and asked: "Was [the panel’s January 17, 1997, notice of intention to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc] circulated? Did I miss it?” Ibid. The author of the panel opinion denied the request for a belated en banc call, explaining that the requesting judges had been notified two months earlier of the panel’s intention to reject Thompson’s suggestion, id., at 1067-1068, which itself had circulated to every active judge of the court on August 5,1996.
The panel stayed the issuance of its mandate pending Thompson’s petition to this Court for certiorari review. We denied Thompson’s petition on June 2, 1997. 520 U. S. 1259. The Court of Appeals issued its mandate on June 11, 1997. According to the en banc majority, “[a] sua sponte request to consider en banc whether to recall the mandate was made shortly thereafter, even before the mandate was spread in the district court.” 120 F. 3d, at 1049. “[I]n the interests of comity,” however, the court delayed further action until the California Supreme Court had denied Thompson’s fourth state petition for habeas relief. Ibid. It was not until August 3, 1997 — two days before Thompson was scheduled to be executed — that the Ninth Circuit voted to recall its mandate.
Measured even by standards of general application, the Court of Appeals’ decision to recall the mandate rests on the most doubtful of grounds. A mishandled law clerk transition in one judge’s chambers, and the failure of another judge to notice the action proposed by the original panel, constitute the slightest of bases for setting aside the “deep rooted policy in favor of the repose of judgments.” Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., supra, at 244. This is especially true where the only consequence of the oversights was the failure of two judges to contribute their views to a determination that had been given full consideration on the merits by a panel of the court.
Even if the Ninth Circuit’s en banc process did somehow malfunction — which is itself open to question, see 120 F. 3d, at 1067 (Kozinski, J., dissenting) (“[T]he process operated just as it’s supposed to”) — the court only compounded its error when it delayed further action for more than four months after the alleged misunderstandings took place. The promptness with which a court acts to correct its mistakes is evidence of the adequacy of its grounds for reopening the ease. In this case, the two judges first revealed their oversights to the full court in March 1997. At that point the two judges remained free to “request that the [full] court vote to suspend” its time limits for voting to rehear the ease en banc. See Ninth Circuit General Orders 11.11, at 83. They chose not to do so, instead waiting another four months to make what was, in effect, an identical request. The Court of Appeals for all practical purposes lay in wait while this Court acted on the petition for certiorari, the State scheduled a firm execution date for Thompson, and the Governor conducted an exhaustive clemency review. Then, only two days before Thompson was scheduled to be executed, the court came forward to recall the judgment on which the State, not to mention this Court, had placed heavy reliance.
It is no answer for the Court of Appeals to assert it delayed action in the interests of comity. Comity is not limited to the judicial branch of a state government. In this case, the executive branch of California’s government took extensive action in reliance on the mandate denying relief to Thompson. Rather than focus only on the California Supreme Court’s interest in considering Thompson’s fourth (and, as could be predicted, meritless) state habeas petition, the Court of Appeals should have considered as well the more vital interests of California’s executive branch.
It would be the rarest of cases where the negligence of two judges in expressing their views is sufficient grounds to frustrate the interests of a State of some 32 million persons in enforcing a final judgment in its favor. Even if this were a ease implicating no more than ordinary concerns of finality, we would have grave doubts about the actions taken by the Court of Appeals.
Ill
Thompson’s is not an ordinary ease, however, because he seeks relief from a criminal judgment entered in state court. To decide whether the Court of Appeals’ order recalling the mandate was proper in these circumstances, we measure it not only against standards of general application, but also against the statutory and jurisprudential limits applicable in habeas corpus eases.
A
California argues the Court of Appeals’ recall of its mandate was barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b) (1994 ed., Supp. II) as amended by AEDPA. Section 2244(b)(1) provides: “A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” Subsection 2244(b)(2) provides: “A claim presented in a second or successive application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed” unless a narrow exception applies. The immediate question is whether the Court of Appeals recalled its mandate on the basis of a “second or successive application” for habeas relief.
In a §2254 case, a prisoner’s motion to recall the mandate on the basis of the merits of the underlying decision can be regarded as a second or successive application for purposes of § 2244(b). Otherwise, petitioners could evade the bar against relitigation of claims presented in a prior application, § 2244(b)(1), or the bar against litigation of claims not presented in a prior application, § 2244(b)(2). If the court grants such a motion, its action is subject to AEDPA irrespective of whether the motion is based on old claims (in which ease § 2244(b)(1) would apply) or new ones (in which case § 2244(b)(2) would apply).
As a textual matter, § 2244(b) applies only where the court acts pursuant to a prisoner’s “application.” This carries implications for cases where a motion to recall the mandate is pending, but the court instead recalls the mandate on its own initiative. Whether these cases are subject to § 2244(b) depends on the underlying basis of the court’s action. If, in recalling the mandate, the court considers new claims or evidence presented in a successive application for habeas relief, it is proper to regard the court’s action as based on that application. In these eases, § 2244(b)(2) applies irrespective of whether the court characterizes the action as sua sponte.
In Thompson’s ease, however, the Court of Appeals was specific in reciting that it acted on the exclusive basis of Thompson’s first federal habeas petition. The court’s characterization of its action as sua sponte does not, of course, prove this point; had the court considered claims or evidence presented in Thompson’s later filings, its action would have been based on a successive application, and so would be subject to § 2244(b). But in Thompson’s case the court’s recitation that it acted on the exclusive basis of his first federal petition is not disproved by consideration of matters presented in a later filing. Thus we deem the court to have acted on his first application rather than a successive one. As a result, the court’s order recalling its mandate did not contravene the letter of AEDPA.
Although the terms of AEDPA do not govern this case, a court of appeals must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the objects of the statute. In a habeas case, moreover, the court must be guided by the general principles underlying our habeas corpus jurisprudence. We now consider those principles as applied to this ease.
B
In light of “the profound societal costs that attend the exercise of habeas jurisdiction,” Smith v. Murray, 477 U. S. 527, 539 (1986), we have found it necessary to impose significant limits on the discretion of federal courts to grant habeas relief. See, e. g., McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 487 (1991) (limiting “a district court’s discretion to entertain abusive petitions”); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 90-91 (1977) (limiting courts’ discretion to entertain proeedurally defaulted claims); Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 308-310 (1989) (plurality opinion of O’Connor, J.) (limiting courts’ discretion to give retroactive application to “new rules” in habeas cases); Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 637-638 (1993) (limiting courts’ discretion to grant habeas relief on the basis of “trial error”).
These limits reflect our enduring respect for “the State’s interest in the finality of convictions that have survived direct review within the state court system.” Id., at 635; accord, Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U. S. 1, 8 (1995) (per cu-riam); Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. 333, 338 (1992); Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U. S. 1, 7 (1992); McCleskey, supra, at 491-492; Teague, supra, at 309; Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S. 478, 487 (1986); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 127 (1982). Finality is essential to both the retributive and the deterrent functions of criminal law. “Neither innocence nor just punishment can be vindicated until the final judgment is known.” McCleskey, supra, at 491. “Without finality, the criminal law is deprived of much of its deterrent effect.” Teague, supra, at 309.
Finality also enhances the quality of judging. There is perhaps “nothing more subversive of a judge’s sense of responsibility, of the inner subjective conscientiousness which is so essential a part of the difficult and subtle art of judging well, than an indiscriminate acceptance of the notion that all the shots will always be called by someone else.” Bator, Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 76 Harv. L. Rev. 441, 451 (1963).
Finality serves as well to preserve the federal balance. Federal habeas review of state convictions frustrates “ ‘both the States’ sovereign power to punish offenders and their good-faith attempts to honor constitutional rights.’ ” Murray v. Carrier, supra, at 487 (quoting Engle, supra, at 128). “Our federal system recognizes the independent power of a State to articulate societal norms through criminal law; but the power of a State to pass laws means little if the State cannot enforce them.” McCleskey, 499 U. S., at 491.
A State’s interests in finality are compelling when a federal court of appeals issues a mandate denying federal ha-beas relief. At that point, having in all likelihood borne for years “the significant costs of federal habeas review,” id., at 490-491, the State is entitled to the assurance of finality. When lengthy federal proceedings have rim their course and a mandate denying relief has issued, finality acquires an added moral dimension. Only with an assurance of real finality can the State execute its moral judgment in a ease. Only with real finality can the victims of crime move forward knowing the moral judgment will be carried out. See generally Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808 (1991). To unsettle these expectations is to inflict a profound injury to the “powerful and legitimate interest in punishing the guilty,” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 421 (1993) (O’Connor, J., concurring), an interest shared by the State and the victims of crime alike.
This case well illustrates the extraordinary costs associated with a federal court of appeals’ recall of its mandate denying federal habeas relief. By July 31,1997, to vindicate the laws enacted by the legislature of the State of California, a jury had convicted Thompson of rape and murder and recommended that he be executed; the trial judge had imposed a sentence of death; the California Supreme Court had affirmed Thompson’s sentence and on four occasions refused to disturb it on collateral attack; and, in a comprehensive and public decision, the Governor had determined the sentence was just. Relying upon the mandate denying habeas relief to Thompson, the State of California had invoked its entire legal and moral authority in support of executing its judgment. Yet, after almost 13 years of state and federal review of Thompson’s conviction and sentence, almost one year after Thompson filed his petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en bane, a full 53 days after issuance of the mandate denying relief, and a mere two days before Thompson was scheduled to be executed, the Ninth Circuit recalled its mandate and granted the writ of habeas corpus. The costs imposed by these actions are as severe as any that can be imposed in federal habeas review.
We should be clear about the circumstances we address in this case. We deal not with the recall of a mandate to correct mere clerical- errors in the judgment itself, similar to those described in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). The State can have little interest, based on reliance or other grounds, in preserving a mandate not in accordance with the actual decision rendered by the court. This also is not a case of fraud upon the court, calling into question the very legitimacy of the judgment. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U. S. 238 (1944). Nor is this a ease where the mandate is stayed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41 pending the court’s disposition of a suggestion for rehearing en banc.
Rather, we are concerned with cases where, as here, a court of appeals recalls its mandate to revisit the merits of its earlier decision denying habeas relief. In these cases, the State’s interests in finality are all but paramount, without regal’d to whether the court of appeals predicates the recall on a procedural misunderstanding or some other irregularity occurring prior to its decision. The prisoner has already had extensive review of his claims in federal and state courts. In the absence of a strong showing of “actua[l] innoeen[ee],” Murray v. Carrier, supra, at 496, the State’s interests in actual finality outweigh the prisoner’s interest in obtaining yet another opportunity for review.
Based on these considerations, we hold the general rule to be that, where a federal court of appeals sua sponte recalls its mandate to revisit the merits of an earlier decision denying habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, the court abuses its discretion unless it acts to avoid a miscarriage of justice as defined by our habeas corpus jurisprudence. The rule accommodates the need to allow courts to remedy actual injustice while recognizing that, at some point, the State must be allowed to exercise its “'sovereign power to punish offenders.’” McCleskey, supra, at 491 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U. S., at 487).
This standard comports with the values and purposes underlying AEDPA. Although AEDPA does not govern this ease, see supra, at 554, its provisions “certainly inform our consideration” of whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U. S. 651, 663 (1996). Section 2244(b) of the statute is grounded in respect for
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In this motion, California seeks leave to file a complaint against Texas under this Court’s original jurisdiction. The proposed complaint asks us to decide whether Howard Hughes was domiciled in California or Texas at the time of his death. The decision about domicile could determine which State is entitled to levy death taxes on the estate.
This motion renews the one which California made in November 1977. At that time, we denied leave to file. Cali fornia v. Texas, 437 U. S. 601 (1978). Following the suggestion of four Justices who concurred in California v. Texas, the estate then sought a determination of Hughes’ domicile by filing an interpleader action under 28 U. S. C. § 1335 in Federal District Court. This motion for leave to file a complaint accompanied the petition for certiorari in Cory v. White, ante, p. 85, in which California taxing officials requested review of the decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that the Federal Interpleader Act provided a jurisdictional basis for resolving the dispute.
We granted certiorari in Cory v. White, 452 U. S. 904 (1981), and today have held that the Federal Interpleader Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1335, does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to resolve inconsistent death tax claims by the officials of two States. See ante, at 91. We reached that decision because the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment under Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U. S. 292 (1937). We now also conclude that California’s motion for leave to file should be granted.
First, California’s bill of complaint states a “controversy” between California and Texas within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a). It is undisputed that each State’s authority to impose a death tax on the intangibles owned by a decedent depends on the decedent’s having been a domiciliary of that State. Also, it is the law of each State that an individual has but one domicile. Thus only one State is entitled to impose death taxes; the outcome of this action would determine which State is privileged to tax. The other would be barred from doing so. It is apparent, therefore, that California and Texas are asserting inconsistent claims and are undeniably adversaries in this action.
Moreover, in its Memorandum in Support of Motion to File Bill of Complaint 6, California asserts:
“The effective rate of tax in California on all amounts in excess of $400,000 is 24% (see Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 13406(g)); the effective rate of tax in Texas (including the so-called ‘pick-up tax’) on amounts exceeding $1,000,000 is approximately 16% (see Tex. Tax Code Ann. Arts. 14.05, 14.12); and the federal estate tax on amounts in excess of $10,000,000 is 77%, less a credit of 16% for state death taxes (see 26 U. S. C. §§2001, 2011). The combined marginal rate of tax is therefore 101%.” (Footnote omitted.)
California adds that interest on the unpaid taxes will further deplete the estate. Although these allegations have not been proved, they are sufficient under Texas v. Florida, 306 U. S. 398 (1939), to characterize this case as a “controversy” between two States within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a).
In Texas v. Florida, supra, this Court, raising the issue sua sponte, held that it had original jurisdiction over a suit “brought to determine the true domicile of decedent as the basis of rival claims of four states for death taxes upon his estate.” 306 U. S., at 401. None of the States had reduced its claims to judgments, but all conceded that the estate was insufficient to satisfy the total amount of taxes claimed. The Court compared the suit to a bill in the nature of inter-pleader, which permits a plaintiff threatened with rival claimants to the same debt or legal duty to bring an interpleader action before the institution of the independent suits. On the basis of this analogy, the Court concluded:
“When, by appropriate procedure, a court possessing equity powers is . . . asked to prevent the loss which might otherwise result from the independent prosecution of rival but mutually exclusive claims, a justiciable issue is presented for adjudication which because it is a recognized subject of the equity procedure which we have inherited from England, is a ‘case’ or ‘controversy,’ within the meaning of the Constitutional provision- and when the case is one prosecuted between states, which are the rival claimants, and the risk of loss is shown to be real and substantial, the case is within the original jurisdiction of this Court conferred by the Judiciary Article.” Id., at 407-408.
As Justice Stewart wrote when California first petitioned this Court to resolve its dispute with Texas over Hughes’ estate: “The facts alleged in the complaint now before us are indistinguishable in all material respects from those on which jurisdiction was based in Texas v. Florida.” California v. Texas, 437 U. S., at 606 (concurring opinion). We agree. Thus, this dispute is a controversy between two States within our original jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a).
Second, it is appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction in this case. A determination that this Court has original jurisdiction over a case, of course, does not require us to exercise that jurisdiction. We have imposed prudential and equitable limitations upon the exercise of our original jurisdiction. As we explained in Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91, 93-94 (1972):
“We construe 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(1), as we do Art. Ill, § 2, cl. 2, to honor our original jurisdiction but to make it obligatory only in appropriate cases. And the question of what is appropriate concerns, of course, the seriousness and dignity of the claim; yet beyond that it necessarily involves the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had. We incline to a sparing use of our original jurisdiction so that our increasing duties with the appellate docket will not suffer.”
At the time we decided California v. Texas, it seemed to several Members of the Court that statutory interpleader might obviate the need to exercise original jurisdiction. Justice Brennan, for example, explained:
“If we have jurisdiction at all, that jurisdiction does not attach until it can be shown that the two States may possibly be able to obtain conflicting adjudications of domicile. That showing has not been made at this time in this case, since it may well be possible for the Hughes estate to obtain a judgment under the Federal Inter-pleader Statute, 28 U. S. C. §1335, from a United States district court, which would be binding on both California and Texas. In this event, the precondition for our original jurisdiction would be lacking. Accordingly, I would deny California’s motion, at least until such time as it is shown that such a statutory in-terpleader action cannot or will not be brought.” 437 U. S., at 601-602.
Our decision in Cory v. White has now shown that such a statutory interpleader action cannot be brought. Thus, the precondition for the exercise of original jurisdiction has been met.
There were several other uncertainties that affected the case when we denied California’s earlier motion. At that time, Texas urged that the controversy was not ripe because of the pending claim of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute that a “lost will” left the entire estate to it and the contention that the so-called “Mormon Will” was valid. A jury has since rejected the “Mormon Will,” the Nevada Supreme Court and the Texas Probate Court the “lost will.” Another changed circumstance is the expiration of a conditional settlement agreement between California and the estate. Texas had argued because of this allegedly collusive agreement, the case was not a justiciable case or controversy.
We conclude that our original jurisdiction is properly invoked under Texas v. Florida, and we grant California leave to file its bill of complaint. The defendants shall have 60 days to answer.
It is so ordered.
Texas asserts that California has not demonstrated the jurisdictional prerequisite of showing a “threatened injury” of “serious magnitude and imminent.” Brief in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File 6, quoting Alabama v. Arizona, 291 U. S. 286, 292 (1934). Texas explains that the true value of the estate is subject to dispute and litigation and that the estate can fully satisfy all potential death tax claims against it even under California’s own valuation.
The Court in Texas v. Florida, however, required only that “[t]he risk that decedent’s estate might constitutionally be subjected to conflicting tax assessments in excess of its total value and that the right of complainant or some other state to collect the tax might thus be defeated was a real one.” 306 U. S., at 410. The claims before us here are no more speculative than the ones there. As that case recognized, to bring an interpleader suit, “[a] plaintiff need not await actual institution of independent suits; it is enough if he shows that conflicting claims are asserted and that the consequent risk of loss is substantial.” Id., at 406. Thus, California’s allegations are sufficient to present a controversy within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a). Despite the suggestion that we do so, we decline to overrule Texas v. Florida.
As in Texas v. Florida, the idiosyncratic pattern of the decedent’s life provides a basis for more than one State’s claims. Hughes spent much of his time in California and many of his business activities were based there. He was, however, born in Texas and long continued to use Texas as his mailing address and sometimes stated that Texas was his domicile. Indeed, a jury in Texas probate proceedings has already found Hughes to have been a domiciliary of Texas at the time of his death.
The administrator of Hughes’ estate timely perfected an appeal of that judgment. Brief for Respondent Lummis in Cory v. White, O. T. 1981, No. 80-1556, p. 5. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals stayed the appeal of the Texas domicile judgment pending the outcome of the federal inter-pleader action. Id., at 7.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In conducting the 1990 United States Census, the Secretary of Commerce decided not to use a particular statistical adjustment that had been designed to correct an undercount in the initial enumeration. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Secretary’s decision was subject to heightened scrutiny because of its effect on the right of individual respondents to have their vote counted equally. We hold that the Secretary’s decision was not subject to heightened scrutiny, and that it conformed to applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.
The Constitution requires an “actual Enumeration” of the population every 10 years and vests Congress with the authority to conduct that census “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Through the Census Act, 13 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., Congress has delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Commerce the responsibility to take “a decennial census of [the] population... in such form and content as he may determine....” § 141(a). The Secretary is assisted in the performance of that responsibility by the Bureau of the Census and its head, the Director of the Census. See §2; §21 (“[The] Director shall perform such duties as may be imposed upon him by law, regulations, or orders of the Secretary”).
The Constitution provides that the results of the census shall be used to apportion the Members of the House of Representatives among the States. See Art. I, § 2, cl. 3 (“Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several States... according to their respective Numbers...”); Arndt. 14, §2 (“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State...”). Because the Constitution provides that the number of Representatives apportioned to each State determines in part the allocation to each State of votes for the election of the President, the decennial census also affects the allocation of members of the electoral college. See Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (“Each State shall appoint... a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...”). Today, census data also have important consequences not delineated in the Constitution: The Federal Government considers census data in dispensing funds through federal programs to the States, and the States use the results in drawing intrastate political districts.
There have been 20 decennial censuses in the history of the United States. Although each was designed with the goal of accomplishing an “actual Enumeration” of the population, no census is recognized as having been wholly successful in achieving that goal. Cf. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725, 732 (1983) (recognizing that “census data are not perfect,” and that “population counts for particular localities are outdated long before they are completed”); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 745 (1973) (census data “are inherently less than absolutely accurate”). Despite consistent efforts to improve the quality of the count, errors persist. Persons who should have been counted are not counted at all or are counted at the wrong location; persons who should not have been counted (whether because they died before or were born after the decennial census date, because they were not a resident of the country, or because they did not exist) are counted; and persons who should have been counted only once are counted twice. It is thought that these errors have resulted in a net “undercount” of the actual American population in every decennial census. In 1970, for instance, the Census Bureau concluded that the census results were 2.7% lower than the actual population. Brief for Respondents 12.
The undercount is not thought to be spread consistently across the population: Some segments of the population are “undercounted” to a greater degree than are others, resulting in a phenomenon termed the “differential undercount.” Since at least 1940, the Census Bureau has thought that the undercount affects some racial and ethnic minority groups to a greater extent than it does whites. In 1940, for example, when the undercount for the entire population was 5.4%, the undercount for blacks was estimated at 8.4% (and the under-count for whites at 5.0%). Ibid. The problem of the differential undercount has persisted even as the census has come to provide a more numerically accurate count of the population. In the 1980 census, for example, the overall under-count was estimated at 1.2%, and the undercount of blacks was estimated at 4.9%. Ibid.
The Census Bureau has recognized the undercount and the differential undercount as significant problems, and in the past has devoted substantial effort toward achieving their reduction. Most recently, in its preparations for the 1990 census, the Bureau initiated an extensive inquiry into various means of overcoming the impact of the undercount and the differential undercount. As part of this effort, the Bureau created two task forces: the Undercount Steering Committee, responsible for planning undercount research and policy development; and the Undercount Research Staff (URS), which conducted research into various methods of improving the accuracy of the census. In addition, the Bureau consulted with state and local governments and various outside experts and organizations.
Largely as a result of these efforts, the Bureau adopted a wide variety of measures designed to reduce the rate of error in the 1990 enumeration, including an extensive advertising campaign, a more easily completed census questionnaire, and increased use of automation, which among other things facilitated the development of accurate maps and geographic files for the 1990 census. Pet. App. 321a-322a. The Bureau also implemented a number of improvements specifically targeted at eliminating the differential undercount; these included advertising campaigns developed by and directed at traditionally undercounted populations and expanded questionnaire assistance operations for non-English speaking residents. Ibid.
In preparing for the 1990 census, the Bureau and the task forces also looked into the possibility of using large-scale statistical adjustment to compensate for the undercount and differential undercount. Although the Bureau had previously considered that possibility (most recently in 1980), it always had decided instead to rely upon more traditional methodology and the results of the enumeration. See Cuomo v. Baldrige, 674 F. Supp. 1089 (SDNY 1987) (noting that Bureau rejected large-scale statistical adjustment of the 1980 census). In 1985, preliminary investigations by the URS suggested that the most promising method of statistical adjustment was the “capture-recapture” or “dual system estimation” (DSE) approach.
The particular variations of the DSE considered by the Bureau are not important for purposes of this opinion, but an example may serve to make the DSE more understandable. Imagine that one wanted to use DSE in order to determine the number of pumpkins in a large pumpkin patch. First, one would choose a particular section of the patch as the representative subset to which the “recapture” phase will be applied. Let us assume here that it is a section exactly one-tenth the size of the entire patch that is selected. Then, at the next step — the “capture” stage — one would conduct a fairly quick count of the entire patch, making sure to record both the number of pumpkins counted in the entire patch and the number of pumpkins counted in the selected section. Let us imagine that this stage results in a count of 10,000 pumpkins for the entire patch and 1,000 pumpkins for the selected section. Next, at the “recapture” stage, one would perform an exacting count of the number of pumpkins in the selected section. Let us assume that we now count 1,100 pumpkins in that section. By comparing the results of the “capture” phase and the results of the “recapture” phase for the selected section, it is possible to estimate that approximately 100 pumpkins actually in the patch were missed for every 1,000 counted at the “capture” phase. Extrapolating this data to the count for the entire patch, one would conclude that the actual number of pumpkins in the patch is 11,000.
In the context of the census, the initial enumeration of the entire population (the “capture”) would be followed by the postenumeration survey (PES) (the “recapture”) of certain representative geographical areas. The Bureau would then compare the results of the PES to the results of the initial enumeration for those areas targeted by the PES, in order to determine a rate of error in those areas for the initial enumeration (i. e., the rate at which the initial enumeration undercounted people in those areas). That rate of error would be extrapolated to the entire population, and thus would be used to statistically adjust the results of the initial enumeration.
The URS thought that the PES also held some promise for correcting the differential undercount. The PES would be conducted through the use of a system called post-stratification. Thus, each person counted through the PES would be placed into one, and only one, of over 1,000 post-strata defined by five categories: geography; age; sex; status of housing unit (rent versus own); and race (including Hispanic versus non-Hispanic origin). By comparing the post-stratified PES data to the results of the initial enumeration, the Bureau would be able to estimate not only an overall undercount rate, but also an undercount rate for each post-strata. Hence, the statistical adjustment of the census could reflect differences in the undercount rate for each poststrata.
Through the mid-1980’s, the Bureau conducted a series of field tests and statistical studies designed to measure the utility of the PES as a tool for adjusting the census. The Director of the Bureau decided to adopt a PES-based adjustment, and in June 1987, he informed his superiors in the Department of Commerce of that decision. The Secretary of Commerce disagreed with the Director’s decision to adjust, however, and in October 1987, the Department of Commerce announced that the 1990 census would not be statistically adjusted.
In November 1988, several plaintiffs (including a number of the respondents in this action) brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arguing that the Secretary’s decision against statistical adjustment of the 1990 census was unconstitutional and contrary to federal law. The parties entered into an interim stipulation providing, inter alia, that the Secretary would reconsider the possibility of a statistical adjustment.
In July 1991, the Secretary issued his decision not to use the PES to adjust the 1990 census. Pet. App. 135a-415a. The Secretary began by noting that large-scale statistical adjustment of the census through the PES would “abandon a two hundred year tradition of how we actually count people.” Id., at 138a. Before taking a “step of that magnitude,” he held, it was necessary to be “certain that it would make the census better and the distribution of the population more accurate.” Ibid. Emphasizing that the primary purpose of the census was to apportion political representation among the States, the Secretary concluded that “the primary criterion for accuracy should be distributive accuracy — that is, getting most nearly correct the proportions of people in different areas.” Id., at 146a-147a.
After reviewing the recommendations of his advisers and the voluminous statistical research that had been compiled, the Secretary concluded that although numerical accuracy (at the national level) might be improved through statistical adjustment, he could not be confident that the distributive accuracy of the census — particularly at the state and local level — would be improved by a PES-based adjustment. Id., at 140a-141a, 200a-201a. In particular, the Secretary noted, the adjusted figures became increasingly unreliable as one focused upon smaller and smaller political subdivisions. Id., at 142a.
The Secretary stated that his decision not to adjust was buttressed by a concern that adjustment of the 1990 census might present significant problems in the future. Id., at 143a. Because small changes in adjustment methodology would have a large impact upon apportionment — an impact that could be determined before a particular methodology was chosen — the Secretary found that statistical adjustment of the 1990 census might open the door to political tampering in the future. The Secretary also noted that statistical adjustment might diminish the incentive for state and local political leaders to assist in the conduct of the initial enumeration. See id., at 143a-144a. In conclusion, the Secretary stated that the Bureau would continue its research into the possibility of statistical adjustment of future censuses, and would maintain its efforts to improve the accuracy and inclusiveness of the initial enumeration. Id., at 145a.
The plaintiffs returned to court. The District Court concluded that the Secretary’s decision violated neither the Constitution nor federal law. See New York v. United States Dept. of Commerce, 822 F. Supp. 906 (EDNY 1993).
Respondents appealed, arguing that the District Court had adopted the wrong standard of review for their constitutional claim, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed by a divided vote. 34 F. 3d 1114 (1994); Pet. App. 1a-40a. The majority looked to a line of precedent involving judicial review of intrastate districting decisions, see, e. g., Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725 (1983); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964), and found that a heightened standard of review was required here both because the Secretary’s decision impacted a fundamental right, viz., the right to have one’s vote counted, and because the decision had a disproportionate impact upon certain identifiable minority racial groups. 34 F. 3d, at 1128. The court then held that the plaintiffs had shown that the Secretary had failed to make a good-faith effort to achieve equal districts as nearly as possible, id., at 1130, and therefore that the defendants must bear the burden of proving that population deviations were necessary to achieve some legitimate state goal, id., at 1131. The court remanded for an inquiry into whether the Secretary could show that the decision not to adjust was essential for the achievement of a legitimate governmental objective. Ibid.
The dissenting judge stated that he would have affirmed based upon the decision of the District Court. See ibid. He also noted that the majority’s decision created a conflict with two other decisions of the Courts of Appeals. See Detroit v. Franklin, 4 F. 3d 1367 (CA6 1993), and Tucker v. United States Dept. of Commerce, 958 F. 2d 1411 (CA7 1992).
Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and the United States each filed a petition for certiorari. We granted those petitions, and consolidated them for argument. 515 U. S. 1190 (1995). We now reverse.
II
In recent years, we have twice considered constitutional challenges to the conduct of the census. In Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U. S. 442 (1992), the State of Montana, several state officials, and Montana’s Members of Congress brought suit against the Federal Government, challenging as unconstitutional the method used to determine the number of Representatives to which each State is entitled. A majority of a three-judge District Court looked to the principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people that was applied to intrastate districting in Wesberry v. Sanders, supra, and held it applicable to congressional apportionment of seats among the States. Noting a significant variance between the population of Montana’s single district and the population of the “ideal district,” the court found that Congress’ chosen method of apportionment violated the principle of Wesberry, and therefore voided the federal statute providing the method of apportionment.
In a unanimous decision, this Court reversed. We began by revisiting Wesberry, a case in which the Court held unconstitutional wide disparities in the population of congressional districts drawn by the State of Georgia. Montana, supra, at 459-460. We recognized that the principle of Wesberry— “ ‘equal representation for equal numbers of people’ ” — had evolved though a line of cases into a strictly enforced requirement that a State “ ‘make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality”’ among the populations of congressional districts. See Montana, supra, at 460, quoting Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S. 526, 530-531 (1969) (disparities between congressional districts in Missouri held unconstitutional); see also Karcher v. Daggett, supra (1% disparity between population of New Jersey districts held unconstitutional). Returning to Montana’s challenge to Congress’ apportionment decision, we noted that the Wesberry line of cases all involved intrastate disparities in the population of voting districts that had resulted from a State’s redistricting decisions, whereas Montana had challenged interstate disparities resulting from the actions of Congress. Montana, supra, at 460.
We found this difference to be significant beyond the simple fact that Congress was due more deference than the States in this area. Wesberry required a State to make “a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality” in the size of voting districts. Kirkpatrick, supra, at 530-531. While this standard could be applied easily to intrastate dis-tricting because there was no “theoretical incompatibility entailed in minimizing both the absolute and the relative differences” in the sizes of particular voting districts, we observed that it was not so easily applied to interstate districting decisions where there was a direct tradeoff between absolute and relative differences in size. Montana, supra, at 461-462. Finding that Montana demanded that we choose between several measures of inequality in order to hold the Wesberry standard applicable to congressional apportionment decisions, we concluded that “[n]either mathematical analysis nor constitutional interpretation provide[d] a conclusive answer” upon which to base that choice. Montana, supra, at 463.
We further found that the Constitution itself, by guaranteeing a minimum of one representative for each State, made it virtually impossible in interstate apportionment to achieve the standard imposed by Wesberry. Montana, supra, at 463. In conclusion, we recognized the historical pedigree of the challenged method of apportionment, and reemphasized that Congress’ “good-faith choice of a method of apportionment of Representatives among the several States ‘according to their respective Numbers’ commands far more deference than a state districting decision that is capable of being reviewed under a relatively rigid mathematical standard.” Montana, supra, at 464.
In Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U. S. 788 (1992), we reiterated our conclusion that the Constitution vests Congress with wide discretion over apportionment decisions and the conduct of the census. In Franklin, the State of Massachusetts and two of its registered voters sued the Federal Government, arguing that the method used by the Secretary to count federal employees serving overseas was (among other things) unconstitutional. Restating the standard of review established by Montana, we examined the Secretary’s decision in order to determine whether it was “consistent with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation.” See Franklin, supra, at 804; Montana, supra, at 459. After a review of the historical practice in the area, we found that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving that a decision contrary to that made by the Secretary would “make representation... more equal.” Franklin, 505 U. S., at 806. Concluding that the Secretary’s decision reflected a “judgment, consonant with, though not dictated by, the text and history of the Constitution...,” we held the Secretary’s decision to be well within the constitutional limits on his discretion. Ibid.
In its decision in this action, the Court of Appeals found that a standard more strict than that established in Montana and Franklin should apply to the Secretary’s decision not to statistically adjust the census. The court looked to equal protection principles distilled from the same line of state redistricting cases relied upon by the plaintiffs in Montana, and found that both the nature of the right asserted by respondents — the right to have one’s vote counted equally— and the nature of the affected classes — “certain identifiable minority groups” — required that the Secretary’s decision be given heightened scrutiny. 34 F. 3d, at 1128. The court drew from the District Court’s decision “implicit” findings: that the census did not achieve equality of voting power as nearly as practicable; “that for most purposes and for most of the population [the PES-based] adjustment would result in a more accurate count than the original census; and that the adjustment would lessen the disproportionate under-counting of minorities.” Id., at 1129.
The court recognized two significant differences between the intrastate districting cases and the instant action: first, that this case involves the federal rather than a state government; and second, that constitutional requirements make it impossible to achieve precise equality in voting power nationwide. Ibid. But it found these differences nondetermi-native, deciding that no deference was owed to the Executive Branch on a question of law, and that the “impossibility of achieving precise mathematical equality is no excuse for [the Federal Government] not making [the] mandated good-faith effort.” Ibid. The court found that the respondents here had established a prima facie violation of the Wesberry standard both by showing that the PES-based adjustment would increase numerical accuracy, and by virtue of the fact that “the differential undercount in the 1990 enumeration was plainly foreseeable and foreseen.” 34 F. 3d, at 1130-1131. The court held that the Secretary’s decision would have to be vacated as unconstitutional unless on remand he could show that the decision not to adjust “(a) furthers a governmental objective that is legitimate, and (b) is essential for the achievement of that objective.” Id., at 1131.
We think that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the “one person-one vote” standard of Wesberry and its progeny applicable to the action at hand. For several reasons, the “good-faith effort to achieve population equality” required of a State conducting intrastate redistricting does not translate into a requirement that the Federal Government conduct a census that is as accurate as possible. First, we think that the Court of Appeals understated the significance of the two differences that it recognized between state redistricting cases and the instant action. The court failed to recognize that the Secretary’s decision was made pursuant to Congress’ direct delegation of its broad authority over the census. See Art. I, § 2, cl. 3 (Congress may conduct the census “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct”). The court also undervalued the significance of the fact that the Constitution makes it impossible to achieve population equality among interstate districts. As we have noted before, the Constitution provides that “[t]he number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000 persons; each State shall have at least one Representative; and district boundaries may not cross state lines.” Montana, 503 U. S., at 447-448.
While a court can easily determine whether a State has made the requisite “good-faith effort” toward population equality through the application of a simple mathematical formula, we see no way in which a court can apply the Wes-berry standard to the Federal Government’s decisions regarding the conduct of the census. The Court of Appeals found that Wesberry required the Secretary to conduct a census that would “achieve voting-power equality,” which it understood to mean a census that was as accurate as possible. 34 F. 3d, at 1129. But in so doing, the court implicitly found that the Constitution prohibited the Secretary from preferring distributive accuracy to numerical accuracy, and that numerical accuracy — which the court found to be improved by a PES-based adjustment — was constitutionally preferable to distributive accuracy. See id., at 1131 (“[T]he Secretary did not make the required effort to achieve numerical accuracy as nearly as practicable,... the burden thus shifted to the Secretary to justify his decision not to adjust...”). As in Montana, where we could see no constitutional basis upon which to choose between absolute equality and relative equality, so here can we see no ground for preferring numerical accuracy to distributive accuracy, or for preferring gross accuracy to some particular measure of accuracy. The Constitution itself provides no real instruction on this point, and extrapolation from our intrastate districting cases is equally unhelpful.' Quite simply, “[t]he polestar of equal representation does not provide sufficient guidance to allow us to discern a single constitutionally permissible course.” Montana, supra, at 463.
In Montana, we held that Congress’ “apparently good-faith choice of a method of apportionment of Representatives among the several States ‘according to their respective Numbers’” was not subject to strict scrutiny under Wesberry. Montana, supra, at 464. With that conclusion in mind, it is difficult to see why or how Wesberry would apply to the Federal Government’s conduct of the census — a context even further removed' from intrastate districting than is congressional apportionment. Congress’ conduct of the census, even more than its decision concerning apportionment, “commands far more deference than a state districting decision that is capable of being reviewed under a relatively rigid mathematical standard.” Montana, supra, at 464.
Rather than the standard adopted by the Court of Appeals, we think that it is the standard established by this Court in Montana and Franklin that applies to the Secretary’s decision not to adjust. The text of the Constitution vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting the decennial “actual Enumeration,” see Art. I, §2, cl. 3, and notwithstanding the plethora of lawsuits that inevitably accompany each decennial census, there is no basis for thinking that Congress’ discretion is more limited than the text of the Constitution provides. See also Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U. S. 345, 361 (1982) (noting broad scope of Congress’ discretion over census). Through the Census Act, Congress has delegated its broad authority over the census to the Secretary. See 13 U. S. C. § 141(a) (Secretary shall take “a decennial census of [the] population... in such form and content as he may determine...”). Hence, so long as the Secretary’s conduct of the census is “consistent with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation,” Franklin, 505 U. S., at 804, it is within the limits of the Constitution. In light of the Constitution’s broad grant of authority to Congress, the Secretary’s decision not to adjust need bear only a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population, keeping in mind the constitutional purpose of the census.
In 1990, the Census Bureau made an extraordinary effort to conduct an accurate enumeration, and was successful in counting 98.4% of the population. See 58 Fed. Reg. 70 (1993); Brief for Federal Parties 28. The Secretary then had to consider whether to adjust the census using statistical data derived from the PES. He based his decision not to adjust the census upon three determinations. First, he held that in light of the constitutional purpose of the census, its distributive accuracy was more important than its numerical accuracy. Second, he determined that the unadjusted census data would be considered the most distributive^ accurate absent a showing to the contrary. And finally, after reviewing the results of the PES in light of extensive research and the recommendations of his advisers, the Secretary found that the PES-based adjustment would not improve distributive accuracy. Each of these three determinations is well within the bounds of the Secretary’s constitutional discretion.
As we have already seen, supra, at 18, the Secretary’s decision to focus on distributive accuracy is not inconsistent with the Constitution. Indeed, a preference for distributive accuracy (even at the expense of some numerical accuracy) would seem to follow from the constitutional purpose of the census, viz., to determine the apportionment of the Representatives among the States. Respondents do not dispute this point. See Brief for Respondents 54 (“Distributive accuracy is an appropriate criterion for judging census accuracy because it calls attention to a concern with the uses to which census data are put”). Rather, they challenge the Secretary’s first determination by arguing that he improperly “regarded evidence of superior numeric accuracy as ‘not relevant’ to the determination of distributive accuracy.” Id., at 39 (quoting Pet. App. 201a); see also Brief for Respondents 51-54. In support of this argument, respondents note that an enumeration that results in increased numerical accuracy will also result in increased distributive accuracy.
We think that respondents rest too much upon the statement by the Secretary to which they refer. When quoted in full, the statement reads: “While the preponderance of the evidence leads me to believe that the total population at the national level falls between the census counts and the adjusted figures, that conclusion is not relevant to the determination of distributive accuracy.” Pet. App. 201a. In his decision, the Secretary found numerical accuracy (in addition to distributive accuracy) to be relevant to his decision whether to adjust. See id., at 157a. Even if the Secretary had chosen to subordinate numerical accuracy, we are not sure why the fact that distributive and numerical accuracy correlate closely in an improved enumeration would require the Secretary to conclude that they correlate also for a PES-based statistical adjustment.
Turning to the Secretary’s second determination, we previously have noted, and respondents do not dispute, the importance of historical practice in this area. See Franklin, supra, at 803-806 (noting importance of historical experience in conducting the census); cf. Montana, 503 U. S., at 465 (“To the extent that the potentially divisive and complex issues associated with apportionment can be narrowed by the adoption of both procedural and substantive rules that are consistently applied year after year, the public is well served...”). Nevertheless, respondents challenge the Secretary’s second determination by arguing that his understanding of historical practice is flawed. According to respondents, the Secretary assumed that the census traditionally was conducted via a simple “headcount,” thereby ignoring the fact that statistical adjustment had been used in both the 1970 and 1980 censuses. See Brief for Respondents 4-5.
We need not tarry long with this argument.' The Secretary reasonably recognized that a PES-based statistical adjustment would be a significant change from the traditional method of conducting the census. The statistical adjustments in 1970 and 1980 to which respondents refer were of an entirely different type than the adjustment considered here, and they took place on a dramatically smaller scale. See Cuomo v. Baldrige, 674 F. Supp., at 1107 (rejecting argument that Secretary had to conduct PES-like statistical adjustment of 1980 census and finding that “none of [the] adjustments in 1970 were even remotely similar to the types of wholesale adjustments presently suggested...”). Moreover, the PES-based adjustment would have been the first time in history that the States’ apportionment would have been based upon counts in other States. See Pet. App. 251a-252a. Here, the Secretary’s understanding of the traditional method of conducting the census was well founded, as was his establishment of a rebuttable presumption that the traditional method was the most accurate.
The Secretary ultimately determined that the available evidence “tends to support the superior distributive accuracy of the actual enumeration,” id., at 185a, and it is this determination at which respondents direct the brunt of their attack. Respondents contend that the Secretary’s review of the evidence is due no deference from this Court. They argue that the Secretary’s decision is not the sort of “highly technical” administrative decision that normally commands judicial deference, and that regardless of its technical complexity, the Secretary’s review of the evidence presents a constitutional issue that deserves no deference. Respondents contend that the Secretary’s review of the evidence is of dubious validity because the Secretary is admittedly “not a statistician,” id., at 139a, and because his conclusion is at odds with that of the Director of the Census. According to respondents, we should carefully comb the Secretary’s decision in order to review his conclusions de novo.
Respondents’ argument fundamentally misapprehends the basis for our deference to the Secretary’s determination that the adjusted census results do not provide a more distributively accurate count of the population. Our deference arises not from the highly technical nature of his decision, but rather from the wide discretion bestowed by the Constitution upon Congress, and by Congress upon the Secretary. Regardless of the Secretary’s statistical expertise, it is he to whom Congress has delegated its constitutional authority over the census. For that same reason, the mere fact that the Secretary’s decision overruled the views of some of his subordinates is by itself of no moment in any judicial review of his decision.
Turning finally to review the Secretary’s conclusion that the PES-based adjustment would not improve distributive accuracy, we need note only that the Secretary’s conclusion is supported by the reasoning of some of his advisers, and was therefore a reasonable choice in an area where technical experts disagree. Cf. Tucker v. United States Dept. of Commerce, 958 F. 2d, at 1418 (Plaintiffs seeking PES-based statistical adjustment “are asking [courts] to take sides in a dispute among statisticians, demographers, and census officials concerning the desirability of making a statistical adjustment to the census headcount”). The Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs and the Administrator of the Economics and Statistics Administration both voted against adjustment. Pet. App. 59a, 140a. Moreover, even those who recommended in favor of adjustment recognized that their conclusion was not compelled by the evidence: The Director of the Census Bureau, upon whose recommendation respondents heavily rely, stated in her report to the Secretary that “[adjustment is an issue about which reasonable men and women and the best statisticians and demographers can disagree.” App. 73. And one of the principal statisticians at the Bureau, Dr. Robert E. Fay, “ ‘told the Secretary that... reasonable statisticians could differ’ ” on the question of adjustment. Pet. App. 91a. Therefore, and because we find the Secretary’s two prior determinations as well to be entirely reasonable, we conclude that his decision not to adjust the 1990 census was “consonant with... the text and history of the Constitution.” Franklin, 505 U. S., at 806.
Ill
The Constitution confers upon Congress the responsibility to conduct an “actual Enumeration” of the American public every 10 years, with the primary purpose of providing a basis for apportioning political representation among the States. Here, the Secretary of Commerce, to whom Congress has delegated its constitutional authority over the census, determined that in light of the constitutional purpose of the census, an “actual Enumeration” would best be achieved without the PES-based statistical adjustment of the results of the initial enumeration. We find that conclusion entirely reasonable. Therefore we hold that the Secretary’s decision was well within the constitutional bounds of discretion over the conduct of the census provided to the Federal Government. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
The Census Clause provides in full: “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Art. I, §2, cl. 3.
Indeed, even the first census did not escape criticism. Thomas Jefferson, who oversaw the conduct of that census in 1790 as Secretary of State, was confident that it had significantly undercounted the young Nation’s population. See C. Wright, History and Growth of the United States Census 16-17 (1900).
One might wonder how the Census Bureau is able to determine whether there is an undercount and its size.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Ohio has laid an ad valorem tax against certain intangible property, consisting of notes, accounts receivable and prepaid insurance, .owned by foreign corporations. As applied to appellants in these two cases, the tax is challenged as violating the Federal Constitution on several grounds which may conveniently be considered in a single opinion. Facts are not in dispute.
Appellant Wheeling Steel Corporation is organized under the laws of Delaware, where it maintains á statutory office. Ohio has authorized it to do business in that State and four of its eight manufacturing plants are located there. General offices, from which its entire business is controlled and conducted, are in Wheeling, West Virginia. Its officers there have custody of its money, notes and books of account. In twelve other states, including Ohio, it maintains sales offices which solicit and receive orders for its products subject to acceptance or rejection at the Wheeling .office, to which all are forwarded. From this office only may credit be extended to purchasers. Accounts are billed and collected from the Wheeling office and the sales offices have no powers or duties with respect to collection. All accounts or notes receivable are payable at Wheeling, where the written evidences thereof are kept.. Proceeds from receivables are taken into appellant’s treasury at Wheeling and there applied to general purposes of the business.
Appellant National Distillers Products Corporation is organized under the laws of Virginia, where it has a statutory office and holds annual stockholders meetings. It is admitted to do business in Ohio, where.it maintains a distillery, or. rectifying plant, and warehouse, as it does also in six- other states. Pay roll checks for plant employees are drawn on funds deposited in banks in the locality of the plant. Appellant also is licensed to do business in New York, where it maintains its principal business office and conducts its fiscal affairs and from which all business activities are directed and controlled. The corporation maintains regional sales offices in various of those states which permit private distribution of liquor. In such states customers are solicited and orders taken, subject to acceptance or rejection at New York'. It maintains no sales office in Ohio, where dispensing liquor is a state monopoly. Orders from Ohio state authorities are forwarded directly to the offices in New York and are subject to acceptance or rejection there. When the New York office accepts an order from any source, it sends shipping orders, to various plants, none of which makes any shipments except upon such orders. Only in New York can any credits be approved and all books, records and evidences of accounts receivable are kept there. Collections are managed from New York, which, is the place of payment of all receivables. During the tax year in question, the corporation solicited and took orders through agents in states other than Ohio for a large quantity of liquor shipped from its plants and warehouses in Ohio to customers elsewhere.
It is stipulated that appellahts each paid all franchise or other taxes required by Ohio for admission to do business in the State and paid all taxes assessed upon real and personal property located in said State.
The Wheeling Company also paid to the State of West Virginia, for the year in question, ad valorem taxes on all of its receivables, including those sought to be taxed by -Ohio,' pursuant.to this Court’s decision'in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U. S. 193. Neither Virginia nor New York has sought to tax the accounts receivable of National Distillers involved • herein.
The Ohio Tax Commissioner, applying §§5328-1 and 5328-2 of the General Code of Ohio, assessed for taxation in Ohio a large amount of notes and accounts receivable which each appellant derived from shipments originating at Ohio manufacturing plants. The specific ground stated for assessment was that such receivables “result from the sale of property from a stock of goods maintained within this state.”
The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed both assessments and in the Distiller’s case set forth the above-mentioned statutes and pointed out wherein its own views' and practices as to their application to accounts receivable had been modified by decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court, whose interpretations, for our purposes, become a part of the statutes. The Board said:
“. . . On a consideration of the statutory provisions above noted, the Board of Tax Appeals was of the view that before a business situs of . accounts receivable and other intangible property, for purposes of taxation, could be given to a state other than the state of the domicile of the taxpayer, it must appear that such receivables or other intangible property not only arose in the conduct of the business of the taxpayer in such other state,. but were therein so used as to become an integral part of the business carried on in such other state; and that it was not sufficient that such accounts receivable and other intangible property be used in business generally by the taxpayer. And on this view the Board held that the accounts receivable there in question, although they arose in the conduct of taxpayer’s business in the States of Indiana and Michigan, did not have a business situs in such states, and that such accounts receivable were taxable in Ohio.
“On the appeal of the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals in The Ransom & Randolph Co. case to the Supreme Court of Ohio, that Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals upon the point above indicated. 142 Ó. S. 398, 404, That. Court, upon consideration of the applicable provisions of section 5328-2 and related sections of the General Code above noted, held that the accounts receivable of a taxpayer which arose in the conduct of its business in a state or states other than the state in which it had its domicile or place of residence, had a business situs in such other state or states if such accounts receivable or the avails thereof are being applied or are intended to be applied in the conduct of the taxpayer’s business, whether in this State or elsewhere. This view of the Supreme Court as to the construction -to be placed upon the statutory provisions here in question was later followed by that Court in its decisions in the cases of The Haverfield Company v. Evatt, Tax Commr., 143 O. S. 58, and National Cash Register Company v. Evatt, Tax Commr., 145 O. S. 597.
“. . . In this situation, and applying the statutory provisions here in question as the same havé been construed by the Supreme Court of this State, it follows that since the accounts receivable of the appellant corporation -involved in this case arose— as this Board hereby find — , in the conduct of its business in the State of Ohio by the sale of its products from a stock of goods located in this State, and since, further, such accounts receivable or the avails thereof were .used or were intended to be used by the appellant in its business, whether in this State or elsewhere, such accounts receivable have a business and taxable situs in the State of Ohio, as found and determined by the tax commissioner.
“With respect to a question such as that here presented, to wit, that as to the • taxation of the accounts receivable of a foreign corporation arising in the conduct of its business in this State, the applicatión of the above noted provisions of sections 5328-1, 5328-2 and other related sections of the General Code, as the same have been construed by the Supreme Court, presents, to our mind, a serious question as to the constitutionality of said statutory provisions as so construed under the Due Process of Law clause of the Federal Constitution.....”
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed in both cases, which were brought here by. appeals.
' Appellants urge that the question which the Board of Tax Appeals regarded as serious should be resolved against the State on the ground that these intangibles had no situs in Ohio to sustain its power under the Due Process Clause so to tax them and also that to do so imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. They point out that the credits sought to be taxed , here wbre not created in Ohio, not payable there, and neither the payor nor payee, debtor nor creditor, was resident there. Moreover, the receivables arose from a contract for sale of goods, but the contracts were not made in Ohio nor performed in Ohio, and neither buyer nor seller resided there. On the assumption that Ohio could not follow tangible goods into a foreign state and tax them, either in the hands of the vendor before delivery or in the hands of a vendee after delivery, it is argued that she has no greater power to tax intangibles substituted in a foreign state for them and has no right to tax intangible proceeds of the sale of tangible goods that had passed beyond her taxing power.
In their original application of the statutory scheme the taxing authorities sought to overcome this hurdle by requiring an additional and more substantial connection between the taxed intangibles and the state taxing power. For purpose of an Ohio tax the Board of Tax Appeals held intangibles to have a situs in that State only when and to the extent “so Used as to become an integral part of the business carried on” in Ohio. It was this requirement which the Supreme Court of the State eliminated by Ransom & Randolph Co. v. Evatt, 142 Ohio St. 398, 52 N. E. 2d 738, when it held that any use of the intangibles in the general business was sufficient to make them taxable: Thus was cut the connection which the Board of . Tax Appeals originally invoked to confer jurisdiction to tax, and thus was raised the question of constitutionality regarded by the Board as serious.
However, we find it inappropriate to decide the Due Process question. The state action, which is reviewable under the Fourteenth Amendment, is the composite result of both legislation and its judicial interpretation. Ohio does not attempt and has not asserted power to tax all such intangibles, but only those owned by nonresidents and foreign corporations. It has given no indication that it intends to or would reach out to tax such intangibles as we have here unless it may at the same time exempt identical ones owned by its residents and domestic corporations. The contrary is indicated by § 5328-2, which makes the two inseparable! We deal with the taxing plan as an entirety as we find it in operation and. pass only on the constitutionality of that which the State has asserted power and purpose to do.
The state action and policy resulting from statute and decisions is certified to us by the appellee, the Tax Commissioner of Ohio, to be as follows:
. . since the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in Ransom & Randolph v. Evatt, 142 Ohio State 398 (January 12, 1944), and in obedience thereto, it has been the policy and practice of the Department of Taxation, of Ohio to construe and apply sections 5328-1 and 5328-2 of the General Code of Ohio
“(A) so as to exempt from taxation in Ohio accounts receivable of Ohio residents, including domestic corporations, which arise
“(1) from a sale of goods by an agent having an office in another state, even' though such goods be shipped from Ohio, or
“(2) from a sale of goods shipped from another state, even though such goods be sold by an agent having an office in Ohio:
“(B) so as to tax in Ohio accounts receivable of non-residents of Ohio, including foreign corporations, which arise either
“(1). from a sale of goods shipped from Ohio, even though such goods be sold by an agent having an office in another state, or
“(2) from a sale of goods by an agent having an office in Ohio, even though such goods be shipped from another state:
“That the foregoing have been iñ effect as the only tests of taxability of accounts receivable in Ohio since the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of Ransom & Randolph v. Evatt, 142 Ohio State 398, and that' said tests have been applied-without deviation both by affiant and by his predecessor in office, William S. Evatt, as the result of the holding in that case.”
Under long-settled principles of our Federation, Ohio was not required to admit these foreign corporations to carry on intrastate business within its borders. The State may arbitrarily exclude them or may license them upon any terms it sees fit, apart from exacting surrender of rights derived from the Constitution of the United States. Hanover Insurance Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S. 494, 507; Connecticut General Co. v. Johnson, 303 U. S. 77, 79-80. Ohio elected, however, to admit these corporations to transact businesses and operate manufacturing plants in the State.- For that privilege they have paid all that the State required by way of franchise or'privilege tax, which includes in its measure the value of all property owned and business done in Ohio. § § 5495, 5497, 5498 and 5499 of the Ohio General Code. See International Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U. S. 416. After a state has. chosen to domesticate foreign corporations, the adopted corporations are entitled to equal protection with the state’s own corporate progeny, at least to the extent that their property is entitled to an equally favorable ad valorem tax basis. Hanover Insurance Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S. 494, 510-511; Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490, 493, 497. Ohio holds this tax on intangibles to be an ad valorem property tax, Bennett v. Evatt, 145 Ohio St. 587, 62 N. E. 2d 345, and in no sense a franchise, privilege, occupation or income tax.
The Ohio statutory scheme assimilates its own corporate creations to natural residents and all others to nonresidents. While this classification is a permissible basis for some different rights and liabilities, we have held, as to taxation of intangibles, that the federal right of a nonresident “is the right to equal treatment.” Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S, 620, 623.
The certificate of the Tax Commissioner discloses how fundamentally discriminatory is the application of this ad valorem tax to intangibles when owned by a resident or a domestic corporation as contrasted with its application when those are owned by a domesticated corporation or a nonresident. If on the taxing date one of these petitioners and an Ohio competitor each owns an account receivable of the same amount from the same out-of-state customer for the same kind of commodity, both shipped from a manufacturing plant in Ohio and both sold out of Ohio by an agent having an office out of the State, appellant’s account receivable would be subject to Ohio’s ad valorem tax and the one held by the competing domestic corporation would not. It. seems obvious that appellants are not accorded equal treatment, and the inequality is not because of the slightest difference in Ohio’s relation to the decisive transaction, but solely because of the different residence of the owner.
The State does not seriously deny this unequal application of its own tax but claims that reciprocity provisions of the statute reestablish equality: Those provisions therefore require scrutiny.
This entire taxing plan rests on a statutory formula for fixing situs of intangible property both within and without the State. .This is provided by § 5328-2 of the Code. These intangibles “shall be considered to arise out of business transacted in a state other than that in which the owner thereof resides” under certain circumstances. (Emphasis supplied.) This basic rule separates the situs of intangibles from the residence of their owner whereas it has traditionally been at such residence, though with some exceptions. The effect is that intangibles of nonresident owners are assigned a situs within the taxing reach of Ohio while those of its residents are assigned a situs without. The plan may be said to be logically consistent in that, while it draws all such intangibles of nonresidents within the taxing power of Ohio, it by the same formula excludes those of residents. The exempted intangibles of residents are offered up to the taxing power of other states which may embrace this doctrine of a tax situs separate from residence. This is what is meant here by reciprocity, and the two provisions are declared inseparable; so that if the formula by which Ohio takes unto itself the accounts of nonresidents is held invalid, “such decision shall be deemed also to affect such provision as applied to property of a resident.”
It is hard to see that this offer of reciprocity restores to appellants any of the equality which the application of the Ohio tax, considered alone, so obviously denies. There is no indication of a readiness by other states to copy Ohio’s situs scheme so as to tax that which Ohio exempts. The proffered exchange of residents for intangible tax purposes may not commend itself as an even bargain between states. Ohio, being large, populous and highly industrialized, with heavy and basic industries, may well have much more to gain from a plan the effect of which is to tax credit exports to other states, than most states would have from a privilege to tax its own exports into Ohio. In the several years that the Ohio statute has been on the books, no other state has sought to take advantage of the “reciprocity” proffer. And if it did, the equality of rates which would also be necessary to equalize the burden between nonresidents and their resident competitors could be hardly expected nor is it provided for. Far from acceding to the situs doctrine which allocates these receivables to Ohio, the State of West Virginia stands on the very different situs doctrine approved by this Court in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U. S. 193, and under its authority has for the year in question taxed all of the receivables of the Wheeling Company, including those Ohio seeks to claim as having situs in Ohio. It is clear that this plan of “reciprocity” is not one which by credits or otherwise protects the nonresident or foreign- corporation against the discriminations apparent in the Ohio statute. We think these discriminations deny appellants equal protection of Ohio law.
The judgments are reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed.
By Mr. Justice Jackson.
The writer of the Court’s opinion deems it necessary to complete the record by pointing out why, in writing by assignment for the Court, he assumed without discussion that the protections, of the Fourteenth Amendment are available to a corporation. It was not questioned by the State in this case, nor was it considered by the courts below. It has consistently been held by this Court that the Fourteenth Amendment assures corporations equal protection of the láws, at least since 1886, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U. S. 394, 396, and that it entitles them to due process of law, at least since 1889, Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 28.
It is true that this proposition was once challenged by one Justice. Connecticut General Co. v. Johnson, 303 U. S. 77, 83 (dissenting opinion). But the challenge did not commend itself, even to such consistent liberals as Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Stone, and I had supposed it was no longer pressed. See the same Justice’s separate opinion in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 322, making no mention of this issue.
Without pretending to a complete analysis, I find that in at least two cases during this current term the same question was appropriate for consideration, as here. In Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U. S. 106, a corporation claimed to be deprived of both due process and equal protection of the law, and in Ott v. Mississippi Barge Line, 336 U. S. 169, a corporation claimed to be denied due process of law. At prior terms, in many cases the question was also inherent, for corporations made similar claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Illinois Central R. Co. v. Minnesota, 309 U. S. 157; Lincoln Life Insurance Co. v. Read, 325 U. S. 673; Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, 328 U. S. 80. Although the author of the present dissent was the writer of each of the cited Court’s opinions, it was not intimated therein that there was even doubt whether the corporations had standing to raise the questions or were entitled to protection of the Amendment. Instead, in each case the author, as I have done in this case, proceeded to discuss and dispose of the corporation’s contentions on their merits, a quite improper procedure, I should think, if the corporation had no standing to raise the constitutional questions. . Indeed, if the corporation had no such right, it is difficult to see how this Court would have jurisdiction to consider the case at all.
It may be said that in the foregoing cases other grounds might have been' found upon which to defeat the corporations’ claims, while in the present case apparently there is none.'
However, in at least two cases this Court, joined by both Justices now asserting that corporations have no rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, recently has granted relief to corporations by striking down state action as conflicting with corporate rights under that Amendment. In Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, companion case to Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, a newspaper corporation persuaded this Court that a $500 fine assessed against it violated its rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, a newspaper corporation was convicted along with an individual defendant, and'this Court set aside the conviction upon the ground that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited such state action. In neither of these cases was the corporation’s right to raise the issue questioned and the result in each case was irreconcilable with the position now asserted in dissent.
It cannot be suggested that in cases where the author is the mere instrument of the Court he must forego expression of his own convictions. Mr. Justice Cardozo taught us how Justices may write for the Court and still reserve their own positions, though overruled. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 639.
In view of this record I did not, and still do not, consider it necessary for the Court opinion to review the considerations which justify the assumption that, these corporations have standing to raise the issues decided.
Pertinent parts of the Ohio law read as follows:
“Sec. 5328-1. . . . Property of the kinds and classes mentioned in section 5328-2 of the General Code, used in and arising out of business transacted in this state by, for or on behalf of a non-resident person . . . shall be subject to taxation; and all such property of persons residing in this state used in and arising out of business transacted outside of this state by, for or on behalf of such persons . . . shall not be subject to taxation.....
“Sec. 5328-2. . . . Property of the kinds and classes herein mentioned, when used in business, shall be considered to arise out of business transacted in a state other than that in which the owner thereof resides in the cases and under the circumstances following:
“In the case of accounts receivable, when resulting from the sale of property sold by an agent ‘having an office in such other state or from a stock of goods maintained therein, or from services performed by an officer, agent or employe connected with, sent from, or reporting to any officer or at any office located in such other state.
“The provisions of this section shall be reciprocally applied, to the end that all property of the kinds and classes mentioned in this section having a business situs in this state shall be taxed herein and no property of such kinds and classes belonging to a person residing in this state and having a business "situs outside of this state shall be taxed. It is hereby declared that the assignment of a business situs outside of this state to property of a person residing in this state in any case and under any circumstances mentioned in this section is inseparable from the assignment of such situs in this state to property of a person residing outside of this state in a like case and under similar circumstances. . . .”
“Sec. 5325-1. . . . Moneys, deposits, investments, accounts receivable and prepaid items, and other taxable intangibles shall be considered to be ‘used’ when they or the avails thereof are being applied, or are intended to be applied in the conduct of the business, whether in this state or elsewhere. . . .
■ “Sec. 5638. . . . Annual taxes are hereby levied on the kinds and classes of intangible property, hereinafter enumerated, on the classified tax list in the offices of the county auditors and duplicates thereof in .the offices of the county treasurers at the following rates, to wit:
“. . . moneys, credits and all other taxable intangibles so listed, three mills on the dollar.....”
“Sec. 5327. . . . The term ‘credits’ as so used, means the excess of the sum of all current accounts receivable and prepaid items [used] in business when added together estimating every such account and item at its true value in money, over and above the sum of current accounts payable of the business; other than taxes and assessments. . . .” Ohio Gen. Code Ann. (1945).
150 Ohio St. 229, 80 N. E. 2d 863.
28U.S.C.§ 1257 (2).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
After the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves a state implementation plan under the Clean Air Act, the plan may be challenged in a court of appeals within 30 days, or after 30 days have run if newly discovered or available information justifies subsequent review. We must decide whether the operator of a regulated emission source, in a petition for review of an EPA-approved state plan filed after the original 30-day appeal period, can raise the claim that it is economically or technologically infeasible to comply with the plan.
I
We have addressed the history and provisions of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676, in detail in Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 421 U. S. 60 (1975), and will not repeat that discussion here. Suffice it to say that the Amendments reflect congressional dissatisfaction with the progress of existing air pollution programs and a determination to “tak[e] a stick to the States,” id., at 64, in order to guarantee the prompt attainment and maintenance of specified air quality standards. The heart of the Amendments is the requirement that each State formulate, subject to EPA approval, an implementation plan designed to achieve national primary ambient air quality standards — those necessary to protect the public health — “as expeditiously as practicable but... in no case later than three years from the date of approval of such plan.” § 110 (a) (2) (A) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1680, 42 U. S. C. § 1857&-5 (a) (2) (A). The plan must also provide for the attainment of national secondary ambient air quality standards'— those necessary to protect the public welfare — within a “reasonable time.” Ibid. Each State is given wide discretion in formulating its plan, and the Act provides that the Administrator “shall approve” the proposed plan if it has been adopted after public notice and hearing and if it meets eight specified criteria. § 110 (a) (2).
On April 30, 1971, the Administrator promulgated national primary and secondary standards for six air pollutants he found to have an adverse effect on the public health and welfare. 40 CFR pt. 50 (1975). See § 108 (a) of the Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1678, 42 U. S. C. § 1857c-3 (a). Included among them was sulfur dioxide, at issue here. 40 CFR §§ 50.4-50.5 (1975). After the promulgation of the national standards, the State of Missouri formulated its implementation plan and submitted it for approval. Since sulfur dioxide levels exceeded national primary standards in only one of the State’s five air quality regions — the Metropolitan St. Louis Interstate region, 40 CFR § 52.1321 (1975)- — the Missouri plan concentrated on a control strategy and regulations to lower emissions in that area. The plan’s emission limitations were effective at once, but the State retained authority to grant variances to particular sources that could not immediately comply. Mo. Rev. Stat. §203.110 (1972). The Administrator approved the plan on May 31, 1972. See 40 CFR § 52.1320 et seq. (1975).
Petitioner is an electric utility company servicing the St. Louis metropolitan area, large portions of Missouri, and parts of Illinois and Iowa. Its three coal-fired generating plants in the metropolitan St. Louis area are subject to the sulfur dioxide restrictions in the Missouri implementation plan. Petitioner did not seek review of the Administrator’s approval of the plan within 30 days, as it was entitled to do under § 307 (b)(1) of the Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1708, 42 U. S. C. § 1857h-5 (b) (1), but rather applied to the appropriate state and county agencies for variances from the emission limitations affecting its three plants. Petitioner received one-year variances, which could be extended upon reapplication. The variances on two of petitioner’s three plants had expired and petitioner was applying for extensions when, on May 31, 1974, the Administrator notified petitioner that sulfur dioxide emissions from its plants violated the emission limitations contained in the Missouri plan. See 40 Fed. Reg. 3566 (1975). Shortly thereafter petitioner filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review of the Administrator’s 1972 approval of the Missouri implementation plan.
Section 307 (b)(1) allows petitions for review to be filed in an appropriate court of appeals more than 30 days after the Administrator’s approval of an implementation plan only if the petition is "based solely on grounds arising- after such 30th day.” Petitioner claimed to meet this requirement by asserting, inter alia, that various economic and technological difficulties had arisen more than 30 days after the Administrator’s approval and that these difficulties made compliance with the emission limitations impossible. The Court of Appeals ordered briefing on the question of its subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case and, after argument, granted the motions of the EPA and intervenor-respond-ents, the Attorney General of Missouri and the Missouri Air Conservation Commission, to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
The court held that “only matters which, if known to the Administrator at the time of his action [in approving a state implementation plan], would justify setting aside that action are properly re viewable after the initial 30 day review period.” 515 F. 2d 206, 216 (1975). Since, in the court’s view, claims of economic and technological infeasibility could not properly provide a basis for the Administrator’s rejecting a plan, such claims could not serve — at any time — as the basis for a court’s overturning an approved plan. Accordingly, insofar as petitioner’s claim of newly discovered or available information was grounded on an assertion of economic and technological infeasibility, the court held itself to be without jurisdiction to consider the petition for review, and so dismissed the petition. In so holding the Court of Appeals considered and rejected the contrary or partially contrary holdings of three other Circuits. Buckeye Power, Inc. v. EPA, 481 F. 2d 162, 168-169 (CA6 1973) (but see id., at 173); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 477 F. 2d 495, 505-507 (CA4 1973); Duquesne Light Co. v. EPA, 481 F. 2d 1 (CA3 1973); Getty Oil Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 467 F. 2d 349 (CA3 1972), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1125 (1973). See also St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. EPA, 508 F. 2d 743, 746-749 (CA3 1975), vacated and remanded, 425 U. S. 987 (1976); Duquesne Light Co. v. EPA, 522 F. 2d 1186 (CA3 1975), cert. pending, No. 75-736. On the other hand, the Eighth Circuit found support for its position in the decisions of several other Circuits. South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F. 2d 646, 675-676 (CA1 1974); Texas v. EPA, 499 F. 2d 289, 317 (CA5 1974); Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 507 F. 2d 905, 914 (CA9 1974). See also Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. EPA, 509 F. 2d 839, 843-845 (CA7 1975). Cf. Buckeye Power, Inc. v. EPA, 525 F. 2d 80 (CA6 1975). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Circuits, 423 U. S. 821 (1975), and we now affirm.
II
A
We reject at the outset petitioner’s suggestion that a claim of economic or technological infeasibility may be considered upon a petition for review based on new information and filed more than 30 days after approval of an implementation plan even if such a claim could not be considered by the Administrator in approving a plan or by a court in reviewing a plan challenged within the original 30-day appeal period. In pertinent part § 307 (b)(1) provides:
“A petition for review of the Administrator’s action in approving or promulgating any implementation plan under section 110... may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any such petition shall be filed within 30 days from the date of such promulgation or approval, or after such date if such petition is based solely on grounds arising after such 30th day.”
Regardless of when a petition for review is filed under i 307 (b)(1), the court is limited to reviewing “the Administrator’s action in approving... [the] implementation plan... Accordingly, if new “grounds” are alleged, they must be such that, had they been known at the time the plan was presented to the Administrator for approval, it would have been an abuse of discretion for the Administrator to approve the plan. To hold otherwise would be to transfer a substantial responsibility in administering the Clean Air Act from the Administrator and the state agencies to the federal courts.
B
Since a reviewing court — regardless of when the petition for review is filed — may consider claims of economic and technological infeasibility only if the Administrator may consider such claims in approving or rejecting a state implementation plan, we must address ourselves to the scope of the Administrator’s responsibility. The Administrator’s position is that he has no power whatsoever to reject a state implementation plan on the ground that it is economically or technologically infeasible, and we have previously accorded great deference to the Administrator’s construction of the Clean Air Act. See Train v. NRDC, 421 U. S., at 75. After surveying the relevant provisions of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 and their legislative history, we agree that Congress intended claims of economic and technological infeasibility to be wholly foreign to the Administrator’s consideration of a state implementation plan.
As we have previously recognized, the 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act were a drastic remedy to what was perceived as a serious and otherwise uncheckable problem of air pollution. The Amendments place the primary responsibility for formulating pollution control strategies on the States, but nonetheless subject the States to strict minimum compliance requirements. These requirements are of a "technology-forcing character,” Train v. NRDC, supra, at 91, and are expressly designed to force regulated sources to develop pollution control devices that might at the time appear to be economically or technologically infeasible.
This approach is apparent on the face of § 110 (a)(2). The provision sets out eight criteria that an implementation plan must satisfy, and provides that if these criteria are met and if the plan was adopted after reasonable notice and hearing, the Administrator "shall approve” the proposed state plan. The mandatory "shall” makes it quite clear that the Administrator is not to be concerned with factors other than those specified, Train v. NRDC, supra, at 71 n. 11, 79, and none of the eight factors appears to permit consideration of technological or economic infeasibility. Nonetheless, if a basis is to be found for allowing the Administrator to consider such claims, it must be among the eight criteria, and so it is here that the argument is focused.
It is suggested that consideration of claims of technological and economic infeasibility is required by the first criterion — that the primary air quality standards be met “as expeditiously as practicable but... in no case later than three years...” and that the secondary air quality standards be met within a “reasonable time.” §110 (a)(2)(A). The argument is that what is “practicable” or “reasonable” cannot be determined without assessing whether what is proposed is possible. This argument does not survive analysis.
Section 110 (a)(2)(A)’s three-year deadline for achieving primary air quality standards is central to the Amendments’ regulatory scheme and, as both the language and the legislative history of the requirement make clear, it leaves no room for claims of technological or economic infeasibility. The 1970 congressional debate on the Amendments centered on whether technology forcing was necessary and desirable in framing and attaining air quality standards sufficient to protect the public health, standards later termed primary standards. The House version of the Amendments was quite moderate in approach, requiring only that health-related standards be met “within a reasonable time.” H. R. 17255, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., § 108 (c)(1)(C)(i) (1970). The Senate bill, on the other hand, flatly required that, possible or not, health-related standards be met “within three years.” S. 4358, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., § 111 (a)(2) (A) (1970).
The Senate’s stiff requirement was intended to foreclose the claims of emission sources that it would be economically or technologically infeasible for them to achieve emission limitations sufficient to protect the public health within the specified time. As Senator Muskie, manager of the Senate bill, explained to his chamber:
“ ‘The first responsibility of Congress is not the making of technological or economic judgments— or even to be limited by what is or appears to be technologically or economically feasible. Our responsibility is to establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries will be asked to do what seems to be impossible at the present time.5 ” 116 Cong. Rec. 32901-32902 (1970).
See also id., at 32919 (remarks of Sen. Cooper); 33115 (remarks of Sen. Prouty). This position reflected that of the Senate committee:
“In the Committee discussions, considerable concern was expressed regarding the use of the concept of technical feasibility as the basis of ambient air standards. The Committee determined that 1) the health of people is more important than the question of whether the early achievement of ambient air quality standards protective of health is technically feasible; and 2) the growth of pollution load in many areas, even with application of available technology, would still be deleterious to public health.
“Therefore, the Committee determined that existing sources of pollutants either should meet the standard of the law or be closed down....” S. Rep. No. 91-1196, pp. 2-3 (1970).
The Conference Committee and, ultimately, the entire Congress accepted the Senate’s three-year mandate for the achievement of primary air quality standards, and the clear import of that decision is that the Administrator must approve a plan that provides for attainment of the primary standards in three years even if attainment does not appear feasible. In rejecting the House’s version of reasonableness, however, the conferees strengthened the Senate version. The Conference Committee made clear that the States could not procrastinate until the deadline approached. Rather, the primary standards had to be met in less than three years if possible; they had to be met “as expeditiously as practicable.” § 110 (a)(2)(A). Whatever room there is for considering claims of infeasibility in the attainment of primary standards must lie in this phrase, which is, of course, relevant only in evaluating those implementation plans that attempt to achieve the primary standard in less than three years.
It is argued that when such a state plan calls for proceeding more rapidly than economics and the available technology appear to allow, the plan must be rejected as not “practicable.” Whether this is a correct reading of § 110 (a) (2) (A) depends on how that section’s “as expeditiously as practicable” phrase is characterized. The Administrator’s position is that § 110 (a) (2) (A) sets only a minimum standard that the States may exceed in their discretion, so that he has no power to reject an infeasible state plan that surpasses the minimum federal requirements — a plan that reflects a state decision to engage in technology forcing on its own and to proceed more expeditiously than is practicable. On the other hand, petitioner and amici supporting its position argue that § 110 (a) (2) (A) sets a mandatory standard that the States must meet precisely, and conclude that the Administrator may reject a plan for being too strict as well as for being too lax. Since the arguments supporting this theory are also made to show that the Administrator must reject a state plan that provides for achieving more than the secondary air quality standards require, we defer consideration of this question in order to outline the development and content of the secondary standards provision of § 110 (a)(2)(A).
Secondary air quality standards, those necessary to protect the public welfare, were subject to far less legislative debate than the primary standards. The House version of the Amendments treated welfare-related standards together with health-related standards, and required both to be met "within a reasonable time.” H. R. 17255, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., §§ 107 (e)(1), 108 (c) (l)(C)(i) (1970). The Senate bill, on the other hand, treated health- and welfare-related standards separately and did not require that welfare-related standards be met in any particular time at all, S. 4358, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., §§ 110 (a)(3), 110 (b), 111 (a)(2)(A) (1970), although the Committee Report expressed the desire that they be met “as rapidly as possible.” S. Rep. No. 91-1196, p. 11 (1970). The final Amendments also separated welfare-related standards from health-related standards, labeled them secondary air quality standards, and adopted the House’s requirement that they be met within a “reasonable time.” §§ 109 (b), 110 (a)(2)(A). Thus, technology forcing is not expressly required in achieving standards to protect the public welfare.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that the Administrator may consider claims of impossibility in assessing a state plan for achieving secondary standards. As with plans designed to achieve primary standards in less than three years, the scope of the Administrator’s power to reject a plan depends on whether the State itself may decide to engage in technology forcing and adopt a plan more stringent than federal law demands.
Amici Appalachian Power Co. et al. argue that the Amendments do not give such broad power to the States. They claim that the States are precluded from submitting implementation plans more stringent than federal law demands by § 110 (a) (2)’s second criterion — that the plan contain such control devices “as may be necessary” to achieve the primary and secondary air quality standards. §110(a)(2)(B). The contention is that an overly restrictive plan is not “necessary” for attainment of the national standards and so must be rejected by the Administrator.
The principal support for this theory of amici lies in the fact that while the House and Senate versions of §110 (a)(2) both expressly provided that the States could submit for the Administrator’s approval plans that were stricter than the national standards required, see H. R. 17255, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., § 108 (c) (1970); S. 4358, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., § 111 (a)(1) (1970), the section as enacted contains no such express language. Amici argue that the Conference Committee must have decided to require state implementation plans simply — and precisely — to meet the national standards. The argument of amici proves too much. A Conference Committee lacks power to make substantive changes on matters about which both Houses agree. 2 U. S. C. § 190c (a) (Senate Conference Reports); Rule XXVIII (3), Rules of the House of Representatives, and § 546, Jefferson’s Manual, H. R. Doc. No. 384, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 526, 270-271 (1972); National Coal Operators’ Assn. v. Kleppe, 423 U. S. 388, 401 n. 10 (1976). Here the Conference Report expressly notes that both the Senate and House bills would allow States to submit plans more stringent than the national standards demand, and offers no suggestion that the Conference bill intended to change that result, even if it could. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1783, p. 45 (1970). And while the final language of § 110 (a) (2)(B) may be less explicit than the versions originally approved by the House and the Senate, the most natural reading of the “as may be necessary” phrase in context is simply that the Administrator must assure that the minimal, or “necessary,” requirements are met, not that he detect and reject any state plan more demanding than federal law requires.
This reading is further supported by practical considerations. Section 116 of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1689, 42 U. S. C. § 1857d-l (1970 ed., Supp. IV), provides that the States may adopt emission standards stricter than the national standards. Amici argue that such standards must be adopted and enforced independently of the EPA-approved state implementation plan. This construction of §§ 110 and 116, however, would not only require the Administrator to expend considerable time and energy determining whether a state plan was precisely tailored to meet the federal standards, but would simultaneously require States desiring stricter standards to enact and enforce two sets of emission standards, one federally approved plan and one stricter state plan. We find no basis in the Amendments for visiting such wasteful burdens upon the States and the Administrator, and so we reject the argument of amici.
We read the “as may be necessary” requirement of § 110 (a) (2) (B) to demand only that the implementation plan submitted by the State meet the “minimum conditions” of the Amendments. Train v. NRDC, 421 U. S., at 71 n. 11. Beyond that, if a State makes the legislative determination that it desires a particular air quality by a certain date and that it is willing to force technology to attain it — or lose a certain industry if attainment is not possible — such a determination is fully consistent with the structure and purpose of the Amendments, and § 110 (a) (2) (B) provides no basis for the EPA Administrator to object to the determination on the ground of infeasibility. See Train v. NRDC, supra, at 79.
In sum, we have concluded that claims of economic or technological infeasibility may not be considered by the Administrator in evaluating a state requirement that primary ambient air quality standards be met in the mandatory three years. And, since we further conclude that the States may submit implementation plans more stringent than federal law requires and that the Administrator must approve such plans if they meet the minimum requirements of § 110 (a)(2), it follows that the language of §110 (a)(2)(B) provides no basis for the Administrator ever to reject a state implementation plan on the ground that it is economically or technologically infeasible. Accordingly, a court of appeals reviewing an approved plan under § 307 (b) (1) cannot set it aside on those grounds, no matter when they are raised.
Ill
Our conclusion is bolstered by recognition that the Amendments do allow claims of technological and economic infeasibility to be raised in situations where consideration of such claims will not substantially interfere with the primary congressional purpose of prompt attainment of the national air quality standards. Thus, we do not hold that claims of infeasibility are never of relevance in the formulation of an implementation plan or that sources unable to comply with emission limitations must inevitably be shut down.
Perhaps, the most important forum for consideration of claims of economic and technological infeasibility is before the state agency formulating the implementation plan. So long as the national standards are met, the State may select whatever mix of control devices it desires, Train v. NRDC, supra, at 79, and industries with particular economic or technological problems may seek special treatment in the plan itself. Cf. 40 CFR §§51.2 (b), (d) (1975); S. Rep. No. 91-1196, p. 36 (1970). Moreover, if the industry is not exempted from, or accommodated by, the original plan, it may obtain a variance, as petitioner did in this case; and the variance, if granted after notice and a hearing, may be submitted to the EPA as a revision of the plan. § 110 (a) (3) (A), as amended, 88 Stat. 256, 42 U. S. C. § 1857c-5 (a) (3) (A) (1970 ed., Supp. IY). Lastly, an industry denied an exemption from the implementation plan, or denied a subsequent variance, may be able to take its claims of economic or technological infeasibility to the state courts. See, e. g., Mo. Rev. Stat. §203.130 (1972); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39506 (West 1973); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 71, § 1710.41 (1962).
While the State has virtually absolute power in allocating emission limitations so long as the national standards are met, if the state plan cannot meet the national standards, the EPA is implicated in any postponement procedure. There are two ways that a State can secure relief from the EPA for individual emission sources, or classes of sources, that cannot meet the national standards. First, if the Governor of the State so requests at the time the original implementation plan is submitted, and if the State provides reasonable interim controls, the Administrator may allow a two-year extension of the three-year deadline for attainment of primary air quality standards if he finds, inter alia, that it is technologically infeasible for the source to comply. § 110 (e). Second, again upon application of the Governor of the State, the Administrator may allow a one-year postponement of any compliance date in an implementation plan if he finds, inter alia, that compliance is technologically infeasible and that “the continued operation of [the emission source] is essential to national security or to the public health or welfare... § 110 (f). See Train v. NRDC, 421 U. S., at 81.
Even if the State does not intervene on behalf of an emission source, technological and economic factors may be considered in at least one other circumstance. When a source is found to be in violation of the state implementation plan, the Administrator may, after a conference with the operator, issue a compliance order rather than seek civil or criminal enforcement. Such an order must specify a “reasonable” time for compliance with the relevant standard, taking into account the seriousness of the violation and “any good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements.” § 113 (a)(4) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1686, 42 U. S. C. § 1857o-8 (a) (4). Claims of technological or economic infeasibility, the Administrator agrees, are relevant to fashioning an appropriate compliance order under § 113 (a) (4). Brief for Respondent EPA 36 n. 34.
In short, the Amendments offer ample opportunity for consideration of claims of technological and economic infeasibility. Always, however, care is taken that consideration of such claims will not interfere substantially with the primary goal of prompt attainment of the national standards. Allowing such claims to be raised by appealing the Administrator’s approval of an implementation plan, as petitioner suggests, would frustrate congressional intent. It would permit a proposed plan to be struck down as infeasible before it is given a chance to work, even though Congress clearly contemplated that some plans would be infeasible when proposed. And it would permit the Administrator or a federal court to reject a State’s legislative choices in regulating air pollution, even though Congress plainly left with the States, so long as the national standards were met, the power to determine which sources would be burdened by regulation and to what extent. Technology forcing is a concept somewhat new to our national experience and it necessarily entails certain risks. But Congress considered those risks in passing the 1970 Amendments and decided that the dangers posed by uncontrolled air pollution made them worth taking. Petitioner’s theory would render that considered legislative judgment a nullity, and that is a result we refuse to reach.
Affirmed.
Section 110 (a) (2), 42 U. S. C. § 1857c-5 (a) (2), provides in full:
“The Administrator shall, within four months after the date required for submission of a plan under paragraph (1), approve or disapprove such plan or each portion thereof. The Administrator shall approve such plan, or any portion thereof, if he determines that it was adopted after reasonable notice and hearing and that—
“(A) (i) in the case of a plan implementing a national primary ambient air quality standard, it provides for the attainment of such primary standard as expeditiously as practicable but (subject to subsection (e)) in no case later than three years from the date of approval of such plan (or any revision thereof to take account of a revised primary standard); and (ii) in the case of a plan implementing a national secondary ambient air quality standard, it specifies a reasonable time at which such secondary standard will be attained;
“(B) it includes emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of such primary or secondary standard, including, but not limited to, land-use and transportation controls;
“(C) it includes provision for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality and, (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator;
“(D) it includes a procedure, meeting the requirements of paragraph (4), for review (prior to construction or modification) of the location of new sources to which a standard of performance will apply;
“(E) it contains adequate provisions for intergovernmental cooperation, including measures necessary to insure that emissions of air pollutants from sources located in any air quality control region will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of such primary or secondary standard in any portion of such region outside of such State or in any other air quality control region;
“(F) it provides (i) necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority to carry out such implementation plan, (ii) requirements for installation of equipment by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (iii) for periodic reports on the nature and amounts of such emissions; (iv) that such reports shall be correlated by the State agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this Act, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection; and (v) for authority comparable to that in section 303, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority;
“(G) it provides, to the extent necessary and practicable, for periodic inspection and testing of motor vehicles to enforce compliance with applicable emission standards; and
“(H) it provides for revision, after public hearings, of such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of achieving such primary or secondary standard; or (ii) whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to him that the plan is substantially inadequate to achieve the national ambient air quality primary or secondary standard which it implements.”
The plan was designed to attain primary and secondary air quality standards in the Metropolitan St. Louis Interstate region by July 1975. See 40 CFR § 52.1332 (1975).
The notice included all three plants, even though the variance on one of them had not yet expired, because the one variance still in effect had not been submitted to the EPA as a plan revision under § 110 (a) (3) (A), as amended, 88 Stat. 256, 42 U. S. C. § 1857c-5 (a)(3)(A) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), and therefore was not part of the applicable implementation plan. See n. 15, infra,
Petitioner also claimed that the presence of sulfur dioxide in the ambient air should no longer be regarded as a health hazard and that compliance with the Missouri implementation plan was not necessary for attainment of national primary or secondary air quality standards. The Court of Appeals found that these claims were not sufficient to establish jurisdiction under §307 (b)(1).
The court held that the challenge to the validity of regulating sulfur dioxide was not properly before it because the alleged new information had not previously been presented to the Administrator for action, a procedure the court held was necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction. 515 F. 2d 206, 220 (1975). See also Oljato Chapter of Navajo Tribe v. Train, 169 U. S. App. D. C. 195, 515 F. 2d 654 (1975). In any case, the court held, the challenge was to a national air quality standard and as such could be brought only in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under §307 (b)(1). 515 F. 2d, at 220. While petitioner sought certiorari on this ruling, our grant of the writ was limited to the question whether claims of economic or technical infeasibility could be raised in a challenge to a state implementation plan. 423 U. S. 821 (1975).
The Court of Appeals also found that no claim was stated by petitioner’s assertion that the Missouri standards exceeded those necessary for compliance with the national standards because, the court held, the States are free to adopt stricter standards than the national standards under § 116 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 84 Stat. 1689 and 88 Stat. 259, 42 ü. S. C. § 1857d-l (1970 ed., Supp. IV). 515 F. 2d, at 220. While certiorari was not sought on this question, it has been briefed for us and we find it necessary to resolve it in deciding this case. See infra, at 261-266.
See n. 1, supra. Comparison of the eight criteria of § 110 (a) (2) with other provisions of-the Amendments bolsters this conclusion. Where Congress intended the Administrator to be concerned about economic and technological infeasibility, it expressly so provided. Thus, §§110 (e), 110 (f), 111 (a)(1), 202 (a), 211 (c)(2)(A), and 231 (b) of the Amendments all expressly permit consideration, e. g., “of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance.” §231 (b), as added, 84 Stat. 1704, 42 U. S. C. § 1857f-9 (b). See also 42 U. S. C. §§ 1857c-5 (e), 1857c-5 (f), 1857c-6 (a) (1), 1857f-1 (a), 1857f-6c (c) (2) (A). Section 110 (a) (2) contains no such language.
The Administrator appears to take this position in his guidelines for attaining secondary standards. See 40 CFR § 51.13 (
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant was charged with murder in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty and gave notice of his intention to prove insanity. Upon trial in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, he was found guilty by a jury. In accordance with the jury’s decision not to recommend life imprisonment, appellant received a sentence of death. The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed. 190 Ore. 598, 227 P. 2d 785. The case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
Oregon statutes required appellant to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt and made a “morbid propensity” no defense. The principal questions in this appeal are raised by appellant’s contentions that these statutes deprive him of his life and liberty without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The facts of the crime were revealed by appellant’s confessions, as corroborated by other evidence. He killed a fifteen-year-old girl by striking her over the head several times with a steel bar and stabbing her twice with a hunting knife. Upon being arrested five days later for the theft of an automobile, he asked to talk with a homicide officer, voluntarily confessed the murder, and directed the police to the scene of the crime, where he pointed out the location of the body. On the same day, he signed a full confession and, at his own request, made another in his own handwriting. After his indictment, counsel were appointed to represent him. They have done so with diligence in carrying his case through three courts.
One of the Oregon statutes in question provides:
“When the commission of the act charged as a crime is proven, and the defense sought to be established is the insanity of the defendant, the same must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt . ...”
Appellant urges that this statute in effect requires a defendant pleading insanity to establish his innocence by disproving beyond a reasonable doubt elements of the crime necessary to a verdict of guilty, and that the statute is therefore violative of that due process of law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. To determine the merit of this challenge, the statute must be viewed in its relation to other relevant Oregon law and in its place in the trial of this case.
In conformity with the applicable state law, the trial judge instructed the jury that, although appellant was charged with murder in the first degree, they might determine that he had committed a lesser crime included in that charged. They were further instructed that his plea of not guilty put in issue every material and necessary element of the lesser degrees of homicide, as well as of the offense charged in the indictment. The jury could have returned any of five verdicts: (1) guilty of murder in the first degree, if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did the killing purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice; (2) guilty of murder in the second degree, if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did the killing purposely and maliciously, but without deliberation and premeditation; (3) guilty of manslaughter, if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did the killing without malice or deliberation, but upon a sudden heat of passion caused by a provocation apparently sufficient to make the passion irresistible; (4) not guilty, if, after a careful consideration of all the evidence, there remained in their minds a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of the necessary elements of each degree of homicide; and (5) not guilty by reason of insanity, if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was insane at the time of the offense charged. A finding of insanity would have freed appellant from responsibility for any of the possible offenses. The verdict which the jury determined — guilty of first degree murder — required the agreement of all twelve jurors; a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity would have required the concurrence of only ten members of the panel.
It is apparent that the jury might have found appellant to have been mentally incapable of the premeditation and deliberation required to support a first degree murder verdict or of the intent necessary to find him guilty of either first or second degree murder, and yet not have found him to have been legally insane. Although a plea of insanity was made, the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged, including, in the case of first degree murder, premeditation, deliberation, malice and intent. The trial court repeatedly emphasized this requirement in its charge to the jury. Moreover, the judge directed the jury as follows:
“I instruct you that the evidence adduced during this trial to prove defendant’s insanity shall be considered and weighed by you, with all other evidence, whether or not you find defendant insane, in regard to the ability of the defendant to premeditate, form a purpose, to deliberate, act wilfully, and act maliciously; and if you find the defendant lacking in such ability, the defendant cannot have committed the crime of murder in the first degree.
“I instruct you that should you find the defendant’s mental condition to be so affected or diseased to the end that the defendant could formulate no plan, design, or intent to kill in cool blood, the defendant has not committed the crime of murder in the first degree.”
These and other instructions, and the charge as a whole, make it clear that the burden of proof of guilt, and of all the necessary elements of guilt, was placed squarely upon the State. As the jury was told, this burden did not shift, but rested upon the State throughout the trial, just as, according to the instructions, appellant was presumed to be innocent until the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The jurors were to consider separately the issue of legal sanity per se — an issue set apart from the crime charged, to be introduced by a special plea and decided by a special verdict. On this issue appellant had the burden of proof under the statute in question here.
By this statute, originally enacted in 1864, Oregon adopted the prevailing doctrine of the time — that, since most men are sane, a defendant must prove his insanity to avoid responsibility for his acts. That was the rule announced in 1843 in the leading English decision in M’Naghten’s Case:
“[T]he jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and ... to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing . . .
This remains the English view today. In most of the nineteenth-century American cases, also, the defendant was required to “clearly” prove insanity, and that was probably the rule followed in most states in 1895, when Davis v. United States was decided. In that case this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Harlan, announced the rule for federal prosecutions to be that an accused is “entitled to an acquittal of the specific crime charged if upon all the evidence there is reasonable doubt whether he was capable in law of committing crime.” In reaching that conclusion, the Court observed:
“The views we have expressed are supported by many adjudications that are entitled to high respect. If such were not the fact, we might have felt obliged to accept the general doctrine announced in some of the above cases; for it is desirable that there be uniformity of rule in the administration of the criminal law in governments whose constitutions equally recognize the fundamental principles that are deemed essential for the protection of life and liberty.”
The decision obviously establishes no constitutional doctrine, but only the rule to be followed in federal courts. As such, the rule is not in question here.
Today, Oregon is the only state that requires the accused, on a plea of insanity, to establish that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Some twenty states, however, place the burden on the accused to establish his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence or some similar measure of persuasion. While there is an evident distinction between these two rules as to the quantum of proof required, we see no practical difference of such magnitude as to be significant in determining the constitutional question we face here. Oregon merely requires a heavier burden of proof. In each instance, in order to establish insanity as a complete defense to the charges preferred, the accused must prove that insanity. The fact that a practice is followed by a large number of states is not conclusive in a decision as to whether that practice accords with due process, but it is plainly worth considering in determining whether the practice “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105 (1934).
Nor is this a case in which it is sought to enforce against the states a right which we have held to be secured to defendants in federal courts by the Bill of Rights. In Davis v. United States, supra, we adopted a rule of procedure for the federal courts which is contrary to that of Oregon. But “[i]ts procedure does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser or to give a surer promise of protection to the prisoner at the bar.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, at 105. “The judicial judgment in applying the Due Process Clause must move within the limits of accepted notions of justice and is not to be based upon the idiosyncrasies of a merely personal judgment. . . . An important safeguard against such merely individual judgment is an alert deference to the judgment of the state court under review.” Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring in Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 417 (1945). We are therefore reluctant to interfere with Oregon’s determination of its policy with respect to the burden of proof on the issue of sanity since we cannot say that policy violates generally accepted concepts of basic standards of justice.
Nothing said in Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463 (1943), suggests a different conclusion. That decision struck down a specific presumption created by congressional enactment. This Court found that the fact thus required to be presumed had no rational connection with the fact which, when proven, set the presumption in operation, and that the statute resulted in a presumption of guilt based only upon proof of a fact neither criminal in itself nor an element of the crime charged. We have seen that, here, Oregon required the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. Only on the issue of insanity as an absolute bar to the charge was the burden placed upon appellant. In all English-speaking courts, the accused is obliged to introduce proof if he would overcome the presumption of sanity.
It is contended that the instructions may have confused the jury as to the distinction between the State’s burden of proving premeditation and the other elements of the charge and appellant’s burden of proving insanity. We think the charge to the jury was as clear as instructions to juries ordinarily are or reasonably can be, and, with respect to the State’s burden of proof upon all the elements of the crime, the charge was particularly emphatic. Juries have for centuries made the basic decisions between guilt and innocence and between criminal responsibility and legal insanity upon the basis of the facts, as revealed by all the evidence, and the law, as explained by instructions detailing the legal distinctions, the placement and weight of the burden of proof, the effect of presumptions, the meaning of intent, etc. We think that to condemn the operation of this system here would be to condemn the system generally. We are not prepared to do so.
Much we have said applies also to appellant’s contention that due process is violated by the Oregon statute providing that a “morbid propensity to commit prohibited acts, existing in the mind of a person, who is not shown to have been incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of such acts, forms no defense to a prosecution therefor.” That statute amounts to no more than a legislative adoption of the “right and wrong” test of legal insanity in preference to the “irresistible impulse” test. Knowledge of right and wrong is the exclusive test of criminal responsibility in a majority of American jurisdictions. The science of psychiatry has made tremendous strides since that test was laid down in M’Naghten’s Case, but the progress of science has not reached a point where its learning would compel us to require the states to eliminate the right and wrong test from their criminal law. Moreover, choice of a test of legal sanity involves not only scientific knowledge but questions of basic policy as to the extent to which that knowledge should determine criminal responsibility. This whole problem has evoked wide disagreement among those who have studied it. In these circumstances it is clear that adoption of the irresistible impulse test is not “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Appellant also contends that the trial court’s refusal to require the district attorney to make one of appellant’s confessions available to his counsel before trial was contrary to due process. We think there is no substance in this argument. This conclusion is buttressed by the absence of any assignment of error on this ground in appellant’s motion for a new trial. Compare Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444, 452 (1940). While it may be the better practice for the prosecution thus to exhibit a confession, failure to do so in this case in no way denied appellant a fair trial. The record shows that the confession was produced in court five days before appellant rested his case. There was ample time both for counsel and expert witnesses to study the confession. In addition the trial judge offered further time for that purpose but it was refused. There is no indication in the record that appellant was prejudiced by the inability of his counsel to acquire earlier access to the confession.
Affirmed.
Ore. Comp. Laws, 1940, §§ 26-929, 23-122.
Id., § 26-929.
Id., §§ 26-947, 26-948.
Six possible verdicts were listed in the instructions, guilty of murder in the first degree being divided into two verdicts: with, and without, recommendation of life imprisonment as the penalty. Since the jury in this case did not recommend that punishment, the death sentence was automatically invoked under Oregon law. Id., § 23-411.
The agreement of ten jurors would also have been sufficient for a verdict of not guilty, a verdict of guilty of second degree murder, or a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. R. 333-334.
Ore. Comp. Laws, 1940, §§ 23-401, 23-414, 26-933; cf. State v. Butchek, 121 Ore. 141, 253 P. 367, 254 P. 805 (1927).
R. 321, 323, 324, 330, 331, 332.
R. 330. Again:
"I instruct you that to constitute murder in the first degree, it is necessary that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and to your moral certainty, that the defendant’s design or plan to take life was formed and matured in cool blood and not hastily upon the occasion.
“I instruct you that in determining whether or not the defendant acted purposely and with premeditated and deliberated malice, it is your duty to take into consideration defendant’s mental condition and all factors relating thereto, and that even though you may not find him legally insane, if, in fact, his mentality was impaired, that evidence bears upon these factors, and it is your duty to consider this evidence along with all the other evidence in the case.” R. 332.
R. 321, 324.
Ore. Comp. Laws, 1940, § 26-846 (requiring notice of purpose to show insanity as defense); id., § 26-955 (providing for verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity and consequent commitment to asylum by judge). After defining legal insanity, the trial court instructed the jury:
“In this ease, evidence has been introduced relating to the mental capacity and condition of the defendant ... at the time [the girl] is alleged to have been killed, and if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed her in the manner alleged in the indictment, or within the lesser degrees included therein, then you are to consider the mental capacity of the defendant at the time the homicide is alleged to have been committed.” R. 327 (emphasis supplied).
Deady’s Gen. Laws of Ore., 1845-1864, Code of Crim. Proc., §204.
10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 210 (H. L., 1843).
Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law (9th ed., Sturge, 1950), 6; cf. Sodeman v. The King, [1936] W. N. 190 (P. C.); see Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A. C. 462, 475.
Weihofen, Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Law (1933), 151-155. “Clear proof” was sometimes interpreted to mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt, e. g., State v. De Rancé, 34 La. Ann. 186 (1882), and sometimes to mean proof by a preponderance of the evidence, e. g., Hurst v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 383, 50 S. W. 719 (1899).
Seé Wharton, Criminal Evidence (9th ed. 1884), §§ 336-340.
160 U. S. 469, 484 (1895); see Hotema v. United States, 186 U. S. 413 (1902); Matheson v. United States, 227 U. S. 540 (1913).
Id., at 488.
Weihofen lists twelve states as requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence, four as requiring proof “to the satisfaction of the jury,” two which combine these formulae, one where by statute the defense must be “clearly proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury,” one where it has been held that the jury must “believe” the defendant insane, and one where the quantum of proof has not been stated by the court of last resort, but which appears to follow the preponderance rule. Weihofen, Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Law (1933), 148-151,172-200. Twenty-two states, including Oregon, are mentioned as holding that the accused has the burden of proving insanity, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, in 9 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940 and Supp. 1951), § 2501.
Weihofen, Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Law (1933), 161; 9 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), § 2501.
Ore. Comp. Laws, 1940, § 23-122.
State v. Garver, 190 Ore. 291, 225 P. 2d 771 (1950); State v. Wallace, 170 Ore. 60, 131 P. 2d 222 (1942); State v. Hassing, 60 Ore. 81, 118 P. 195 (1911).
Weihofen, Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Law (1933), 15, 64-68, 109-147.
10 Cl. & Fin. 200 (H. L., 1843).
Compare Fisher v. United States, 328 U. S. 463, 475-476 (1946).
See Holloway v. United States, 80 U. S. App. D. C. 3, 148 F. 2d 665 (1945); Glueck, Mental Disorder and the Criminal Law (1925); Hall, Mental Disease and Criminal Responsibility, 45 Col. L. Rev. 677 (1945); Keedy, Insanity and Criminal Responsibility, 30 Harv. L. Rev. 535, 724 (1917).
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In June 1968 the Federal Trade Commission held that the largest and oldest company in the trading stamp industry, Sperry & Hutchinson (S&H), was violating § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §45 (a)(1), in three respects. The Commission found that S&H improperly regulated the maximum rate at which trading stamps were dispensed by its retail licensees; that it combined with others to regulate the rate of stamp dispensation throughout the industry; and that it attempted (almost invariably successfully) to suppress the operation of trading stamp exchanges and other “free and open” redemption of stamps. The Commission entered cease- and-desist orders accordingly.
S&H appealed only the third of these orders. Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit it conceded that it acted as the Commission found, but argued that its conduct is beyond the reach of § 5 of the Act. That section provides, in pertinent part, that:
“The Commission is empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations . . . from using unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.” 15 U. S. C. §45 (a)(6).
As S&H sees it, § 5 empowers the Commission to restrain only such practices as are either in violation of the antitrust laws, deceptive, or repugnant to public morals. In S&H’s view, its practice of successfully prosecuting stamp exchanges in state and federal courts cannot be restrained under any of these theories.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed the Commission, Judge Wisdom dissenting. 432 F. 2d 146 (1970). In the lower court’s view:
“To be the type of practice that the Commission has the power to declare 'unfair’ the act complained of must fall within one of the following types of violations: (1) a per se violation of antitrust policy; (2) a violation of the letter of either the Sherman, Clayton, or Robinson-Patman Acts; or (3) a violation of the spirit of these Acts as recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Id., at 150 (footnote omitted).
Holding that the FTC had not demonstrated that S&H’s conduct violated either the letter or the spirit of the antitrust laws, the Court of Appeals vacated the Commission’s order.
The FTC petitioned for review in this Court. We granted certiorari to determine the questions presented in the petition. 401 U. S. 992 (1971).
I
The Challenged Conduct
S&H has been issuing trading stamps — small pieces of gummed paper about the size of postage stamps— since 1896. In 1964, the year from which data in this litigation are derived, the company had about 40% of the business in an industry that annually issued 400 billion stamps to more than 200,000 retail establishments for distribution in connection with retail sales of some 40 billion dollars. In 1964, more than 60% of all American consumers saved S&H Green Stamps.
In the normal course, the trading stamp business operates as follows. S&H sells its stamps to retailers, primarily to supermarkets and gas stations, at a cost of about $2.65 per 1200 stamps; retailers give the stamps to consumers (typically at a rate of one for each 100 worth of purchases) as a bonus for their patronage; consumers paste the stamps in books of 1,200 and exchange the books for “gifts” at any of 850 S&H Redemption Centers maintained around the country. Each book typically buys between $2.86 and $3.31 worth of merchandise depending on the location of the redemption center and type of goods purchased. Since its development of this cycle 75 years ago, S&H has sold over one trillion stamps and redeemed approximately 86% of them.
A cluster of factors relevant to this litigation tends to disrupt this cycle and, in S&H’s view, to threaten its business. An incomplete book has no redemption value. Even a complete book is of limited value because most “gifts” may be obtained only on submission of more than one book. For these reasons a collector of another type of stamps who has acquired a small number of green stamps may benefit by exchanging with a green stamp collector who has opposite holdings and preferences. Similarly, because of the seasonal usefulness or immediate utility of an object sought, a collector may want to buy stamps outright and thus put himself in a position to secure redemption merchandise immediately though it is “priced” beyond his current stamp holdings. Or a collector may seek to sell his stamps in order to use the resulting cash to make more basic purchases (food, shoes, etc.) than redemption centers normally provide.
Periodically over the past 70 years professional exchanges have arisen to service this demand. Motivated by the prospect of profit realizable as a result of serving as middlemen in swaps, the exchanges will sell books of S&H stamps previously acquired from consumers, or, for a fee, will give a consumer another company’s stamps for S&H’s or vice versa. Further, some regular merchants have offered discounts on their own goods in return for S&H stamps. Retailers do this as a means of competing with merchants in the area who issue stamps. By offering a price break in return for stamps, the redeeming merchant replaces the incentive to return to the issuing merchant (to secure more stamps so as to be able to obtain a gift at a redemption center) with the attraction of securing immediate benefit from the stamps by exchanging them for a discount at his store.
S&H fears these activities because they are believed to reduce consumer proclivity to return to green-stamp-issuing stores and thus lower a store’s incentive to buy and distribute stamps. The company attempts to pre-empt “trafficking” in its stamps by contractual provisions reflected in a notice on the inside cover of every S&H stamp book. The notice reads:
“Neither the stamps nor the books are sold to merchants, collectors or any other persons, at all times the title thereto being expressly reserved in the Company .... The stamps are issued to you as evidence of cash payment to the merchants issuing the same. The only right which you acquire in said stamps is to paste them in books like this and present them to us for redemption. You must not dispose of them or make any further use of them without our consent in writing. We will in every case where application is made to us give you permission to turn over your stamps to any other bona-fide collector of S&H Green . . . Stamps; but if the stamps or the books are transferred without our consent, we reserve the right to restrain their use by, or take them from other parties. It is to your interest that you fill the book, and personally derive the benefits and advantages of redeeming it.” (Reproduced at 2 App. 230.)
S&H makes no effort to enforce this condition when consumers casually exchange stamps with each other, though reportedly some 20%' of all the company's stamps change hands in this manner. But S&H vigorously moves against unauthorized commercial exchanges and redeemers. Between 1957 and 1965, by its own account the company filed for 43 injunctions against merchants who redeemed or exchanged its stamps without authorization, and it sent letters threatening legal action to 140 stamp exchanges and 175 businesses that redeemed S&H stamps. In almost all instances the threat or the reality of suit forced the businessmen to abandon their unauthorized practices.
II
The Reach of Section 5
The Commission presented two questions in its petition for certiorari, the first being “[w]hether Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which directs the Commission to prevent ‘unfair methods of competition . . . and unfair or deceptive acts or practices,’ is limited to conduct which violates the letter or spirit of the antitrust laws.” The other issue relates to the significance of state court holdings that the practices challenged here are lawful. Neither question requests review of the Court of Appeals’ decision that the business conduct proscribed by the Commission violates neither the letter nor spirit of the antitrust laws. Accordingly, we intimate no opinion on that issue and turn to the question of the reach of § 5.
In reality, the question is a double one: First, does § 5 empower the Commission to define and proscribe an unfair competitive practice, even though the practice does not infringe either the letter or the spirit of the antitrust laws? Second, does § 5 empower the Commission to proscribe practices as unfair or deceptive in their effect upon consumers regardless of their nature or quality as competitive practices or their effect on competition? We think the statute, its legislative history, and prior cases compel an affirmative answer to both questions.
When Congress created the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 and charted its power and responsibility under § 5, it explicitly considered, and rejected, the notion that it reduce the ambiguity of the phrase “unfair methods of competition” by tying the concept of unfairness to a common-law or statutory standard or by enumerating the particular practices to which it was intended to apply. Senate Report No. 597, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 13 (1914), presents the reasoning that led the Senate Committee to avoid the temptations of precision when framing the Trade Commission Act:
“The committee gave careful consideration to the question as to whether it would attempt to define the many and variable unfair practices which prevail in commerce and to forbid their continuance or whether it would, by a general declaration condemning unfair practices, leave it to the commission to determine what practices were unfair. It concluded that the latter course would be the better, for the reason, as stated by one of the representatives of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, that there were too many unfair practices to define, and after writing 20 of them into the law it would be quite possible to invent others.”
The House Conference Report was no less explicit. “It is impossible to frame definitions which embrace all unfair practices. There is no limit to human inventiveness in this field. Even if all known unfair practices were specifically defined and prohibited, it would be at once necessary to begin over again. If Congress were to adopt the method of definition, it would undertake an endless task.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1142, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 19 (1914). See also Rublee, The Original Plan and Early History of the Federal Trade Commission, 11 Acad. Pol. Sci. Proc. 666, 667 (1926); Baker & Baum, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act: A Continuing Process of Redefinition, 7 Vill. L. Rev. 517 (1962).
Since the sweep and flexibility of this approach were thus made crystal clear, there have twice been judicial attempts to fence in the grounds upon which the FTC might rest a finding of unfairness. In FTC v. Gratz, 253 U. S. 421 (1920), the Court over the strong dissent of Mr. Justice Brandéis (who had been involved in drafting the Trade Commission Act), wrote that while the “exact meaning” of the phrase “ ‘unfair method of competition’... is in dispute,” the only practices that were subject to this characterization were those that were “heretofore regarded as opposed to good morals because characterized by deception, bad faith, fraud or oppression, or as against public policy because of their dangerous tendency unduly to hinder competition or create monopoly.” Id., at 427. This view was reiterated in other opinions over the next decade. See, e. g., FTC v. Curtis Publishing Co., 260 U. S. 568 (1923), and FTC v. Sinclair Refining Co., 261 U. S. 463, 475-476 (1923). The opinion of the Court of Appeals’ majority, citing Sinclair in support of its narrow view of the FTC’s leeway, is in the tradition of these authorities.
In FTC v. Raladam Co., 283 U. S. 643 (1931), a unanimous Court held that: “The paramount aim of the act is the protection of the public from the evils likely to result from the destruction of competition or the restriction of it in a substantial degree .... Unfair trade methods are not per se unfair methods of competition.” (Italics in original.) “It is obvious,” the Court continued,
“that the word ‘competition’ imports the existence of present or potential competitors, and the unfair methods must be such as injuriously affect or tend thus to affect the business of these competitors— that is to say, the trader whose methods are assailed as unfair must have present or potential rivals in trade whose business will be, or is likely to be, lessened or otherwise injured. It is that condition of affairs which the Commission is given power to correct, and it is against that condition of affairs, and not some other, that the Commission is authorized to protect the public. ... If broader powers be desirable they must be conferred by Congress.” Id., at 647-649.
Neither of these limiting interpretations survives to buttress the Court of Appeals’ view of the instant case. Even if the first fine of cases, Gratz and its progeny, stood unimpaired, their deference to action taken to constrain “deception, bad faith, fraud or oppression” would grant the FTC greater power to set right what it perceives as wrong than the panel of the Court of Appeals acknowledges. But frequent opportunity for reconsideration has consistently and emphatically led this Court to the view that the perspective of Gratz is too confined. As we recently unanimously observed: “Later cases of this Court . . . have rejected the Gratz view and it is now recognized in line with the dissent of Mr. Justice Brandéis in Gratz that the Commission has broad powers to declare trade practices unfair.” FTC v. Brown Shoe Co., 384 U. S. 316, 320-321 (1966).
The leading case that recognized a role for the FTC beyond that mapped out in Gratz, FTC v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U. S. 304 (1934), also brought Raladam into question; on both counts it sets the standard by which the range of FTC jurisdiction is to be measured today. Keppel & Brothers sold penny candies in “break and take” packs, a form of merchandising that induced children to buy lesser amounts of concededly inferior candy in the hope of by luck hitting on bonus packs containing extra candy and prizes. The FTC issued a cease-and-desist order under § 5 on the theory that the popular marketing scheme contravened public policy insofar as it tempted children to gamble and compelled those who would successfully compete with Keppel to abandon their scruples by similarly tempting children.
The Court had no difficulty in sustaining the FTC’s conclusion that the practice was “unfair,” though any competitor could maintain his position simply by adopting the challenged practice. “[H]ere,” the Court said, “the competitive method is shown to exploit consumers, children, who are unable to protect themselves .... [I]t is clear that the practice is of the sort which the common law and criminal statutes have long deemed contrary to public policy.” Id., at 313.
En route to this result the Court met Keppel’s arguments that, absent an antitrust violation or at least incipient injury to competitors, Gratz and Raladam so strait jacketed the FTC that the Commission could not issue a cease-and-desist order proscribing even an immoral practice. It held:
“Neither the language nor the history of the Act suggests that Congress intended to confine the forbidden methods to fixed and unyielding categories. The common law afforded a definition of unfair competition and, before the enactment of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Sherman Act had laid its inhibition upon combinations to restrain or monopolize interstate commerce which the courts had construed to include restraints upon competition in interstate commerce. It would not have been a difficult feat of draftsmanship to have restricted the operation of the Trade Commission Act to those methods of competition in interstate commerce which are forbidden at common law or which are likely to grow into violations of the Sherman Act, if that had been the purpose of the legislation.” Id., at 310.
Thenceforth, unfair competitive practices were not limited to those likely to have anticompetitive consequences after the manner of the antitrust laws; nor were unfair practices in commerce confined to purely competitive behavior.
The perspective of Keppel, displacing that of Rala-dam, was legislatively confirmed when Congress adopted the 1938 Wheeler-Lea amendment, 52 Stat. Ill, to § 5. The amendment added the phrase “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” to the section’s original ban on “unfair methods of competition” and thus made it clear that Congress, through § 5, charged the FTC with protecting consumers as well as competitors. The House Report on the amendment summarized congressional thinking: “[T]his amendment makes the consumer, who may be injured by an unfair trade practice, of equal concern, before the law, with the merchant or manufacturer injured by the unfair methods of a dishonest competitor.” H. R. Rep. No. 1613, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1937). See also S. Rep. No. 1705, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1936).
Thus, legislative and judicial authorities alike convince us that the Federal Trade Commission does not arrogate excessive power to itself if, in measuring a practice against the elusive, but congressionally mandated standard of fairness, it, like a court of equity, considers public values beyond simply those enshrined in the letter or encompassed in the spirit of the antitrust laws.
III
The general conclusion just enunciated requires us to hold that the Court of Appeals erred in its construction of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Ordinarily we would simply reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it limited the unfair practices proscribed by § 5 to those contrary to the letter and spirit of the antitrust laws and we would remand the case for consideration of whether the challenged practices, though posing no threat to competition within the precepts of the antitrust laws, are nevertheless either (1) unfair methods of competition or (2) unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
What we deem to be proper concerns about the interaction of administrative agencies and the courts, however, counsels another course in this case. In this Court the Commission argues that, however correct the Court of Appeals may be in holding the challenged S&H practices beyond the reach of the letter or spirit of the antitrust laws, the Court of Appeals nevertheless erred in asserting that the FTC could measure and ban conduct only according to such narrow criteria. Proceeding from this premise, with which we agree, the Commission’s major submission is that its order is sustainable as a proper exercise of its power to proscribe practices unfair to consumers. Its minor position is that it also properly found S&H’s practices to be unfair competitive methods apart from their propriety under the antitrust laws.
The difficulty with the Commission’s position is that we must look to its opinion, not to the arguments of its counsel, for the underpinnings of its order. “Congress has delegated to the administrative official and not to appellate counsel the responsibility for elaborating and enforcing statutory commands.” Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617, 628 (1971). We cannot read the FTC opinion on which the challenged order rests as premised on anything other than the classic antitrust rationale of restraint of trade and injury to competition.
The Commission urges reversal of the Court of Appeals and approval of its own order because, in its words, “[t]he Act gives the Commission comprehensive power to prevent trade practices which are deceptive or unfair to consumers, regardless of whether they also are anticompetitive.” Brief for the FTC 15. It says the Court of Appeals was “wrong in two ways: you can have an anticompetitive impact that is not a violation of the antitrust laws and violate Section 5. You can also have an impact upon consumers without regard to competition and you can uphold a Section 5 violation on that ground.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 18. Though completely accurate, these statements cannot be squared with the Commission’s holding that “[i]t is essential in this matter, we believe, and as we have heretofore indicated, to determine whether or not there has been or may be an impairment of competition,” Opinion of Commission, 1 App. 175; its conclusion that “ [respondent . . . prevents . . . competitive reaction [s] and thereby it has restrained trade. We believe this is an unfair method of competition and an unfair act and practice in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and so hold,” 1 App. 178; its observation that:
“Respondent’s individual acts and its acts with others taken to suppress trading stamp exchanges and other stamp redemption activity are all part of a clearly defined restrictive policy pursued by the respondent. In the circumstances surrounding this particular practice it is difficult to wholly separate the individual acts from the collective acts for the purpose of making an analysis of the consequences under the antitrust laws.” 1 App. 179;
and like statements throughout the opinion, see, e. g., 1 App. 176-178, passim.
There is no indication in the Commission’s opinion that it found S&H’s conduct to be unfair in its effect on competitors because of considerations other than those at the root of the antitrust laws. For its part, the theory that the FTC’s decision is derived from its concern for consumers finds support in only one line of the Commission’s opinion. The Commission’s observation that S&H’s conduct limited “stamp collecting consumers’ . .. freedom of choice in the disposition of trading stamps,” 1 App. 176, will not alone support a conclusion that the FTC has found S&H guilty of unfair practices because of damage to consumers.
Arguably, the Commission’s findings, in contrast to its opinion, go beyond concern with competition and address themselves to noncompetitive and consumer injury as well. It may also be that such findings would have evidentiary support in the record. But even if the findings were considered to be adequate foundation for an opinion and order resting on unfair consequences to consumer interests, they still fail to sustain the Commission action; for the Commission has not rendered an opinion which, by the route suggested, links its findings and its conclusions. The opinion is barren of any attempt to rest the order on its assessment of particular competitive practices or considerations of consumer interests independent of possible or actual effects on competition. Nor were any standards for doing so referred to or developed.
Our view is that “the considerations urged here in support of the Commission’s order were not those upon which its action was based.” SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 92 (1943). At the least the Commission has failed to “articulate any rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 168 (1962).
The Commission’s action being flawed in this respect, we cannot sustain its order. “[T]he orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained.” Chenery, supra, at 94. Burlington Truck Lines, supra, at 169. A court cannot label a practice “unfair” under 15 U. S. C. § 45 (a)(1). It can only affirm or vacate an agency’s judgment to that effect. “If an order is valid only as a determination of policy or judgment which the agency alone is authorized to make and which it .has not made, a judicial judgment cannot be made to do service for an administrative judgment.” Chenery, supra, at 88. And as was repeated on other occasions:
“For the courts to substitute their or counsel’s discretion for that of the Commission is incompatible with the orderly functioning of the process of judicial review. This is not to deprecate, but to vindicate (see Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 197), the administrative process, for the purpose of the rule is to avoid ‘propel [ling] the court into the domain which Congress has set aside exclusively for the administrative agency.’ 332 U. S., at 196.” Burlington Truck Lines, supra, at 169.
In these circumstances, because the Court of Appeals’ judgment that S&H’s practices did not violate either the letter or the spirit of the antitrust laws was not attacked and remains undisturbed here, and because the Comm ission’s order could not properly be sustained on other grounds, the judgment of the Court of Appeals setting aside the Commission’s order is affirmed. The Court of Appeals erred, however, in its construction of § 5; had it entertained the proper view of the reach of the section, the preferable course would have been to remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings. Chenery, supra, at 95; Burlington, supra, at 174; FPC v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 393 U. S. 71 (1968). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified to this extent and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand it to the Commission for such further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion, as may be appropriate.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
On the nature of the industry, see generally Comment, Trading Stamps, 37 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1090 (1962). The Commission proceedings in the instant case are discussed in Comment, The Attack on Trading Stamps — An Expanded Use of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 57 Geo. L. J. 1082 (1969).
Often merchandise obtained by redemption is used as a gift.
The efforts of some retailers to reissue S&H stamps are not involved in this case. The FTC explicitly left S&H free to seek injunctions against reissuance. 1 App. 169.
Though the Court of Appeals referred to state and federal court decisions that approved S&H’s practice, our reading of its opinion leaves no doubt that it did not reverse the FTC order on the erroneous theory that such determinations might foreclose a contrary FTC § 5 decision. We therefore put aside the Government's second question as irrelevant and focus on its first contention.
The Commission has described the factors it considers in determining whether a practice that is neither in violation of the antitrust laws nor deceptive is nonetheless unfair:
“(1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law,
statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen).” Statement of Basis and Purpose of Trade Regulation Rule 408, Unfair or Deceptive Advertising and Labeling of Cigarettes in Relation to the Health Hazards of Smoking. 29 Fed. Reg. 8355 (1964).
S&H argues that a later portion of this statement commits the FTC to the view that misconduct in respect of the third of these criteria is not subject to constraint as “unfair” absent a concomitant showing of misconduct according to the first or second of these criteria. But all the FTC said in the statement referred to was that “[t]he wide variety of decisions interpreting the elusive concept of unfairness at least makes clear that a method of selling violates Section 5 if it is exploitive or inequitable and if, in addition to being morally objectionable, it is seriously detrimental to consumers or others.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
The Commission did explicitly decline to assess S&H’s conduct in light of one leading antitrust case. In United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365, 379 (1967), this Court held that: “Under the Sherman Act, it is unreasonable without more for a manufacturer to seek to restrict and confine areas or persons with whom an article may be traded after the manufacturer has parted with dominion over it. White Motor [v. United States, 372 U. S. 253 (1963)]; Dr. Miles [Medical Co. v. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911)]. Such restraints are so obviously destructive of competition that their mere existence is enough. If the manufacturer parts with dominion over his product or transfers risk of loss to another, he may not reserve control over its destiny or the conditions of its resale.”
Arguably, S&H’s practice is proscribed by this doctrine. When the FTC declined to rely on this precedent, however, it did so not to turn to considerations other than those embedded in the antitrust laws, but instead to look for considerations less “technical” and more deeply rooted in antitrust policy:
“We do not believe it appropriate to decide the broad competitive questions presented in this record on the narrow and technical basis of a restraint on alienation. The circumstances here are much different from that where products are transferred to a dealer for resale. They are complicated by the nature of the trading stamp scheme. It is essential in this matter, we believe, and as we have heretofore indicated, to determine whether or not there has been or may be an impairment of competition. Thus, we intend to look at the substance of the allegedly illegal practice rather than to decide the case by application of a technical formula.” 1 App. 175-176.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 below is affirmed on the merits, insofar as it relates to the apportionment of seats in the Washington Legislature. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with respect to relief, consistent with the views stated in our opinions in Reynolds v. Sims and in the other cases relating to state legislative apportionment decided along with Reynolds. Since no question relating to the correctness of that part of the decision below holding valid the scheme of congressional districting in the State of Washington is presented in this appeal, we do not consider or pass upon that issue.
Mr. Justice Clark would affirm on the grounds stated in his opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 587.
Mr. Justice Stewart would remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713, 744.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 589.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is here for the second time. It involves the indictment and conviction of petitioners for using, and conspiring to use, the mails to defraud. Criminal Code § 215, 18 U. S. C. § 338; Criminal Code § 37, 18 U. S. C. § 88. The fraudulent scheme charged was the promotion of the I Am movement, which was alleged to be a fraudulent religious organization, through the use of the mails. The nature of the movement and the facts surrounding its origin and growth are summarized in our prior opinion. 322 U. S. 78. It is sufficient here to say that petitioners were found guilty on a charge by the trial judge which withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of their religious beliefs or doctrines. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and granted a new trial, holding it was error to withhold those questions from the jury. 138 F. 2d 540. We, in turn, reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals and sustained the District Court in that ruling. Petitioners argued, however, that even though the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of conviction on that ground, its action was justified on other distinct grounds. But the Circuit Court of Appeals had not passed on those other questions; and we did not have the benefit of its views on them. We accordingly deemed it more appropriate to remand the cause to that court so that it might first pass on the questions reserved.
On the remand the Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed the judgment of conviction without discussion of the issues raised. On a petition for rehearing, which was denied, the Circuit Court of Appeals filed an opinion which discussed some but not all of the questions which had been reserved. 152 F. 2d 941. We granted the petition for certiorari because of the serious questions concerning the administration of criminal justice which were raised.
We are met at the outset with the concession that women were not included in the panel of grand and petit jurors in the Southern District of California where the indictment was returned and the trial had; that they were intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel. This issue was raised by a motion to quash the indictment and by a challenge to the array of the petit jurors because of intentional and systematic exclusion of women from the panel. Both motions were denied and their denial was assigned as error on appeal. The jury question has been in issue at each stage of the proceedings, except the first time that the case was before us. At that time the point was not assigned or argued. But the case was here at the instance of the United States, not at the instance of the present petitioners. As we have said, there were other issues in the case obscured by the question brought here by the United States and which had not been passed upon below or argued before this Court. Consequently, when we remanded the case for consideration of the remaining issues by the Circuit Court of Appeals, the jury issue was argued. The Circuit Court of Appeals did not hold that it had been waived. That court passed upon the issue, concluding that there was no error in the exclusion of women from the panel. 152 F. 2d p. 944, and see dissent at p. 953. Under these circumstances we cannot say (and the Government does not suggest) that petitioners have lost the right to urge the question here. Moreover, in this case, as in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 168-169, the error, though not presented here on the first argument, appears on the face of the record before us. And see Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, 16.
Congress has provided that jurors in a federal court shall have the same qualifications as those of the highest court of law in the State. Judicial Code § 275, 28 U. S. C. § 411. This provision applies to grand as well as petit juries. Congress also has prohibited disqualification of citizens from jury service “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It has required that jurors shall be chosen “without reference to party affiliations.” It has provided that jurors shall be returned from such parts of the district as the court may direct “so as to be most favorable to an impartial trial, and so as not to incur an unnecessary expense, or unduly burden the citizens of any part of the district.” None of the specific exemptions which it has created is along the lines of sex.
These provisions reflect a design to make the jury “a cross-section of the community” and truly representative of it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 86.
In California, as in most States, women are eligible for jury service under local law. Code of Civil Procedure, § 198. The system of jury selection which Congress has adopted contemplated, therefore, that juries in the federal courts sitting in such States would be representative of both sexes. If women are excluded, only half of the available population is drawn upon for jury service. To put the matter another way, Congress has referred to state law merely to determine who is qualified to act as a juror. Whether the method of selecting a jury in the federal court from those qualified is or is not proper is a question of federal law. Glasser v. United States, supra, pp. 85-86.
In Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U. S. 217, we were presented' with a similar problem. It was a civil case which had been removed to the district court on the ground of diversity of citizenship and involved a question of the liability of a common carrier to a passenger. All persons who worked for a daily wage had been deliberately and intentionally excluded from the jury lists. We held, in the exercise of our power of supervision over the administration of justice in the federal courts, see McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, that the plaintiff’s motion to strike the panel should have been granted. The gist of our ruling is contained in the following statement from the opinion in the Thiel case:
“The American tradition of trial by jury, considered in connection with either criminal or civil proceedings, necessarily contemplates an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community. . . . This does not mean, of course, that every jury must contain representatives of all the economic, social, religious, racial, political and geographical groups of the community; frequently such complete representation would be impossible. But it does mean that prospective jurors shall be selected by court officials without systematic and intentional exclusion of any of these groups. Recognition must be given to the fact that those eligible for jury service are to be found in every stratum of society. Jury competence is an individual rather than a group or class matter. That fact lies at the very heart of the jury system. To disregard it is to open the door to class distinctions and discriminations which are abhorrent to the democratic ideals of trial by jury.” 328 U. S. 220.
We conclude that the purposeful and systematic exclusion of women from the panel in this case was a departure from the scheme of jury selection which Congress adopted and that, as in the Thiel case, we should exercise our power of supervision over the administration of justice in the federal courts, McNabb v. United States, supra, to correct an error which permeated this proceeding.
It is said, however, that an all male panel drawn from the various groups within a community will be as truly representative as if women were included. The thought is that the factors which tend to influence the action of women are the same as those which influence the action of men — personality, background, economic status — and not sex. Yet it is not enough to say that women when sitting as jurors neither act nor tend to act as a class. Men likewise do not act as a class. But, if the shoe were on the other foot, who wpuld claim that a jury was truly representative of the community if all men were intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel? The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both; the subtle interplay of influence one on the other is among the imponderables. To insulate the courtroom from either may not in a given case make an iota of difference. Yet a flavor, a distinct quality is lost if either sex is excluded. The exclusion of one may indeed make the jury less representative of the community than would be true if an economic or racial group were excluded.
The present case involves a prosecution of a mother and her son for the promotion of an allegedly fraudulent religious program. Judge Denman in his dissent below stated:
“In the average family from which jurors are drawn, the souls of children in their infant and early adolescent bodies receive the first and most lasting teaching of religious truths from their mothers. In the same families the major social function of men is concerned with the creation of material things, largely food and clothing and housing of the children's bodies.
“In the public schools over ninety-five per cent of the primary and grammar school teachers are women. In the churches of all religions the numbers of women attendants on divine service vastly exceed men. The one large and vital religious group created in America since Joseph Smith is that of the Christian Scientists founded by a woman, Mary Baker Eddy.
“. . . It matters not that from my viewpoint there is . . . testimony of a conspiracy so mean and vile that it warrants some of the strongest strictures of the prosecution. I am not a woman juror sitting in the Ballard trial, who is the mother of five children at whose knee have been instilled in them the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by Mrs. Eddy.
“Well could a sensitive woman, highly spiritual in character, rationalize all the money income acquired by Mrs. Ballard as being devoted to the teachings of the same Jesus as are the profits of the trust created by Mrs. Eddy for the Christian Science Monitor.” 152 P. 2d pp. 951-52.
The point illustrates that the exclusion of women from jury panels may at times be highly prejudicial to the defendants. But reversible error does not depend on a showing of prejudice in an individual case. The evil lies in the admitted exclusion of an eligible class or group in the community in disregard of the prescribed standards of jury selection. The systematic and intentional exclusion of women, like the exclusion of a racial group, Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, or an economic or social class, Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., supra, deprives the jury system of the broad base it was designed by Congress to have in our democratic society. It is a departure from the statutory scheme. As well stated in United States v. Roemig, 52 F. Supp. 857, 862, “Such action is operative to destroy the basic democracy and classlessness of jury personnel.” It “does not accord to the defendant the type of jury to which the law entitles him. It is an administrative denial of a right which the lawmakers have not seen fit to withhold from, but have actually guaranteed to him.” Cf. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, 764-765. The injury is not limited to the defendant — there is injury to the jury system, to the law as an institution, to the community at large, and to the democratic ideal reflected in the processes of our courts.
If, as in the Thiel case, we had merely an instance of a petit jury drawn from an improper panel, we would remand the cause for a new trial. But, as we have said, the grand jury was likewise drawn from a panel improperly chosen and therefore the indictment was not returned in accordance with the procedure established by Congress. Accordingly, the indictment must be dismissed. In disposing of the case on this ground we do not reach all the issues urged and it is suggested that in so limiting our opinion we prolong an already lengthy proceeding. We are told that these petitioners will again be before us for the determination of questions now left undecided. But we cannot know that this is so, and to assume it would be speculative. The United States may or may not present new charges framed within the limits of 'our earlier opinion. A properly constituted grand jury may or may not return new indictments. Petitioners may or may not be convicted a second time.
Reversed.
Women have been members of both grand and petit juries in that district since the beginning of the February Term, 1944. See United States v. Chaplin, 54 F. Supp. 682.
Thus Judicial Code § 276, 28 U. S. C. § 412 provides for the drawing of “All such jurors, grand and petit” from persons “possessing the qualifications prescribed” in § 411.
Judicial Code § 278, 28 U. S. C. § 415.
Judicial Code § 276,28 U. S. C. § 412.
Judicial Code § 277,28 U. S. C. § 413.
No person shall serve as a petit juror “more than one term in a year.” Judicial Code § 286,28 U. S. C. § 423.
Artificers and workmen employed in armories and arsenals of the United States are exempted from service as jurors. 50 U. S. C. § 57. Cf. Judicial Code §288, 28 U. S. C. §426, dealing with disqualifications of jurors in prosecutions for bigamy, polygamy or unlawful cohabitation.
Report to the Judicial Conference of the Committee on Selection of Jurors (1942), p. 23.
An earlier indictment (subsequently dismissed) was returned against petitioners who moved to quash because of the exclusion of women from the panel of grand jurors. The motion was denied. United States v. Ballard, 35 F. Supp. 105. That ruling seems to have been influenced by the thought that California law determined whether the exclusion of women resulted in a proper jury. Under California law the inclusion of women on the panel is not obligatory, the statutory provisions which qualify them for jury service being directory only. People v. Shannon, 203 Cal. 139, 263 P. 522; People v. Parman, 14 Cal. 2d 17, 92 P. 2d 387.
See Miller, The Woman Juror, 2 Oregon L. Rev. 30; cf. Carson, Women Jurors (1928), p. 15.
The problem is reflected in the discussions of the androcentric theory and the gynaecocentric theory in scientific literature. See Ward, Pure Sociology (1903), Ch. XIV; Draper, Dupertuis and Caughey, Human Constitution in Clinical Medicine (1944), Ch. VI.
Cf. Wuichet v. United States, 8 F. 2d 561-63.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Some private pension plans reduce a retiree’s pension benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation awards received subsequent to retirement. In these cases we consider whether two such offset provisions are lawful under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill), and whether they may be prohibited by state law.
I
Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., and General Motors Corp. maintain employee pension plans that are subject to federal regulation under ERISA. Both plans provide that an employee’s retirement benefits shall be reduced, or offset, by an amount equal to workers’ compensation awards for which the individual is eligible. In 1977, the New Jersey Legislature amended its Workers’ Compensation Act to expressly prohibit such offsets. The amendment states that “[t]he right of compensation granted by this chapter may be set off against disability pension benefits or payments but shall not be set off against employees’ retirement pension benefits or payments.” N. J. Stat. Ann. § 34:15-29 (West Supp. 1980-1981) (as amended by 1977 N. J. Laws, ch. 156).
Alleging violations of this provision of state law, two suits were initiated in New Jersey state court. The plaintiffs in both suits were retired employees who had obtained workers’ compensation awards subject to offsets against their retirement benefits under their pension plans. The defendant companies independently removed the suits to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. There, both District Court Judges ruled that the pension offset provisions were invalid under New Jersey law, and concluded that Congress had not intended ERISA to pre-empt state laws of this sort. The District Court Judges also held that the offsets were prohibited by § 203 (a) of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1053 (a). This section prohibits forfeitures of vested pension rights except under four specific conditions inapplicable to these cases. The judges concluded that offsets based on workers’ compensation awards would be forbidden forfeitures, and struck down a contrary federal Treasury Regulation authorizing such offsets.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit consolidated the appeals from these two decisions and reversed. 616 F. 2d 1238 (1980). It rejected the District Court Judges’ view that the offset provisions caused a forfeiture of vested pension rights forbidden by § 1053. Instead, the Court of Appeals reasoned, such offsets merely reduce pension benefits in a fashion expressly approved by ERISA for employees receiving Social Security benefits. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals found no conflict between ERISA and the Treasury Regulation approving reductions based on workers’ compensation awards and ERISA. Finally, the court concluded that the New Jersey statute forbidding offsets of pension benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation awards could not withstand ERISA’s general pre-emption provision, 29 U. S. C. § 1144 (a). We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal taken by the former employees of Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., and granted certiorari on the petition of former employees of General Motors Corp. 449 U. S. 949 and 950 (1980). For convenience, we refer to the former employees in both cases as retirees. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
II
Retirees claim that the workers’ compensation offset provisions of their pension plans contravene ERISA’s nonfor-feiture provisions and that the Treasury Regulation to the contrary is inconsistent with the Act. Both claims require examination of the relevant sections of ERISA.
A
As we recently observed, ERISA is a “comprehensive and reticulated statute,” which Congress adopted after careful study of private retirement pension plans. Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 446 U. S. 359, 361 (1980). In Nachman, we observed that Congress through ERISA wanted to ensure that “if a worker has been promised a defined pension benefit upon retirement — and if he has fulfilled whatever conditions are required to obtain a vested benefit—... he actually receives it.” Id,., at 375. For this reason, the concepts of vested rights and nonforfeitable rights are critical to the ERISA scheme. See id., at 370, 378. ERISA prescribes vesting and accrual schedules, assuring that employees obtain rights to at least portions of their normal pension benefits even if they leave their positions prior to retirement. Most critically, ERISA establishes that “[e]ach pension plan shall provide that an employee's right to his normal retirement benefit is nonforfeitable upon the attainment of normal retirement age.” 29 U. S. C. § 1053 (a).
Retirees rely on this sweeping assurance that pension rights become nonforfeitable in claiming that offsetting those benefits with workers’ compensation awards violates ERISA. Retirees argue first that no vested benefits may be forfeited except as expressly provided in § 1053. Second, retirees assert that offsets based on workers’ compensation fall into none of those express exceptions. Both claims are correct; § 1053 (a) prohibits forfeitures of vested rights except as expressly provided in § 1053 (a)(3), and the challenged workers’ compensation offsets are not among those permitted in that section.
Despite this facial accuracy, retirees’ argument overlooks a threshold issue: what defines the content of the benefit that, once vested, cannot be forfeited? ERISA leaves this question largely to the private parties creating the plan. That the private parties, not the Government, control the level of benefits is clear from the statutory language defining non-forfeitable rights as well as from other portions of ERISA. ERISA defines a “nonforfeitable” pension benefit or right as “a claim obtained by a participant or his beneficiary to that part of an immediate or deferred benefit under a pension plan which arises from the participant’s service, which is unconditional, and which is legally enforceable against the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1002 (19). In construing this definition last Term, we observed:
“[T]he term 'forfeiture’ normally connotes a total loss in consequence of some event rather than a limit on the value of a person’s rights. Each of the examples of a plan provision that is expressly described as not causing a forfeiture listed in [§ 1053 (a) (3)] describes an event — such as death or temporary re-employment— that might otherwise be construed as causing a forfeiture of the entire benefit. It is therefore surely consistent with the statutory definition of “nonforfeitable” to view it as describing the quality of the participant’s right to a pension rather than a limit on the amount he may collect.” Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 446 U. S., at 372-373.
Similarly, the statutory definition of “nonforfeitable” assures that an employee’s claim to the protected benefit is legally enforceable, but it does not guarantee a particular amount or a method for calculating the benefit. As we explained last Term, “it is the claim to the benefit, rather than the benefit itself, that must be 'unconditional’ and 'legally enforceable against the plan.’ ” Id., at 371.
Rather than imposing mandatory pension levels or methods for calculating benefits, Congress in ERISA set outer bounds on permissible accrual practices, 29 U. S. C. § 1054 (b)(1), and specified three alternative schedules for the vesting of pension rights, 29 U. S. C. § 1053 (a)(2). In so doing, Congress limited the variation permitted in accrual rates applicable across the entire period of an employee’s participation in the pension plan. And Congress disapproved pension practices unduly delaying an employee’s acquisition of a right to enforce payment of the portion of benefits already accrued, without further employment. These provisions together assure at minimum a legally enforceable claim to 100% of the pension benefits created by a covered plan for those employees who have completed 15 years of service and for those employees aged 45 or older who have completed 10 years of service. Other than these restrictions, ERISA permits the total benefit levels and formulas for determining their accrual before completion of 15 years of service to vary from plan to plan. See 29 U. S. C. §§ 1002 (22), (23) (benefits defined merely as those “under the plan”).
It is particularly pertinent for our purposes that Congress did not prohibit “integration,” a calculation practice under which benefit levels are determined by combining pension funds with other income streams available to the retired employees. Through integration, each income stream contributes for calculation purposes to the total benefit pool to be distributed to all the retired employees, even if the nonpension funds are available only to a subgroup of the employees. The pension funds are thus integrated with the funds from other income maintenance programs, such as Social Security, and the pension benefit level is determined on the basis of the entire pool of funds. Under this practice, an individual employee’s eligibility for Social Security would advantage all participants in his private pension plan, for the addition of his anticipated Social Security payments to the total benefit pool would permit a higher average pension payout for each participant. The employees as a group profit from that higher pension level, although an individual employee may reach that level by a combination of payments from the pension fund and payments from the other income maintenance source. In addition, integration allows the employer to attain the selected pension level by drawing on the other resources, which, like Social Security, also depend on employer contributions.
Following its extensive study of private pension plans before the adoption of ERISA, ■ Congress expressly preserved the option of pension fund integration with benefits available under both the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 401 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill), and the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, 45 U. S. C. § 231 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill) ; 29 U. S. C. §§ 1054 (b)(1) (B)(iv), 1054 (b)(1)(C), 1054 (b)(1)(G). Congress was well aware that pooling of non-pension retirement benefits and pension funds would limit the total income maintenance payments received by individual employees and reduce the cost of pension plans to employers. Indeed, in considering this integration option, the House Ways and Means Committee expressly acknowledged the tension between the primary goal of benefiting employees and the subsidiary goal of containing pension costs. The Committee Report noted that the proposed bill would
“not affect the ability of plans to use the integration procedures to reduce the benefits that they pay to individuals who are currently covered when social security benefits are liberalized. Your committee, however, believes that such practices raise important issues. On the one hand, the objective of the Congress in increasing social security benefits might be considered to be frustrated to the extent that individuals with low and moderate incomes have their private retirement benefits reduced as a result of the integration procedures. On the other hand, your committee is very much aware that many present plans are fully or partly integrated and that elimination of the integration procedures could substantially increase the cost of financing private plans. Employees, as a whole, might be injured rather than aided if such cost increases resulted in slowing down the growth or perhaps even eliminat[ing] private retirement plans.” H. R. Rep. No. 93-807, p. 69 (1974), reprinted in 2 Legislative History of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare) 3189 (1976) (Leg. Hist.).
The Committee called for further study of the problem and recommended that Congress impose a restriction on integration of pension benefits with Social Security and Railroad Retirement payments. Congress adopted this recommendation and forbade any reductions in pension payments based on increases in Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits authorized after ERISA took effect. 29 U. S. C. § 1056 (b). See 29 U. S. C. §§ 1054 (b) (1) (B) (iv), 1054 (b) (1) (C) ; H. R. Rep. No. 93-807, at 69, 2 Leg. Hist. 3189. See also 26 U. S. C. §401 (a) (15).
In setting this limitation on integration with Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits, Congress acknowledged and accepted the practice, rather than prohibiting it. Moreover, in permitting integration at least with these federal benefits, Congress did not find it necessary to add an exemption for this purpose to its stringent nonforfeiture protections in 29 U. S. C. § 1053 (a). Under these circumstances, we are unpersuaded by retirees’ claim that the non-forfeiture provisions by their own force prohibit any offset of pension benefits by workers’ compensation awards. Such offsets work much like the integration of pension benefits with Social Security or Railroad Retirement payments. The individual employee remains entitled to the established pension level, but the payments received from the pension fund are reduced by the amount received through workers’ compensation. The nonforfeiture provision of § 1053 (a) has no more applicability to this kind of integration than it does to the analogous reduction permitted for Social Security or Railroad Retirement payments. Indeed, the same congressional purpose — promoting a system of private pensions by giving employers avenues for cutting the cost of their pension obligations — underlies all such offset possibilities.
Nonetheless, ERISA does not mention integration with workers’ compensation, and the legislative history is equally silent on this point. An argument could be advanced that Congress approved integration of pension funds only with the federal benefits expressly mentioned in the Act. A current regulation issued by the Internal Revenue Service, however, goes further, and permits integration with other benefits provided by federal or state law. We now must consider whether this regulation is itself consistent with ERISA.
B
Codified at 26 CFR §§ 1.411 (a)-(4)(a) (1980), the Treasury Regulation provides that “nonforfeitable rights are not considered to be forfeitable by reason of the fact that they may be reduced to take into account benefits which are provided under the Social Security Act or under any other Federal or State law and which are taken into account in determining plan benefits.” The Regulation interprets 26 U. S. C. § 411, the section of the Internal Revenue Code which replicates for IRS purposes ERISA’s nonforfeiture provision, 29 U. S. C. § 1053 (a). The Regulation plainly encompasses awards under state workers’ compensation laws. In addition, in Revenue Rulings issued prior to ERISA, the IRS expressly had approved reductions in pension benefits corresponding to workers’ compensation awards. See, e. g., Rev. Rui. 69-421, Part 4 (j), 1969-2 Cum. Bull. 72; Rev. Rui.. 68-243, 1968-1 Cum. Bull. 157.
Retirees contend that the Treasury Regulation and IRS rulings to this effect contravene ERISA. They object first that ERISA’s approval of integration was limited to Social Security and Railroad Retirement payments. This objection is precluded by our conclusion that reduction of pension benefits based on the integration procedure are not per se prohibited by § 1053 (a), for the level of pension benefits is not prescribed by ERISA. Retirees’ only remaining objection is that workers’ compensation awards are so different in kind from Social Security and Railroad Retirement payments that their integration could not be authorized under the same rubric.
Developing this argument, retirees claim that workers’ compensation provides payments for work-related injuries, while Social Security and Railroad Retirement supply payments solely for wages lost due to retirement. Because of this distinction, retirees conclude that integration of pension funds with workers’ compensation awards lacks the rationale behind integration of pension funds with Social Security and Railroad Retirement. Retirees’ claim presumes that ERISA permits integration with Social Security or Railroad Retirement only where there is an identity between the purposes of pension payments and the purposes of the other integrated benefits. But not even the funds that the Congress clearly has approved for integration purposes share the identity of purpose ascribed to them by petitioners. Both the Social Security and Railroad Retirement Acts provide payments for disability as well as for wages lost due to retirement, and ERISA permits pension integration without distinguishing these different kinds of benefits.
Furthermore, when it enacted ERISA, Congress knew of the IRS rulings permitting integration and left them in effect. These rulings do not draw the line between permissible and impermissible integration where retirees would prefer them to, and instead they include workers’ compensation offsets within the ambit of permissible integration. The IRS rulings base their allowance of pension payment integration on three factors: the employer must contribute to the other benefit funds, these other funds must be designed for general public use, and the benefits they supply must correspond to benefits available under the pension plan. The IRS employed these considerations in approving integration with workers’ compensation benefits. E. g., Rev. Rul. 69-421, Part 4 (j), 1969-2 Cum. Bull. 72; Rev. Rul. 68-243, 1968-1 Cum. Bull. 157. In contrast, the IRS has disallowed offsets of pension benefits with damages recovered by an employee through a common-law action against the employer. Rev. Rul. 69-421, Part 4 (j)(4), 1969-2 Cum. Bull. 72; Rev. Rul. 68-243, 1968-1 Cum. Bull. 157-158. The IRS also has not permitted integration with reimbursement for medical expenses or with fixed sums made for bodily impairment because such payments do not match up with any benefits available under a pension plan qualified under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. Rev. Rui. 78-178, 1978-1 Cum. Bull. 118. Similarly, the IRS has disapproved integration with unemployment compensation, for, as payment for temporary layoffs, it too is a kind of benefit not comparable to any permitted in a qualified pension plan. Id., at 117-118.
Without speaking directly of its own rationale, Congress embraced such IRS rulings. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, p. 277 (1974), 3 Leg. Hist. 4544 (approving existing antidiscrimination rules). Congress thereby permitted integration along the lines already approved by the IRS, which had specifically allowed pension benefit offsets based on workers’ compensation. Our judicial function is not to second-guess the policy decisions of the legislature, no matter how appealing we may find contrary rationales.
As a final argument, retirees claim that we should defer to the policy decisions of the state legislature. To this claim we now turn.
Ill
The New Jersey Legislature attempted to outlaw the offset clauses by providing that “[t]he right of compensation granted by [the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act] may be set off against disability pension benefits or payments but shall not be set off against employees’ retirement pension benefits or payments.” N. J. Stat. Ann. §34:15-29 (West Supp. 1980) (emphasis added). To resolve retirees’ claim that this state policy should govern, we must determine whether such state laws are pre-empted by ERISA. Our analysis of this problem must be guided by respect for the separate spheres of governmental authority preserved in our federalist system. Although the Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws that “interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress...,” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 211 (1824), the “ 'exercise of federal supremacy is not lightly to be presumed,’ ” New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 413 (1973), quoting Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U. S. 199, 203 (1952). As we recently reiterated, “[preemption of state law by federal statute or regulation is not favored 'in the absence of persuasive reasons — either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress' has unmistakably so ordained.’ ” Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick,& Tile Co., 450 U. S. 311, 317 (1981), quoting Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142 (1963). See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525-526 (1977); Perez v. Campbell, 402 U. S. 637, 649 (1971); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947); Hines v. Davidowit z, 312 U. S. 52, 61-62 (1941).
In this instance, we are assisted by an explicit congressional statement about the pre-emptive effect of its action. The same chapter of ERISA that defines the scope of federal protection of employee pension benefits provides that
“the provisions of this subchapter... shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan described in section 1003 (a) of this title and not exempt under section 1003 (b) of this title.” 29 U. S. C. § 1144 (a).
This provision demonstrates that Congress intended to depart from its previous legislation that “envisioned the exercise of state regulation power over pension funds,” Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U. S. 497, 512, 514 (1978) (plurality opinion), and meant to establish pension plan regulation as exclusively a federal concern. But for the pre-emption provision to apply here, the New Jersey law must be characterized as a state law “that relate [s] to any employee benefit plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1144 (a). That phrase gives rise to some confusion where, as here, it is asserted to apply to a state law ostensibly regulating a matter quite’ different from pension plans. The New Jersey law governs the State’s workers’ compensation awards, which obviously are subject to the State’s police power. As a result, one of the District Court Judges below concluded that the New Jersey provision “is in no way concerned with pension plans qua pension plans. On the contrary, the New Jersey statute is solely concerned with protecting the employee’s right to worker’s compensation disability benefits.” Buczynski v. General Motors Corp., 456 F. Supp. 867, 873 (NJ 1978). Similarly, the other District Court Judge below reasoned that the New Jersey law “only has a collateral effect on pension plans.” Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Civ. No. 78-0434 (NJ, Feb. 15, 1979). The Court of Appeals rejected these analyses on two grounds. It read the “relate to pension plans” language in “its normal dictionary sense” as indicating a broad pre-emptive intent, and it also reasoned that the “only purpose and effect of the [New Jersey] statute is to set forth an additional statutory requirement for pension plans,” a purpose not permitted by ERISA. 616 F. 2d, at 1250 (emphasis in original).
We agree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals but arrive there by a different route. Whatever the purpose or purposes of the New Jersey statute, we conclude that it “relate [s] to pension plans” governed by ERISA because it eliminates one method for calculating pension benefits — integration—that is permitted by federal law. ERISA permits integration of pension funds with other public income maintenance moneys for the purpose of calculating benefits, and the IRS interpretation approves integration with the exact funds addressed by the New Jersey workers’ compensation law. New Jersey’s effort to ban pension benefit offsets based on workers’ compensation applies directly to this cal-eulation technique. We need not determine the outer bounds of ERISA’s pre-emptive language to find this New Jersey provision an impermissible intrusion on the federal regulatory scheme.
It is of no moment that New Jersey intrudes indirectly, through a workers’ compensation law, rather than directly, through a statute called “pension regulation.” ERISA makes clear that even indirect state action bearing on private pensions may encroach upon the area of exclusive federal concern. For the purposes of the pre-emption provision, ERISA defines the term “State” to include: “a State, any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of either, which purports to regulate, directly or indirectly, the terms and conditions of employee benefit plans covered by this subchapter.” 29 U. S. C. §1144 (c)(2) (emphasis added). ERISA’s authors clearly meant to preclude the States from avoiding through form the substance of the preemption provision.
Another consideration bolsters our conclusion that the New Jersey provision is pre-empted insofar as it bears on pensions regulated by ERISA. ERISA leaves integration, along with other pension calculation techniques, subject to the discretion of pension plan designers. See supra, at 514-516. Where, as here, the pension plans emerge from collective bargaining, the additional federal interest in precluding state interference with labor-management negotiations calls for pre-emption of state efforts to regulate pension terms. See Teamsters v. Oliver, 358 U. S. 283, 296 (1959); Railway Employees v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 232 (1956). Cf. Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U. S. 274 (1971); San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959). As a subject of collective bargaining, pension terms themselves become expressions of federal law, requiring preemption of intrusive state law.
IV
We conclude that N. J. Stat. Ann. § 34:15-29 (West Supp. 1980) is pre-empted by federal law insofar as it bears on pension plans governed by ERISA. We find further that Congress contemplated and approved the kind of pension provisions challenged here, which permit offsets of pension benefits based on workers’ compensation awards. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Justice BREnnan took no part in the decision of these cases.
The Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., plan provides:
“All Retirement Income payments shall be reduced by the entire amount of any and all payments the Member is eligible to receive under any and all statutes pertaining to workmen’s compensation, occupational disease, unemployment compensation, cash sickness benefits, and similar laws, other than primary Social Security benefits, Presently in effect or which may be enacted from time to time, which payments are paid concurrently with the Retirement Income.”
The offset clause under the General Motors Corp. plan provides:
“In determining the monthly benefits payable under this Plan, a deduction shall be made unless prohibited by law, equivalent to all or any part of Workmen’s Compensation (including compromise or redemption settlements) payable to such employee by reason of any law of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, which has been or shall be enacted, provided that such deductions shall be to the extent that such Workmen’s Compensation has been provided by premiums, taxes or other payments paid by or at the expense of the Corporation, except that no deduction shall be made for the following:
“(a) Workmen’s Compensation payments specifically allocated for hospitalization or medical expense, fixed statutory payments for the loss of any bodily member, or 100% loss of use of any bodily member, or payments for loss of industrial vision.
“(b) Compromise or redemption settlements payable prior to the date monthly pension benefits first become payable.
“(c) Workmen's Compensation payments paid under a claim filed not later than two years after the breaking of seniority.”
In No. 79-1943, former employees of Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., sought permanently to enjoin such offsets and to recover damages for the offsets already made. Similar relief was pursued in No. 80-193, where several former employees of General Motors Corp. brought suit for themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated.
See n. 8, infra.
The Regulation provides that “nonforfeitable rights are not considered to be forfeitable by reason of the fact that they may be reduced to take into account benefits which are provided under the Social Security Act or under any other Federal or State law and which are taken into account in determining plan benefits.” 26 CFR § 1.411 (a)-4 (a) (1980).
In its statement of findings and declaration of policy, Congress noted that “despite the enormous growth in such plans many employees with long years of employment are losing anticipated retirement benefits owing to the lack of vesting provisions in such plans.” 29 U. S. C. § 1001 (a). ERISA was designed to prescribe minimum vesting and accrual standards in response to such problems. Ibid. To ensure that employee pension expectations are not defeated, the Act establishes minimum rules for employee participation, §§ 1051-1061; funding standards to increase solvency of pension plans, §§ 1081-1085; fiduciary standards for plan managers, §§ 1101-1114; and an insurance program in case of plan termination, §§ 1341-1348 (1976 ed. and Supp. III).
ERISA establishes three accrual techniques for pension plans covered by the Act. 29 U. S. C. § 1054 (b)(1). See n. 9, infra. Similarly, ERISA establishes several approved vesting schedules. Under any of the approved schedules, at a time prior to normal retirement age but after a given period of service or a combination of age and length of service, the employee is to be guaranteed 100% interest in the pension benefit. 29 U. S. C. § 1053 (a)(2). See n. 10, infra.
ERISA defines “normal retirement benefit” as “the greater of the early retirement benefit under the plan, or the benefit under the plan commencing at normal retirement áge.” 29 U. S. C. § 1002 (22).
The statute expressly exempts from its forfeiture ban offsets that: (1) are contingent on the employee’s death, 29 U. S. C. § 1053 (a) (3) (A); (2) occur when the employee takes a job under certain circumstances, § 1053 (a) (3) (B); (3) are due to certain retroactive amendments to a pension plan, § 1053 (a) (3) (C); or (4) result from withdrawals of benefits derived from mandatory contributions, § 1053 (a) (3) (D). Retirees correctly point out that workers’ compensation offsets fall into none of these categories.
The three different accrual practices approved for defined benefits plans are described in 29 U. S. C. § 1054 (b)(1). One prescribes a minimum percentage of the total retirement benefit that must be accrued in any given year. § 1054 (b) (1) (A). Another permits the use of any accrual formula as long as the accrual rate for a given year of service does not vary beyond a specified percentage from the accrual rate of any other year under the plan. § 1054 (b) (1) (B). The third is essentially a pro rata rule under which in any given year, the employee’s accrued benefit is proportionate to the number of years of service as compared with the number of total’ years of service appropriate to the normal retirement age. § 1054 (b) (1) (C).
Congress approved some delay in an employee’s acquisition of a vested right to portions of his pension derived from employer contributions. Thus, ERISA specifies that this right could be hinged on a minimum length of service, but an employee reaching the minimum should not lose that right even if he does not continue working for that particular employer until reaching retirement age. That minimum period of service can be calculated under three different formulas, two of which permit gradual vesting of percentages of the accrued benefits over time. Compare 29 U. S. C. § 1053 (a)(2)(A) with §§ 1053 (a) (2) (B), (C). See also Schiller, Proposed ERISA Vesting Regulations: Not What They Seem To Be, 6 J. Corp. L. 263 (1981) (discussing Internal Revenue Service implementation of vesting provisions). In essence, pension plans qualifying for tax treatment advantageous to the employer both must ensure non-forfeiture of all accrued benefits derived from employee contributions and must use vesting and accrual rates assuring portions of the benefits derived from the employer contributions should the employee leave the job before the normal retirement age. 29 U. S. C. §§ 1053 (a) (1), (2).
This minimum results from the formulas approving gradual vesting over'time of benefits derived from employer contributions. See 29 U. S. C. §§ 1053 (a) (2) (B), (C). Alternatively, a plan may comply with ERISA “if an employee who has at least 10 years of service has a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of his accrued benefit derived from employer contributions.” 29 U. S. C. §1053 (a)(2)(A).
The vesting, nonforfeiture, and pension benefits provisions of the bill discussed in H. R. Rep. No. 93-807 were substantially identical to those portions in the bill ultimately enacted as ERISA. The bill reported out of the Conference Committee included an additional provision to restrict temporarily any increases in pension reductions due to increases in Social Security benefits occurring after December 31, 1971. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, p. 131 (1974), 3 Leg. Hist. 4405. Senator Harrison Williams explained that this provision ultimately was deleted because:
“We have been told that this will greatly increase the costs of private pension plans, something that I am sure none of the Senators would like to see occur. This is particularly true if these increased pension costs result in the termination of private pension plans. Certainly that is not the intent of this legislation which is designed to improve and encourage the expansion of private pension plans.” 120 Cong. Rec. 29928 (1974), 3 Leg. Hist. 4732.
The Court of Appeals characterized the Treasury Regulation as a “legislative” regulation, entitled to a more restricted scope of review than is applied to “interpretive rules.” 616 F. 2d 1238, 1242. Nonetheless, the Government here represents that the Treasury Regulation is an interpretive rule. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19, n. 12. Because an agency empowered to enact legislative rules may choose to issue nonlegislative statements, we review this Treasury Regulation under the scrutiny applicable to interpretive rules, with due deference to consistent agency practice. See Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 425, n. 9 (1977); Batterton v. Marshall, 208 U. S. App. D. C. 321, 332-333, 648 F. 2d 694, 705-706 (1980); 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 7.8 (2d ed. 1979).
Furthermore, integration with workers’ compensation has been approved by the agency created under ERISA to guarantee payment of all nonforfeitable pension benefits despite termination of the relevant pension plan. That agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, has defined the benefits it guarantees to include “a benefit payable as an annuity, or one or more payments related thereto, to a participant who permanently
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
An immigration statute, 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a), authorizes the Attorney General to cancel the removal of an alien from the United States so long as the alien satisfies certain criteria. One of those criteria relates to the length of time an alien has lawfully resided in the United States, and another to the length of time he has held permanent resident status here. We consider whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) could reasonably conclude that an alien living in this country as a child must meet those requirements on his own, without counting a parent’s years of residence or immigration status. We hold that the BIA’s approach is based on a permissible construction of the statute.
I
A
The immigration laws have long given the Attorney General discretion to permit certain otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the United States. See Judulang v. Holder, 565 U. S. 42, 59 (2011). The Attorney General formerly exercised this authority by virtue of § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 187, 8 U. S. C. § 1182(e) (1994 ed.), a provision with some lingering relevance here, see infra, at 7-9. But in 1996, Congress replaced § 212(c) with §1229b(a) (2006 ed.). That new section, applicable to the cases before us, provides as follows:
“(a) Cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents
“The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—
“(1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years,
“(2) has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and
“(3) has not been convicted of any aggravated felony.” Ibid.
Section 1229b(a) thus specifies the criteria that make an alien eligible to obtain relief from the Attorney General. The first paragraph requires that the alien have held the status of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years. And the second adds that the alien must have lived in the United States for at least seven continuous years after a lawful admission, whether as an LPR or in some other immigration status. (The third paragraph is not at issue in these cases.)
The question we consider here is whether, in applying this statutory provision, the BIA should impute a parent’s years of continuous residence or LPR status to his or her child. That question arises because a child may enter the country lawfully, or may gain LPR status, after one of his parents does. A parent may therefore satisfy the requirements of §§ 1229b(a)(l) and (a)(2), while his or her child, considered independently, does not. In these circumstances, is the child eligible for cancellation of removal?
The Ninth Circuit, the first court of appeals to confront this issue, held that such an alien could obtain relief. See Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales,. 430 F. 3d 1013 (2005). Enrique Cuevas-Gaspar and his parents came to the United States illegally in 1985, when he was one year old. Cuevas-Gaspar’s mother was lawfully admitted to the country in 1990, as an LPR. But Cuevas-Gaspar was lawfully admitted only in 1997, when he too received LPR status. That meant that when Cuevas-Gaspar committed a removable offense in 2002, he could not independently satisfy § 1229b(a)(2)’s requirement of seven consecutive years of residence after a lawful entry. (The parties agreed that he just met § 1229b(a)(l)’s 5-year status requirement.) The Board deemed Cuevas-Gaspar ineligible for relief on that account, but the Ninth Circuit found that position unreasonable. According to the Court of Appeals, the Board should have “imputed” to Cuevas-Gaspar his mother’s years of continuous residence during the time he lived with her as an “unemanci-pated minor.” Id., at 1029. That approach, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, followed from both the INA’s “priorit[ization]” of familial relations and the Board’s “consistent willingness” to make imputations from a parent to a child in many areas of immigration law. Id., at 1026.
The Board responded by reiterating its opposition to imputation under both relevant paragraphs of §1229b(a). In In re Escobar, 24 I. & N. Dec. 231 (2007), the Board considered whether a child could rely on a parent’s period of LPR status to satisfy § 1229b(a)(l)’s 5-year clock. The Board expressly “disagree[d] with the reasoning” of Cuevas-Gaspar, rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s understanding of both the statute and the Board’s prior policies. 24 I. & N. Dec., at 233-234, and n. 4. Accordingly, the Board announced that it would “decline to extend” Cuevas-Gaspar to any case involving § 1229b(a)(l), and that it would ignore the decision even as to § 1229b(a)(2) outside the Ninth Circuit. 241. & N. Dec., at 235. A year later, in Matter of Ramirez-Vargas, 24 I. & N. Dec. 599 (2008), the BIA took the final step: It rejected imputation under § 1229b(a)(2) in a case arising in the Ninth Circuit, maintaining that the court should abandon Cuevas-Gaspar and defer to the Board’s intervening reasoned decision in Escobar. See Ramirez-Vargas, 24 I. & N. Dec., at 600-601 (citing National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967 (2005)).
The BIA’s position on imputation touched off a split in the courts of appeals. The Third and Fifth Circuits both deferred to the BIA’s approach as a reasonable construction of §1229b(a). See Augustin v. Attorney Gen., 520 F. 3d 264 (CA3 2008); Deus v. Holder, 591 F. 3d 807 (CA5 2009). But in Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F. 3d 1102 (2009), the Ninth Circuit doubled down on its contrary view, declaring the BIA’s position unreasonable and requiring imputation under both §§ 1229b(a)(1) and (a)(2). See id., at 1103 (“[T]he rationale and holding of Cuevas-Gaspar apply equally to the five-year permanent residence and the seven-year continuance residence requirements” of § 1229b(a)).
B
Two cases are before us. In 1989, at the age of five, respondent Carlos Martinez Gutierrez illegally entered the United States with his family. Martinez Gutierrez’s father was lawfully admitted to the country two years later as an LPR. But Martinez Gutierrez himself was neither lawfully admitted nor given LPR status until 2003. Two years after that, Martinez Gutierrez was apprehended for smuggling undocumented aliens across the border. He admitted the offense, and sought cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge concluded that Martinez Gutierrez qualified for relief because of his father’s immigration history, even though Martinez Gutierrez could not satisfy either § 1229b(a)(l) or §1229b(a)(2) on his own. See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 10-1542, pp. 20a-22a (citing Cuevas-Gaspar, 430 F. 3d 1013). The BIA reversed, and after entry of a removal order on remand, reaffirmed its disposition in an order relying on Escobar, see App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 10-1542, at 5a-6a. The Ninth Circuit then granted Martinez Gutierrez’s petition for review and remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration in light of the court’s contrary decisions.. See 411 Fed. Appx. 121 (2011).
Respondent Damien Sawyers was lawfully admitted as an LPR in October 1995, when he was 15 years old. At that time, his mother had already resided in the country for six consecutive years following a lawful entry. After Sawyers’s conviction of a drug offense in August 2002, the Government initiated removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge found Sawyers ineligible for cancellation of removal because he was a few months shy of the seven years of continuous residence required under § 1229b(a)(2). See App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 10-1543, p. 13a. (No one doubted that Sawyers had by that time held LPR status for five years, as required under § 1229b(a)(l).) The Board affirmed, relying on its reasoning in Escobar. See In re Sawyers, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ], 2007 WL 4711443 (Dec. 26, 2007). Sawyers petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, arguing that the Board should have counted his mother’s years of residency while he was a minor toward § 1229b(a)(2)’s 7-year requirement. As in Gutierrez, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and remanded the case to the BIA. See 399 Fed. Appx. 313 (2010).
We granted the Government’s petitions for certiorari, 564 U. S. 1066 (2011), consolidated the cases, and now reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgments.
II
The Board has required each alien seeking cancellation of removal to satisfy §1229b(a)’s requirements on his own, without counting a parent’s years of continuous residence or LPR status. That position prevails if it is a reasonable construction of the statute, whether or not it is the only possible interpretation or even the one a court might think best. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843-844, and n. 11 (1984); see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U. S. 415, 424-425 (1999) (according Chevron deference to the Board’s interpretations of the INA). We think the BIA’s view on imputation meets that standard, and so need not decide if the statute permits any other construction.
The Board’s approach is consistent with the statute’s text, as even respondents tacitly concede. Section 1229b(a) does not mention imputation, much less require it. The provision calls for “the alien” — not, say, “the alien or one of his parents” — to meet the three prerequisites for cancellation of removal. Similarly, several of §1229b(a)’s other terms have statutory definitions referring to only a single individual. See, e. g., § 1101(a)(13)(A) (“The terms ‘admission’ and ‘admitted’ mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States” (emphasis added)); § 1101(a)(33) (“The term ‘residence’ means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling” (emphasis added)). Respondents contend that none of this language “forecloses” imputation: They argue that if the Board allowed imputation, “[t]he alien” seeking cancellation would “still have to satisfy the provision’s durational requirements” — just pursuant to a different computational rule. Brief for Respondent Martinez Gutierrez in No. 10-1542, p. 16 (hereinafter Martinez Gutierrez Brief); see Brief for Respondent Sawyers in No. 10-1543, pp. 11,15 (hereinafter Sawyers Brief). And they claim that the Board’s history of permitting imputation under similarly “silent” statutes supports this construction. Martinez Gutierrez Brief 16; see Sawyers Brief 15-16; infra, at 594-596. But even if so — even if the Board could adopt an imputation rule consistent with the statute’s text — that would not avail respondents. Taken alone, the language of § 1229b(a) at least permits the Board to go the other way — to say that “the alien” must meet the statutory conditions independently, without relying on a parent’s history.
For this reason, respondents focus on § 1229b(a)’s history and context — particularly, the provision’s relationship to the INA’s former § 212(c) and its associated imputation rule. Section 212(c) — §1229b(a)’s predecessor — generally allowed the Attorney General to prevent the removal of an alien with LPR status who had maintained a “lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years” in this country. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994 ed.). Like §1229b(a), §212(c) was silent on imputation. Yet the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits (the only appellate courts to consider the question) concluded that, in determining eligibility for relief under § 212(c), the Board should impute a parent’s years of domicile to his or her child. See Rosario v. INS, 962 F. 2d 220 (CA2 1992); Lepe-Guitron v. INS, 16 F. 3d 1021, 1024-1026 (CA9 1994); Morel v. INS, 90 F. 3d 833, 840-842 (CA3 1996). Those courts reasoned that at common law, a minor’s domicile was “the same as that of its parents, since most children are presumed not legally capable of forming the requisite intent to establish their own domicile.” Rosario, 962 F. 2d, at 224; see Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U. S. 30, 48 (1989) (defining “domicile” as “physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one’s intent to remain there”). So by the time Congress replaced § 212(c) with § 1229b(a), the BIA often imputed a parent’s years of domicile to a child in determining eligibility for cancellation of removal. Sawyers argues that against this backdrop, Congress “would have understood the language it chose [in §1229b(a)] to provide for imputation.” Sawyers Brief 10.
But we cannot conclude that Congress ratified an imputation requirement when it passed § 1229b(a). As all parties agree, Congress enacted §§ 1229b(a)(l) and (a)(2) to resolve an unrelated question about §212(c)’s meaning. See id., at 17; Martinez Gutierrez Brief 28; Brief for Petitioner 25. Courts had differed on whether an alien’s “seven consecutive years” of domicile under § 212(c) all had to post-date the alien’s obtaining LPR status. See Cuevas-Gaspar, 430 F. 3d, at 1027-1028 (canvassing split). Congress addressed that split by creating two distinct durational conditions: the 5-year status requirement of subsection (a)(1), which runs from the time an alien becomes an LPR, and the 7-year continuous-residency requirement of subsection (a)(2), which can include years preceding the acquisition of LPR status. In doing so, Congress eliminated the very term — “domicile” — on which the appeals courts had founded their imputation decisions. See supra, at 592. That alteration dooms respondents’ position, because the doctrine of congressional ratification applies only when Congress reenacts a statute without relevant change. See Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U. S. 335, 349 (2005). So the statutory history here provides no basis for holding that the BIA flouted a congressional command in adopting its no-imputation policy.
Nor do the INA’s purposes demand imputation here, as both respondents claim. According to Martinez Gutierrez, the BIA’s approach contradicts that statute’s objectives of “providing relief to aliens with strong ties to the United States” and “promoting family unity.” Martinez Gutierrez Brief 40, 44; see Sawyers Brief 87. We agree — indeed, we have stated — that the goals respondents identify underlie or inform many provisions of immigration law. See Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 795, n. 6 (1977); INS v. Errico, 385 U. S. 214, 220 (1966). But they are not the INA’s only goals, and Congress did not pursue them to the nth degree. To take one example, § 1229b(a)’s third paragraph makes aliens convicted of aggravated felonies ineligible for cancellation of removal, regardless of the strength of their family ties. See § 122913(a)(3). And more generally — as these very cases show — not every alien who obtains LPR status can immediately get the same for her spouse or minor children. See Brief for Petitioner 31-32, and n. 9 (providing program-specific examples). We cannot read a silent statute as requiring (not merely allowing) imputation just because that rule would be family-friendly.
Respondents’ stronger arguments take a different tack— that we should refuse to defer to the Board’s decision even assuming Congress placed the question of imputation in its hands. Respondents offer two main reasons. First, they contend that the Board’s approach to §1229b(a) cannot be squared with its acceptance of imputation under other, similar statutory provisions. This “wil[d]” and “ ‘[unexplained inconsistency,’” Sawyers asserts, is the very “paradigm of arbitrary agency action.” Sawyers Brief 13, 41 (emphasis deleted); see Martinez Gutierrez Brief 52-54. Second, they argue that the Board did not appreciate its own discretion over whether to allow imputation. The Board, they say, thought Congress had forbidden imputation, and so did not bring its “ ‘experience and- expertise to bear’ ” on the issue. Id., at 31 (quoting PDK Labs. Inc. v. DEA, 362 F. 3d 786, 797 (CADC 2004)); see Sawyers Brief 38-39. These arguments are not insubstantial, but in the end neither persuades us to deny the Board the usual deference we accord to agency interpretations.
Start with the claim of inconsistency. The BIA has indeed imputed parental attributes to children under othér INA provisions that do not mention the matter. Section 1182(k), for example, enables the Attorney General to let certain inadmissible aliens into the country if he finds “that inadmissibility was not known to, and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence by, the immigrant before the time of departure.” Like § 1229b(a), that provision refers to a single person (“the immigrant”) and says nothing about imputation. But the BIA has consistently imputed a parent’s knowledge of inadmissibility (or lack thereof) to a child. See, e. g., Senica v. INS, 16 F. 3d 1013, 1015 (CA9 1994) (“Therefore, the BIA reasoned, the children were not entitled to relief under [§ 1182(k)] because [their mother’s] knowledge was imputed to them”); In re Mushtaq, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ], 2007 WL 4707539 (BIA, Dec. 10, 2007) (per curiam); In re Ahmed, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ], 2006 WL 448156 (BIA, Jan. 17, 2006) (per curiam).
Similarly, the Board imputes a parent’s abandonment (or non-abandonment) of LPR status to her child when determining whether that child can reenter the country as a “returning resident immigran[t]” under § 1181(b). See Matter of Zamora, 17 I. & N. Dec. 395, 396 (1980) (holding that a “voluntary and intended abandonment by the mother is imputed” to an unemancipated minor child for purposes of applying § 1181(b)); Matter of Huang, 19 I. & N. Dec. 749, 755-756 (1988) (concluding that a mother and her children abandoned their LPR status based solely on the mother’s intent); In re Ali, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ], 2006 WL 3088820 (BIA, Sept. 11, 2006) (holding that a child could not have abandoned his LPR status if his mother had not abandoned hers). And once again, that is so even though neither § 1181(b) nor any other statutory provision says that the BIA should look to the parent in assessing the child’s eligibility for reentry.
But Escobar provided a reasoned explanation for these divergent results: The Board imputes matters involving an alien’s state of mind, while declining to impute objective conT ditions or characteristics. See 24 I. & N. Bee., at 233-234, and n. 4. On one side of the line, knowledge of inadmissibility is all and only about a mental state. See, e. g., Senica, 16 F. 3d, at 1015; In re Ahmed, 2006 WL 448156. Likewise, abandonment of status turns on an alien’s “intention of . . . returning to the United States” to live as a permanent resident, Zamora, 17 I. & N. Dec., at 396; the Board thus explained that imputing abandonment is “consistent with the . . . longstanding policy that a child cannot form the intent necessary to establish his or her own domicile,” Escobar, 24 I. & N. Dec., at 234, n. 4. And as that analogy recalls, the 7-year domicile requirement of the former § 212(c) also involved intent and so lent itself to imputation. See Rosario, 962 F. 2d, at 224; supra, at 592. But the 5- and 7-year clocks of § 1229b(a) fall on the other side of the line, because they hinge not on any state of mind but on the objective facts of immigration status and place of residence. See Escobar, 24 I. & N. Dec., at 233 (“[W]e find that residence is different from domicile because it ‘contains no element of subjective intent’ ” (quoting Cuevas-Gaspar, 430 F. 3d, at 1031 (Fernandez, J., dissenting))). The BIA’s varied rulings on imputation thus largely follow from one straightforward distinction.
Similarly, Escobar belies respondents’ claim that the BIA adopted its no-imputation rule only because it thought Congress had left it no other choice. The Board, to be sure, did not highlight the statute’s gaps or ambiguity; rather, it read §1229b(a)’s text to support its conclusion that each alien must personally meet that section’s durational requirements. See 24 I. & N. Dec., at 235. But the Board also explained that “there [was] no precedent” in its decisions for imputing status or residence, and distinguished those statutory terms, on the ground just explained, from domicile or abandonment of LPR status. Id., at 284; see id., at 238-234, and n. 4. And the Board argued that allowing imputation under §1229b(a) would create anomalies in administration of the statutory scheme by permitting even those who had not obtained LPR status — or could not do so because of a criminal history — to become eligible for cancellation of removal. See id., at 234-235, and n. 5. The Board therefore saw neither a “logical” nor a “legal” basis for adopting a policy of imputation. Id., at 233. We see nothing in this decision to suggest that the Board thought its hands tied, or that it might have reached a different result if assured it could do so. To the contrary, the decision expressed the BIA’s view, based on its experience implementing the INA, that statutory text, administrative practice, and regulatory policy all pointed in one direction: toward disallowing imputation. In making that case, the decision reads like a multitude of agency interpretations — not the best example, but far from the worst— to which we and other courts have routinely deferred. We see no reason not to do so here.
Because the Board’s rejection of imputation under § 1229b(a) is “based on a permissible construction of the statute,” Chevron, 467 U. S., at 843, we reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgments and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The INA defines “admitted” as referring to “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13)(A). The 7-year clock of § 1229b(a)(2) thus begins with an alien’s lawful entry.
The 7-year clock, stopped running on the date of Cuevas-Gaspar’s offense under a statutory provision known as the “stop-time” rule. See § 1229b(d)(l) (“For purposes of this section, any period of continuous residence ... in the United States shall be deemed to end ... when the alien is served a notice to appear . . . or . . . when the alien has committed an offense . . . that renders the alien . . . removable from the United States ..., whichever is earliest”).
Sawyers contends that § 1229b(a)(2)’s replacement term — “resided continuously” — is a “term of art” in the immigration context which incorporates “an intent component” and so means the same thing as “domiciled.” Sawyers Brief 25-26 (emphasis deleted). Thus, Sawyers argues, we should read § 1229b(a) as reenacting § 212(c) without meaningful change. See id., at 25. But even assuming that Congress could ratify judicial decisions based on the term “domicile” through a new statute using a synonym for that term, we do not think “resided continuously” qualifies. The INA defines “residence” as a person’s “principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent,” 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(33) (emphasis added), and we find nothing to suggest that Congress added an intent element, inconsistent with that definition, by requiring that the residence have been maintained “continuously for 7 years.”
Respondents aver that the BIA deviates from this principle in imputing to a child his parent’s “ ‘firm resettlement’ ” in another country, which renders an alien ineligible for asylum without regard to intent. See Sawyers Brief 39; Martinez Gutierrez Brief 52. • But the Government denies that it has a “settled imputation rule” in that context. Reply Brief for Petitioner 13. And the sources on which respondents rely are slender reeds: a 40-year-old ruling by a regional commissioner (not the Board itself) that considered the conduct of both the parents and the child, see Matter of Ng, 12 I. & N. Dec. 411 (1967), and a Ninth Circuit decision imputing a parent’s resettlement even though the Board had focused only on the child’s actions, see Vang v. INS, 146 F. 3d 1114, 1117 (1998). Based on these scant decisions, we cannot conclude that the Board has any policy on imputing resettlement, let alone one inconsistent with Escobar.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.