instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 276 So. 2d 678 (1973), which held that under the applicable Mississippi statute appellant might not recover damages for breach of a contract to deliver cotton because of its failure to qualify to do business in the State. Appellant claims that that Mississippi statute as applied to the facts of this case is repugnant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. A motion to dismiss was made on the ground that the Mississippi Supreme Court did not pass on that federal question and that such question was not in fact raised. We accordingly postponed the question of probable jurisdiction to a hearing on the merits, 415 U. S. 988 (1974).
I
On application of appellant (appellee below), the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi executed a certificate dated August 17, 1973, stating in part:
“[T]his Court . . . hereby certifies . . . that in this appeal . . . and in the arguments both oral and by brief made in this Court on behalf of the appellee on the original appeal and the petition of appellee for rehearing and brief filed in support thereof, it was insisted by appellee that under the facts of this case, the contract sued upon by the appellee was made in ‘interstate commerce’ and that it was transacting business in interstate commerce, and thus entitled to protection as such under the applicable statutes of Mississippi and the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution; and that in its deliberation of this case, this Court both on the original appeal and the petition for rehearing considered these questions of interstate commerce; and it was the judgment of this Court that said contract was not made in interstate commerce, nor that the facts of the case showed appellee to be transacting business in interstate commerce within the meaning of the laws of Mississippi and that Mississippi Code 1942 Ann. Section 5309-239 (Supp. 1972) as applied by this Court in this case to the Allenberg Cotton Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, to bar it from maintaining suit in the courts of this state was not repugnant to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution; and it was necessary to the Court’s judgment in said case to determine said questions raised as to interstate commerce, and that such questions were determined adversely to the position of appellee.”
The Chief Justice, speaking for the court, makes it clear that a federal question was raised and decided and that that question was the validity of the state statute as applied to the facts of this case under the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution. That certificate is adequate under our decisions. So we proceed to the merits.
II
Appellant is a cotton merchant with its principal office in Memphis, Tenn. It had arranged with one Coving-ton, a local cotton buyer in Marks, Miss., “to contract cotton” to be produced the following season by farmers in Quitman County, Miss. The farmer, Pittman, in the present case, made the initial approach to Covington, seeking a contract for his cotton; in other instances Covington might contact the local farmers. In either event, Covington would obtain all the information necessary for a purchase contract and telephone the information to appellant in Memphis, where a contract would be prepared, signed by an officer of appellant, and forwarded to Covington. The latter would then have the farmer sign the contract. For these services Covington received a commission on each bale of cotton delivered to appellant’s account at the local warehouse. When the farmers delivered the cotton, Covington would draw on appellant and pay them the agreed price.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that appellant’s transactions with Mississippi farmers were wholly intrastate in nature, being completed upon delivery of the cotton at the warehouse, and that the fact that appellant might subsequently sell the cotton in interstate commerce was irrelevant to the federal question “as the Mississippi transaction had been completed and the cotton then belonged exclusively to Allenberg, to be disposed of as it saw fit, at its sole election and discretion,” 276 So. 2d, at 681. Under the contract which Covington negotiated with appellee, Pittman, the latter was to plant, cultivate, and harvest a crop of cotton on his land, deliver it to a named company in Marks, Miss., for ginning, and then turn over the ginned cotton to appellant at a local warehouse. The suit brought by appellant alleged a refusal of Pittman to deliver the cotton and asked for injunctive relief and damages. One defense tendered by Pittman was that appellant could not use the courts of Mississippi to enforce its contracts, as it was doing business in the State without the requisite certificate. The Supreme Court of Mississippi sustained that plea, reversing a judgment in favor of appellant, and dismissed the complaint.
Appellant’s arrangements with Pittman and the broker, Covington, are representative of a course of dealing with many farmers whose cotton, once sold to appellant, enters a long interstate pipeline. That pipeline ultimately terminates at mills across the country or indeed around the world, after a complex sorting and matching process designed to provide each mill with the particular grade of cotton which the mill is equipped to process.
Due to differences in soil, time of planting, harvesting, weather, and the like, each bale of cotton, even though produced on the same farm, may have a different quality. Traders or merchants like appellant, with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture, must sample each bale and classify it according to grade, staple length, and color. Similar bales, whether from different farms or even from different collection points, are then grouped in multiples of 100 into “even-running lots” which are uniform as to all measurable characteristics. This grouping process typically takes place in card files in the merchant’s office; when enough bales have been pooled to make an even-running lot, the entire lot can be targeted for a mill equipped to handle cotton of that particular quality, and the individual bales in the lot will then be shipped to the mill from their respective collection points. It is true that title often formally passes to the merchant upon delivery of the cotton at the warehouse, and that the cotton may rest at the warehouse pending completion of the classification and grouping processes; but, as the description above indicates, these fleeting events are an integral first step in a vast system of distribution of cotton in interstate commerce.
The contract entered into between appellant and Pittman was a standard “forward” contract, executed in January 1971 and covering the crop to be grown that year. Such contracts have become common in the American cotton-marketing system; they provide a ready way for the cotton farmer to protect himself against a price decline by ensuring that he will be able to sell his crop at a sufficient price to cover his expenses. The merchant who has contracted to buy the cotton from the farmer must in turn protect himself against market fluctuations. In this case, appellant had entered into contracts for sale of cotton to customers outside Mississippi, in quantities approximating the expected yield of the Pittman contract and appellant’s other Mississippi contracts. A resale contract of this sort ensures that the merchant will be able to cover his own expenses and recoup a small profit; alternatively, the merchant may protect himself by “hedging,” i. e., offsetting his purchases with a sale of futures contracts on the cotton exchange. The stability of the position he has constructed for himself, however, clearly depends on the integrity and enforceability of his contracts for purchase and resale.
A recent House report on the functioning of the commodity exchanges in connection with the marketing of agricultural products said:
“The commodity futures markets are a very important part of our marketing system. Producers, processors, and merchandisers of commodities hedge the prices at which they buy or sell on a particular day. When the local elevator buys grain from a farmer he sells the same quantity on the futures market deliverable at about the same time he anticipates sale of the cash grain he has purchased. When the actual sale is made, he ‘lifts’ his hedge by buying the same quantity on the futures market in the same futures month he previously sold in. If the price of grain on the cash market fluctuates either up or down, the gain or loss should be approximately offset by the hedged position.
. . [I]n this situation if the market price of the cash commodity drops 15 cents per bushel between the time the elevator operator purchases the grain and the time he resells it 6 months later, he would incur a loss of $1,500 on each 10,000 bushels. If, however, at the time he purchased the grain from the farmer he had sold the same amount of grain on the futures market in a contract which matured 6 months later, the futures price should also decrease a similar 15 cents per bushel and the elevator operator would profit $1,500 on each 10,000 bushels he sold on the futures market. The net effect, of course, of these offsetting purchases and sales would be to guard the elevator operator against loss, thereby permitting him to continue in business without regard to price fluctuation, providing the futures market operates in the normal historical manner.
“Such use of the futures market by a producer, buyer, or seller of the commodity takes the gamble of commodity price fluctuation out of his operation for him and enables him to lock in a relatively small margin of profit. This system has worked well most of the time, but whenever the supplies of commodities are short or the number of speculators becomes excessive, there exist opportunities for manipulations and distortions in the marketing system to such a great extent that the market no longer reflects supply and demand, and during part of the marketing season, prices can either be artificially raised or lowered.
“In the past year, fluctuations in the market have been so wide and erratic as to indicate the possibility of price manipulation and squeezing. Businessmen who handle commodities on some occasions have been unable to buy back contracts the day they sell the commodity and many of them have found that the commodities markets such as the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange do not always provide a dependable place to hedge their business deals. With the compromising of this kind of price insurance, many businessmen who handle commodities have felt compelled to substantially increase the amount they charge for their part in the marketing system and some have lost vast sums of money. Some now feel compelled to triple or quadruple the normal margin to cover new risks or to act only on a commission basis.
“Consumers are also greatly affected by any breakdown in our marketing system. When the futures markets are manipulated or become undependable, wider margins required at each level add to the price of the final product. Historically, erratic swings in prices result in retail prices going up more than they ever come back down. So consumers also have a great stake in preventing excessive speculation or manipulation from causing wide fluctuations in commodity prices.” H. R. Rep. No. 93-963, pp. 2-4 (1974).
While that discussion covers grain, there is no essential difference, relevant here, when it comes to cotton.
We deal here with a species of control over an intricate interstate marketing mechanism. The cotton exchange, like the livestock-marketing regime involved in Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375 (1905), and in Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495 (1922), has federal protection under the Commerce Clause. In Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U. S. 282 (1921), wheat raised in Kentucky was purchased by a miller in Tennessee, payment and delivery to a common carrier being made in Kentucky. There, as here, a suit against the farmer in a Kentucky court was defended on the grounds that the buyer had not qualified to do business in Kentucky and that, therefore, the contract was unenforceable. The Court held that the Kentucky statute could not be applied to defeat this transaction which, though having intrastate aspects, was in fact “a part of interstate commerce,” id., at 292. The same observation is pertinent here. Delivery of the cotton to a warehouse, taken in isolation, is an intrastate transaction. But that delivery is also essential for the completion of the interstate transaction, for sorting and classification in the warehouse are essential before the precise interstate destination of the cotton, whether in this country or abroad, is determined. The determination of the precise market cannot indeed be made until the classification is made. The cotton in this Mississippi sale, like the wheat involved in Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1, 33 (1923), though temporarily in a warehouse, was still in the stream of interstate commerce. As the Court stated in the Olsen case:
“The fact that the grain shipped from the west and taken from the cars may have been stored in warehouses and mixed with other grain, so that the owner receives other grain when presenting his receipt for continuing the shipment, does not take away from the interstate character of the through shipment any more than a mixture of the oil or gas in the pipe lines of the oil and gas companies in West Virginia, with the right in the owners to withdraw their shares before crossing state lines, prevented the great bulk of the oil and gas which did thereafter cross state lines from being a stream or current of interstate commerce.” Id., at 33-34.
The Court held in Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co., 268 U. S. 189 (1925), that a pervasive state regulatory scheme governing the purchase of wheat for interstate shipment was not permissible, since the “[b]uying for shipment” was “as much a part of [interstate commerce] as the shipping.” Id., at 198. And it added:
“Wheat — both with and without dockage — is a legitimate article of commerce and the subject of dealings that are nation-wide. The right to buy it for shipment, and to ship it, in interstate commerce is not a privilege derived from state laws and which they may fetter with conditions, but is a common right, the regulation of which is committed to Congress and denied to the States by the commerce clause of the Constitution.” Id., at 198-199 (footnote omitted).
In Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525 (1949), we held that a State might not deny a license to a milk distributor serving the interstate market on the ground that the new facilities would reduce the supply of milk for local markets. In expressing the philosophy of the Commerce Clause to federalize the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, we said:
“The Commerce Clause is one of the most prolific sources of national power and an equally prolific source of conflict with legislation of the state. While the Constitution vests in Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, it does not say what the states may or may not do in the absence of congressional action, nor how to draw the line between what is and what is not commerce among the states. Perhaps even more than by interpretation of its written word, this Court has advanced the solidarity and prosperity of this Nation by the meaning it has given to these great silences of the Constitution.” Id., at 534^535.
And we added:
“Our system, fostered by the Commerce Clause, is that every farmer and every craftsman shall be encouraged to produce by the certainty that he will have free access to every market in the Nation, that no home embargoes will withhold his exports, and no foreign state will by customs duties or regulations exclude them. Likewise, every consumer may look to the free competition from every producing area in the Nation to protect him from exploitation by any. Such was the vision of the Pounders; such has been the doctrine of this Court which has given it reality.” Id., at 539.
Much reliance is placed on Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 366 U. S. 276 (1961), for sustaining Mississippi’s action. The case is not in point. There the Court found that the foreign corporation had an office and salesmen in New Jersey selling drugs intrastate. Since it was engaged in an intrastate business it could be required to obtain a license even though it also did an interstate business.
Reliance is also placed on Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U. S. 202 (1944), which is likewise not in point. It is true that the customhouse broker in that case was in the business of dealing with goods in interstate transit. Nevertheless, we expressly noted that “ [the broker’s] activities are not confined to its services at the port of entry. It has localized its business, and to function effectively it must have a wide variety of dealings with the people in the community.” Id., at 210. As in Eli Lilly, this element of localization was held to be distinguishable from cases such as Dahnke-Walker in which a foreign corporation enters the State “to contribute to or to conclude a unitary interstate transaction.” Id., at 211. In this respect we have found appellant’s transactions, when viewed against the background of customary trade practices in the cotton market, to be indistinguishable from the activities in Dahnke-Walker in any significant regard.
The Mississippi Supreme Court, as noted, ruled that appellant was doing business in Mississippi. Appellant, however, has no office in Mississippi, nor does it own or operate a warehouse there. It has no employees soliciting business in Mississippi or otherwise operating there on a regular basis; its contracts are arranged through an independent broker, whose commission is paid either by appellant or by the farmer himself and who has no authority to enter into contracts on behalf of appellant. These facts are in sharp contrast to the situation in Eli Lilly, where Lilly operated a New Jersey office with 18 salaried employees whose job was to promote use of Lilly’s products. 366 U. S., at 279-281. There is no indication that the cotton which makes up appellant’s “perpetual inventory” in Mississippi is anything other than what appellant has claimed it to be, namely, cotton which is awaiting necessary sorting and classification as a prerequisite to its shipment in interstate commerce.
In short, appellant’s contacts with Mississippi do not exhibit the sort of. localization or intrastate character which we have required in situations where a State seeks to require a foreign, corporation to qualify to do business. Whether there were local tax incidents of those contacts which could be reached is a different question on which we express no opinion. Whether the course of dealing would subject appellant to suits in Mississippi is likewise a different question on which we express no view. We hold only that Mississippi’s refusal to honor and enforce contracts made for interstate or foreign commerce is repugnant to the Commerce Clause.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mississippi Code Ann. §79-3-247 (1972), formerly Miss. Code Ann. § 5309-239 (1942), provides in part:
“No foreign corporation transacting business in this state without a certificate of authority shall be permitted to maintain any action, suit or proceeding in any court of this state. Nor shall any action, suit or proceeding be maintained in any court of this state by any successor or assignee of such corporation on any right, claim or demand arising out of the transaction of business by such corporation in this state.”
See International Steel & Iron Co. v. National Surety Co., 297 U. S. 657, 661-662 (1936). As stated in Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117, 127 (1945):
“The practice has become common by which some state courts, such as the New York Court of Appeals, provide counsel on motion with a certificate of the court or of the Chief Judge that a stated federal question was presented and necessarily passed upon if such was the case. See, e. g., cases cited in Robertson and Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, § 75.”
In Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 360-362 (1927), while the record did not show that the party raised or that the state court considered “any Federal question whatever,” a supplemental order entered by the state court after the case had reached this Court, setting forth the federal question raised and decided by the state court, was given the same effect “as would be done if the statement had been made in the opinion of that court when delivered.”
In cases where the certificate (Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U. S. 14 (1937)) or supplemental opinion by one member of the state court (Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Alderson, 324 U. S. 182 (1945)) has been held to be insufficient, there were lingering doubts as to whether the precise federal question was necessarily decided. Here we have no remaining doubts.
The latter practice seems to have been the more usual one. (App. 54, 102-105.)
The commission was paid in some instances by appellant, in other instances by the individual farmer. (Id., at 53, 68.)
A. B. Cox, Cotton — Demand, Supply, Merchandising 4-5 (1953); A. Garside, Cotton Goes to Market 66-67 (1935).
For a more detailed description of the classification process, see Cox, supra, n. 5, at 131-147; Garside, supra, n. 5, at 46-85.
See Cox, supra, n. 5, at 4-5, 233-236. Virtually all cotton grown in Mississippi is shipped out of state, since there is no significant milling activity in Mississippi. U. S. Dept, of Agriculture (USDA), Statistical Bulletin No. 417 — Statistics on Cotton and Related Data, 1930-1967, pp. 58, 77 (Supp. 1972).
See Cone Mills Corp. v. Hurdle, 369 F. Supp. 426, 430 (ND Miss.1974); Cox, supra, n. 5, at 10. Government figures showed 32% of the 1972 crop and at least 45% of the 1973 crop being “forward” contracted. USDA, August 1973 Crop Production A-6; USDA, Cotton Situation (CS-265) p. 6 (Apr. 1974). Of course, there is always the possibility that the price will increase rather than decrease; such in fact was the case during 1971. Under these circumstances, the forward contract becomes relatively unprofitable, since the farmer is obligated to deliver his eotton for a lower price than it would bring on the spot market. This situation may generate a strong economic incentive for him to breach his contract and sell the cotton elsewhere.
App. 79,96. Cf. n. 7, supra.
The New York Cotton Exchange is a designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act, 42 Stat. 998, 49 Stat. 1491, 7 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. For a more detailed discussion of the hedging mechanism, see Cox, supra, n. 5, at 303-315; Garside, supra, n. 5, at 206-226, 377-382; Volkart Bros., Inc. v. Freeman, 311 F. 2d 52, 54-56 (CA5 1962); and see the discussion of the wheat futures market quoted in the text, this page and 28-29.
The merchant’s ability to secure financing will also depend on the extent to which banks and other sources of credit perceive these contracts as being reliable. In some situations, up to 90% of the cost of the raw cotton may be financed by borrowing against futures contracts and warehouse receipts as collateral, since a viable hedging system drastically reduces the risk to both merchants and lenders. See Cox, supra, n. 5, at 181.
One of appellant’s Memphis employees, Jerry Hill, came to Mississippi on two or three occasions to deliver contracts to the broker, Covington. The more usual practice, however, appears to have been for the contracts to be mailed. (App. 56-57,66-67,72-76.)
Id., at 60-61,65-66, 106-107. See also n. 4, 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.
Mr. Justice Powell
Court.
delivered the opinion of the
This case presents the question whether a witness summoned to appear and testify before a grand jury may refuse to answer questions on the ground that they are based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure. The issue is of considerable importance to the administration of criminal justice.
I
On December 11, 1970, federal agents obtained a warrant authorizing a search of respondent John Calan-dra’s place of business, the Royal Machine & Tool Co. in Cleveland, Ohio. The warrant was issued in connection with an extensive investigation of suspected illegal gambling operations. It specified that the object of the search was the discovery and seizure of bookmaking records and wagering paraphernalia. A master affidavit submitted in support of the application for the warrant contained information derived from statements by confidential informants to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), from physical surveillance conducted by FBI agents, and from court-authorized electronic surveillance.
The Royal Machine & Tool Co. occupies a two-story building. The first floor consists of about 13,000 square feet, and houses industrial machinery and inventory. The second floor contains a general office area of about 1,500 square feet and a small office occupied by Calandra, president of the company, and his secretary. On December 15, 1970, federal agents executed the warrant directed at Calandra’s place of business and conducted a thorough, four-hour search of the premises. The record reveals that the agents spent more than three hours searching Calandra’s office and files.
Although the agents found no gambling paraphernalia, one discovered, among certain promissory notes, a card indicating that Dr. Walter Loveland had been making periodic payments to Calandra. The agent stated in an affidavit that he was aware that the United States Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Ohio was investigating possible violations of 18 U. S. C. §§ 892, 893, and 894, dealing with extortionate credit transactions, and that Dr. Loveland had been the victim of a “loansharking” enterprise then under investigation. The agent concluded that the card bearing Dr. Loveland’s name was a loansharking record and therefore had it seized along with various other items, including books and records of the company, stock certificates, and. address books.
On March 1, 1971, a special grand jury was convened in the Northern District of Ohio to investigate possible loansharking activities in violation of federal laws. The grand jury subpoenaed Calandra in order to ask him questions based on the evidence seized during the search of his place of business on December 15, 1970. Calandra appeared before the grand jury on August 17, 1971, but refused to testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Government then requested the District Court to grant Calandra transactional immunity pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 2514. Calandra requested and received a postponement of the hearing on the Government’s application for the immunity order so that he could prepare a motion to suppress the. evidence seized in the search.
Calandra later moved pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (e) for suppression and return of the seized evidence on the grounds that the affidavit supporting the' warrant was insufficient and that the search exceeded the scope of the warrant. On August 27, the District Court held a hearing at which Calandra stipulated that he would refuse to answer questions based on the seized materials. On October 1, the District Court entered its judgment ordering the evidence suppressed and returned to Calandra and further ordering that Calandra need not answer any of the grand jury’s questions based on the suppressed evidence. 332 F. Supp. 737 (1971). The court held that “due process . . . allows a witness to litigate the question of whether the evidence which constitutes the basis for the questions asked of him before the grand jury has been obtained in a way which violates the constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure.” Id., at 742. The court found that the search warrant had been issued without probable cause and that the search had exceeded the scope of the warrant.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the District Court had properly entertained the suppression motion and that the exclusionary rule may be invoked by a witness before the grand jury to bar questioning based on evidence obtained in an unlawful search and seizure. 465 F. 2d 1218 (1972). The offer to grant Calandra immunity was deemed irrelevant. Id., at 1221.
We granted the Government’s petition for certiorari, 410 U. S. 925 (1973). We now reverse.
I — I H-f
The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. In England, the grand jury served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 686-687 (1972).
Traditionally the grand jury has been accorded wide latitude to inquire into violations of criminal law. No judge presides to monitor its proceedings. It deliberates in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry. The grand jury may compel the production of evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropriate, and its operation generally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials. “It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime.” Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 282 (1919).
The scope of the grand jury’s powers reflects its special role in insuring fair and effective law enforcement. A grand jury proceeding is not an adversary hearing in which the guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated. Rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person. The grand jury’s investigative power must be broad if its public responsibility is adequately to be discharged. Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, at 700; Costello v. United States, supra, at 364.
In Branzburg, the Court had occasion to reaffirm the importance of the grand jury’s role:
“[T]he investigation of crime by the grand jury implements a fundamental governmental role of securing the safety of the person and property of the citizen . . . .” 408 U. S., at 700.
“The role of the grand jury as an important instrument of effective law enforcement necessarily includes an investigatory function with respect to determining whether a crime has been committed and who committed it. . . . ‘When the grand jury is performing its investigatory function into a general problem area . . . society’s interest is best served by a thorough and extensive investigation.’ Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375, 392 (1962). A grand jury investigation ‘is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed.’ United States v. Stone, 429 F. 2d 138, 140 (CA2 1970). Such an investigation may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. Costello v. United States, 350 U. S., at 362. It is only after the grand jury has examined the evidence that a determination of whether the proceeding will result in an indictment can be made . . . .” Id., at 701-702.
The grand jury’s sources of information are widely drawn, and the validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence considered. Thus, an indictment valid on its face is not subject to challenge on the ground that the grand jury acted on the basis of inadequate or incompetent evidence, Costello v. United States, supra; Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245 (1910); or even on the basis of information obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339 (1958).
The power of a federal court to compel persons to appear and testify before a grand jury is also firmly established. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972). The duty to testify has long been recognized as a basic obligation that every citizen owes his Government. Blackmer v. United States, 284 U. S. 421, 438 (1932); United States v. Bryan, 339 U. S. 323, 331 (1950). In Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, at 682 and 688, the Court noted that “[c]itizens generally are not constitutionally immune from grand jury subpoenas . . .” and that “the longstanding principle that 'the public . . . has a right to every man’s evidence’ ... is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings.” The duty to testify may on occasion be burdensome and even embarrassing. It may cause injury to a witness’ social and economic status. Yet the duty to testify has been regarded as “so necessary to the administration of justice” that the witness’ personal interest in privacy must yield to the public’s overriding interest in full disclosure. Blair v. United States, 250 U. S., at 281. Furthermore, a witness may not interfere with the course of the grand jury’s inquiry. He “is not entitled to urge objections of incompetency or irrelevancy, such as a party might raise, for this is no concern of his.” Id., at 282. Nor is he entitled “to challenge the authority of the court or of the grand jury” or “to set limits to the investigation that the grand jury may conduct.” Ibid.
Of course, the grand jury’s subpoena power is not unlimited. It may consider incompetent evidence, but it may not itself violate a valid privilege, whether established by the Constitution, statutes, or the common law. Branzburg v. Hayes, supra; United States v. Bryan, supra; Blackmer v. United States, supra; 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2290-2391 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961). Although, for example, an indictment based on evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege is nevertheless valid, Lawn v. United States, supra, the grand jury may not force a witness to answer questions in violation of that constitutional guarantee. Rather, the grand jury may override a Fifth Amendment claim only if the witness is granted immunity co-extensive with the privilege against self-incrimination. Kastigar v. United States, supra. Similarly, a grand jury may not compel a person to produce books and papers that would incriminate him. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 633-635 (1886). Cf. Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322 (1973). The grand jury is also without power to invade a legitimate privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment. A grand jury’s subpoena duces tecum will be disallowed if it is “far too sweeping in its terms to' be regarded as reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 76 (1906). Judicial supervision is properly exercised in such cases to prevent the wrong before it occurs.
III
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals held that the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment limits the grand jury's power to compel a witness to answer questions based on evidence obtained from a prior unlawful search and seizure. The exclusionary rule was adopted to effectuate the Fourth Amendment right of all citizens “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . Under this rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). This prohibition applies as well to the fruits of the illegally seized evidence. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920).
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim:
“[T]he ruptured privacy of the victims’ homes and effects cannot be restored. Reparation comes too late.” Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 637 (1965).
Instead, the rule’s prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures: Accord, Mapp v. Ohio, supra, at 656; Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 416 (1966); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 29 (1968). In sum, the rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.
“The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 217 (1960).
Despite its broad deterrent purpose, the exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. As with any remedial device, the application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served. The balancing process implicit in this approach is expressed in the contours of the standing requirement. Thus, standing to invoke the exclusionary rule has been confined to situations where the Government seeks to use such evidence to incriminate the victim of the unlawful search. Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223 (1973); Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 (1969); Wong Sun v. United States, supra; Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960). This standing rule is premised on a recognition that the need for deterrence and hence the rationale for excluding the evidence are strongest where the Government’s unlawful conduct would result in imposition of a criminal sanction on the victim of the search.
IV
In deciding whether to extend the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings, we must weigh the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury against the potential benefits of the rule as applied in this context. It is evident that this extention of the exclusionary rule would seriously impede the grand jury. Because the grand jury does not finally adjudicate guilt or innocence, it has traditionally been allowed to pursue its investigative and accusatorial functions unimpeded by the evidentiary and procedural restrictions applicable to a criminal trial. Permitting witnesses to invoke the exclusionary rule before a grand jury would precipitate adjudication of issues hitherto reserved for the trial on the merits and would delay and disrupt grand jury proceedings. Suppression hearings would halt the orderly progress of an investigation and might necessitate extended litigation of issues only tangentially related to the grand jury’s primary objective. The probable result would be “protracted interruption of grand jury proceedings,” Gelbard v. United States, 408 U. S. 41, 70 (1972) (White, J., concurring), effectively transforming them into preliminary trials on the merits. In some cases the delay might be fatal to the enforcement of the criminal law. Just last Term we reaffirmed our disinclination to allow litigious interference with grand jury proceedings:
“Any holding that would saddle a grand jury with minitrials and preliminary showings would assuredly impede its investigation and frustrate the public’s interest in the fair and expeditious administration of the criminal laws.” United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 17 (1973).
Cf. United States v. Ryan, 402 U. S. 530 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323 (1940). In sum, we believe that allowing a grand jury witness to invoke the exclusionary rule would unduly interfere with the effective and expeditious discharge of the grand jury’s duties.
Against this potential damage to the role and functions of the grand jury, we must weigh the benefits to be derived from this proposed extension of the exclusionary rule. Suppression of the use of illegally seized evidence against the search victim in a criminal trial is thought to be an important method of effectuating the Fourth Amendment. But it does not follow that the Fourth Amendment requires adoption of every proposal that might deter police misconduct. In Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S., at 174-175, for example, this Court declined to extend the exclusionary rule to one who was not the victim of the unlawful search:
“The deterrent values of preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated have been considered sufficient to justify the suppression of probative evidence even though the case against the defendant is weakened or destroyed. We adhere to that judgment. But we are not convinced that the additional benefits of extending the exclusionary rule to other defendants would justify further encroachment upon the public interest in prosecuting those accused of crime and having them acquitted or convicted on the basis of all the evidence which exposes the truth.”
We think this observation equally applicable in the present context.
Any incremental deterrent effect which might be achieved by extending the rule to grand jury proceedings is uncertain at best. Whatever deterrence of police misconduct may result from the exclusion of illegally seized evidence from criminal trials, it is unrealistic to assume that application of the rule to grand jury proceedings would significantly further that goal. Such an extension would deter only police investigation consciously directed toward the discovery of evidence solely for use in a grand jury investigation. The incentive to disregard the requirement of the Fourth Amendment solely to obtain an indictment from a grand jury is substantially negated by the inadmissibility of the illegally seized evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution of the search victim. For the most part, a prosecutor would be unlikely to request an indictment where a conviction could not be obtained. We therefore decline to embrace a view that would achieve a speculative and undoubtedly minimal advance in the deterrence of police misconduct at the expense of substantially impeding the role of the grand jury.
V
Respondent also argues that each and every question based on evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure constitutes a fresh and independent violation of the witness’ constitutional rights. Ordinarily, of course, a witness has no right of privacy before the grand jury. Absent some recognized privilege of confidentiality, every man owes his testimony. He may invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, but he may not decline to answer on the grounds that his responses might prove embarrassing or result in an unwelcome disclosure of his personal affairs. Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273 (1919). Respondent’s claim must be, therefore, not merely that the grand jury’s questions invade his privacy but that, because those questions are based on illegally obtained evidence, they somehow constitute distinct violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree.
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent unreasonable governmental intrusions into the privacy of one’s person, house, papers, or effects. The wrong condemned is the unjustified governmental invasion of these areas of an individual’s life. That wrong, committed in this case, is fully accomplished by the original search without probable cause. Grand jury questions based on evidence obtained thereby involve no independent governmental invasion of one’s person, house, papers, or effects, but rather the usual abridgment of personal privacy common to all grand jury questioning. Questions based on illegally obtained evidence are only a derivative use of the product of a past unlawful search and seizure. They work no new Fourth Amendment wrong. Whether such derivative use of illegally obtained evidence by a grand jury should be proscribed presents a question, not of rights, but of remedies.
In the usual context of a criminal trial, the defendant is entitled to the suppression of, not only the evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, but also any derivative use of that evidence. The prohibition of the exclusionary rule must reach such derivative use if it is to fulfill its function of deterring police misconduct. In the context of a grand jury proceeding, we believe that the damage to that institution from the unprecedented extension of the exclusionary rule urged by respondent outweighs the benefit of any possible incremental deterrent effect. Our conclusion necessarily controls both the evidence seized during the course of an unlawful search and seizure and any question or evidence derived therefrom (the fruits of the unlawful search). The same considerations of logic and policy apply to both the fruits of an unlawful search and seizure and derivative use of that evidence, and we do not distinguish between them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
On the basis of the same affidavit, federal agents also obtained warrants authorizing searches of Calandra’s residence and automobile. The present case involves only the search of the Royal Machine & Tool Co.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s finding that the search of Calandra’s business and seizure of his property were unlawful. 465 F. 2d 1218, 1226 n. 5. Although the Government does not agree with the court’s finding, it has not sought review of this issue. In addition, the Government has not challenged the District Court’s order directing return of the illegally seized property to Calandra.
For a discussion of the history and role of the grand jury, see Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 361-362 (1956); Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 279-283 (1919); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 59 (1906); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *301 et seq.; G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 1-44 (1906); 1 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, History of English Law 151 (2d ed. 1909); 1 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 321-323 (7th rev. ed. 1956).
The grand jury is subject to the court’s supervision in several respects. See Brown v. United States, 359 U. S. 41, 49 (1959); Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 6 and 17; 1 L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules § 6:108, pp. 475-477 (1966). In particular, the grand jury must rely on the court to compel production of books, papers, documents, and the testimony of witnesses, and the court may quash or modify a subpoena on motion if compliance would be “unreasonable or oppressive.” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 17 (c).
There is some disagreement as to the practical efficacy of the exclusionary rule, and as the Court noted in Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 218 (1960), relevant “[ejmpirical statistics are not available.” Cf. Oaks, Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure, 37 U. Chi. L. Rev. 665 (1970). We have no occasion in the present case to consider the extent of the rule’s efficacy in criminal trials.
In holding that the respondent had standing to invoke the exclusionary rule in a grand jury proceeding, the Court of Appeals relied on Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (e). 465 F. 2d, at 1222-1224. Rule 41 (e) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the district court ... for the return of the property and to suppress for the use as evidence anything so obtained . . . .” It further states that “[t]he motion shall be made before trial or hearing . . . .” We have recognized that Rule 41 (e) is “no broader than the constitutional rule.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 173 n. 6 (1969); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960). Rule 41 (e), therefore, does not constitute a statutory expansion of the exclusionary rule.
The Court of Appeals also found that the Government’s offer of immunity under 18 U. S. C. § 2514 was irrelevant to respondent’s standing to invoke the exclusionary rule. 465 F. 2d, at 1221. We agree with that determination for the' reasons stated in Parts III, IV, and V of this opinion.
The force of this argument is well illustrated by the facts of the present case. As of the date of this decision, almost two and one-half years will have elapsed since respondent was summoned to appear and testify before the grand jury. If respondent’s testimony was vital to the grand jury’s investigation in August 1971 of extortionate credit transactions, it is possible that this particular investigation has been completely frustrated.
Respondent relies primarily on Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920), which the dissent contends “plainly controls this case.” Post, at 362. In that ease, federal officers unlawfully seized certain documents belonging to the Silverthornes and their lumber company and presented them to a grand jury that had already indicted the Silverthornes and the company. A district court ordered the return of the documents but impounded photographs and copies of the originals. Later, the prosecutor caused the grand jury to issue subpoenas duces tecum to the Silverthornes and the company to produce the originals, and their refusal to comply led to a contempt citation. In reversing the judgment, the Court held that the subpoenas were invalid because they were based on knowledge obtained from the illegally seized evidence, citing Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914). Mr. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, stated that the “essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all.” 251 U. S., at 392.
Silverthorne is distinguishable from the present case in several significant respects. There, plaintiffs in error had previously been indicted by the grand jury and.thus could invoke the exclusionary rule on the basis of their status as criminal defendants. Moreover, the Government’s interest in recapturing the original documents was founded on a belief that they might be useful in the criminal prosecution already authorized by the grand jury. It did not appear that the grand jury needed the documents to perform its investigative or accusatorial functions. Thus, the primary consequence of the Court’s decision was to exclude the evidence from the subsequent criminal trial. Finally, prior to the issuance of the grand jury subpoenas, there had been a judicial determination that the search and seizure were illegal. The claim of plaintiffs in error was not raised for the first time in a pre-indictment motion to suppress requiring interruption of grand jury proceedings.
By contrast, in the instant case respondent had not been indicted by the grand jury and was not a criminal defendant. Under traditional principles, he had no standing to invoke the exclusionary rule. The effect of the District Court’s order was to deprive the grand jury of testimony it needed to conduct its investigation. Furthermore, respondent’s motion to suppress had not been previously made and required interruption of the grand jury proceedings. In these circumstances, Silverthorne is certainly not controlling. To the extent that the Court’s broad dictum might be construed to suggest a different result in the present case, we note that it has been substantially undermined by later eases. See Parts III and IV of this opinion.
At oral argument, counsel for respondent stated the contention as follows:
“I submit to the Court that each question asked of the Respondent before the Grand Jury, which question was only asked because of a past violation of the Fourth Amendment, [amounts to] a new, immediate violation of the Fourth Amendment .... [A] question derived from a past violation, a question into the privacy of the witness amounts to another intrusion in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 17.
“[Rjefusing to answer a question in which the question conceivably is derived from a past violation of the Fourth Amendment, gives rise to an additional or new Fourth Amendment right to resist answering that question because the question itself becomes an additional intrusion . . . .” Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-20.
It should be noted that, even absent the exclusionary rule, a grand jury witness may have other remedies to redress the injury to his privacy and to prevent a further invasion in the future. He may be entitled to maintain a cause of action for damages against the officers who conducted the unlawful search. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). He may also seek return of the illegally seized property, and exclusion of the property and its fruits from being used as evidence against him in a criminal trial. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344 (1931). In these circumstances, we cannot say that such a witness is necessarily left remediless in the face of an unlawful search and seizure.
The dissent's reliance on Gelbard v. United States, 408 U. S. 41 (1972), is misplaced. There, the Court construed 18 U. S. C. § 2515, the evidentiary prohibition of Tit. Ill of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 211, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510-2520. It held that § 2515 could be invoked by a grand jury witness as a defense to a contempt charge brought for refusal to answer questions based on information obtained from the witness’ communications alleged to have been unlawfully intercepted through wiretapping and electronic surveillance. The Court’s holding rested exclusively on an interpretation of Tit. Ill, which represented a congressional effort to afford special safeguards against the unique problems posed by misuse of wiretapping and electronic surveillance. There was no indication, in either Gelbard or the legislative history, that Tit. Ill was regarded as a restatement of existing law with respect to grand jury proceedings. As Mr. Justice White noted in his concurring opinion in Gelbard, Tit. Ill “unquestionably works a change in the law with respect to the rights of grand jury witnesses . . . .” 408 U. S., at 70.
The dissent also voices concern that today’s decision will betray “ ‘the imperative of judicial integrity,’ ” sanction “illegal government conduct,” and even “imperil the very foundation of our people’s trust in their Government.” Post, at 360. There is no basis for this alarm. “Illegal conduct” is hardly sanctioned, nor are the foundations of the Republic imperiled, by declining to make an unprecedented extension of the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings where the rule’s objectives would not be effectively served and where other important and historic values would be unduly prejudiced. Cf. Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 (1969); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965); and cases cited supra, at 347-348.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 sole issue raised by this case is how compliance with the one-man, one-vote principle should be achieved in a parish (county) that is admittedly malapportioned.
Plaintiff Zimmer, a white resident of East Carroll Parish, La., brought suit in 1968 alleging that population disparities among the wards of the parish had unconstitutionally denied him the right to cast an effective vote in elections for members of the police jury and the school board. See Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474 (1968). After a hearing the District Court agreed that the wards were unevenly apportioned and adopted a reapportionment plan suggested by the East Carroll police jury calling for the at-large election of members of both the police jury and the school board. The 1969 and 1970 elections were held under this plan.
The proceedings were renewed in 1971 after the District Court, apparently sua sponte, instructed the East Carroll police jury and school board to file reapportionment plans revised in accordance with the 1970 census. In response, the jury and board resubmitted the at-large plan. Respondent Marshall was permitted to intervene on behalf of himself and all other black voters in East Carroll. Following a hearing the District Court again approved the multimember arrangement. The inter-venor appealed, contending that at-large elections would tend to dilute the black vote in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Over a dissent, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, but on rehearing en banc, the court reversed. It found clearly erroneous the District Court’s ruling that at-large elections would not diminish the black voting strength of East Carroll Parish. Relying upon White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755 (1973), it seemingly held that multimember districts were unconstitutional, unless their use would afford a minority greater opportunity for political participation, or unless the use of single-member districts would infringe protected rights.
We granted certiorari, 422 U. S. 1055 (1975), and now affirm the judgment below, but without approval of the constitutional views expressed by the Court of Appeals. See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
The District Court, in adopting the multimember, at-large reapportionment plan, was silent as to the relative merits of a single-member arrangement. And the Court of Appeals, inexplicably in our view, declined to consider whether the District Court erred under Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690 (1971), in endorsing a multimember plan, resting, its decision instead upon constitutional grounds. We have frequently reaffirmed the rule that when United States district courts are put to the task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant con-cededly invalid state legislation, single-member districts are to be preferred absent unusual circumstances. Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 17-19 (1976); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315, 333 (1973); Connor v. Williams, 404 U. S. 549, 551 (1972); Connor v. Johnson, supra, at 692. As the en banc opinion of the Court of Appeals amply demonstrates, no special circumstances here dictate the use of multimember districts. Thus, we hold that in shaping remedial relief the District Court abused its discretion in not initially ordering a single-member reapportionment plan.
On this basis, the judgment is
Affirmed.
In Louisiana, the police jury is the governing body of the parish. Its authority includes construction and repair of roads, levying taxes to defray parish expenses, providing for the public health, and performing other duties related to public health and welfare. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §33:1236 (1950 and Supp. 1975).
Prior to 1968, Louisiana law prohibited at-large elections of members of police juries and school boards. In July 1968, the Governor of Louisiana approved enabling legislation permitting the at-large election of parish police juries and school boards. La. Laws 1968, Act No. 445, codified at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§33:1221, 33:1224 (Supp. 1975); La. Laws 1968, Act No. 561, codified at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§17:71.1-17:71.6 (Supp. 1975).
Both Acts were submitted to the United States Attorney General pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, and both were rejected because of their discriminatory effect on Negro voters. See letters, June 26, 1969, and Sept. 10, 1969, from Jerris Leonard, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, to Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana. Indeed, East Carroll Parish was cited as exemplifying the dilution in black ballot strength that at-large voting may cause. Letter of Sept. 10, 1969.
The original plaintiff, Zimmer, was allowed to withdraw from the case.
Zimmer v. McKeithen, 467 F. 2d 1381 (CA5 1972).
During pendency of the appeal in the court below, the District Court purported to withdraw its order approving the at-large plan and to substitute in its stead a complex redistricting plan submitted by intervenor Marshall. The Court of Appeals vacated the order on the ground that when the appeal was filed, the District Court lost jurisdiction over the case. Id., at 1382.
Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F. 2d 1297 (CA5 1973).
The Government has filed an amicus brief, in which it argues that the preclearance procedures of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, must be complied with prior to adoption by a federal district court of a reapportionment plan submitted to it on behalf of a local legislative body that is covered by the Act. This issue was not raised by the petitioners nor did respondent file a cross-petition. In any event, we agree with the Court of Appeals, Zimmer v. McKeithen, 467 F. 2d, at 1383; Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F. 2d, at 1302 n. 9, that court-ordered plans resulting from equitable jurisdiction over adversary proceedings are not controlled by § 5. Had the East Carroll police jury reapportioned itself on its own authority, clearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act would clearly have been required. Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975). However, in submitting the plan to the District Court, the jury did not purport to reapportion itself in accordance with the 1968 enabling legislation, see n. 2, supra, and statutes cited therein, which permitted police juries and school boards to adopt at-large elections. App. 56. Moreover, since the Louisiana enabling legislation was opposed by the Attorney General of the United States under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the jury did not have the authority to reapportion itself. See n. 2, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-14, 31-32, 43-44. Since the reapportionment scheme was submitted and adopted pursuant to court order, the preclearance procedures of § 5 do not apply. Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690, 691 (1971).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Respondent Kevin Taylor was convicted of murder by an Illinois jury and sentenced to 85 years’ imprisonment. After his conviction and sentence became final, he sought federal habeas relief on the ground that the jury instructions given at his trial violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted relief on the basis of its recent decision in Falconer v. Lane, 905 F. 2d 1129 (1990), which held that the Illinois pattern jury instructions on murder and voluntary manslaughter were unconstitutional because they allowed a jury to return a murder verdict without considering whether the defendant possessed a mental state that would support a voluntary-manslaughter verdict instead. We conclude that the rule announced in Falconer was not dictated by prior precedent and is therefore “new” within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). Accordingly, the Falconer rule may not provide the basis for federal habeas relief in respondent’s case.
Early one morning in September 1985, respondent became involved in a dispute with his former wife and her live-in boyfriend, Scott Siniscalehi, over custodial arrangements for his daughter. A fracas ensued between the three adults, during which respondent stabbed Siniscalehi seven times with a hunting knife. Siniscalehi died from these wounds, and respondent was arrested at his home later that morning.
Respondent was charged with murder. 111. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 9-1 (1985). At trial, he took the stand and admitted killing Siniscalehi, but claimed he was acting under a sudden and intense passion provoked by Siniscalehi, and was therefore only guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. ¶ 9-2. At the close of all the evidence, the trial judge found that there was sufficient evidence supporting respondent’s “heat of passion” defense to require an instruction on voluntary manslaughter, and instructed the jury as follows:
“To sustain the charge of murder, the State must prove the following propositions:
“First: That the Defendant performed the acts which caused the death of Scott Siniscalehi; and
“Second: That when the Defendant did so he intended to kill or do great bodily harm to Scott Siniscalehi; or he knew that his act would cause death or great bodily harm to Scott Siniscalehi; or he knew that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Scott Siniscalehi; or he was committing the offense of home invasion.
“If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant guilty.
“If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant not guilty.
“To sustain the charge of voluntary manslaughter, the evidence must prove the following propositions:
“First: That the Defendant performed the acts which caused the death of Scott Siniscalchi; and
“Second: That when the Defendant did so he intended to kill or do great bodily harm to Scott Siniscalchi; or he knew that such acts would [sic] death or great bodily harm to Scott Siniscalchi; or he knew that such acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Scott Siniscalchi;
“Third: That when the Defendant did so he acted under a sudden and intense passion, resulting from serious provocation by another.
“If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant guilty.
“If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the Defendant not guilty.
“As stated previously, the Defendant is charged with committing the offense of murder and voluntary manslaughter. If you find the Defendant guilty, you must find him guilty of either offense; but not both. On the other hand, if you find the Defendant not guilty, you can find him not guilty on either or both offenses.” App. 128-131.
These instructions were modeled after, and virtually identical to, the Illinois pattern jury instructions on murder and voluntary manslaughter, which were formally adopted in 1981, Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions — Criminal §§7.02 and 7.04 (2d ed. 1981), but on which Illinois judges had relied since 1961, when the State enacted the definitions of murder and voluntary manslaughter that governed until 1987. See Haddad, Allocation of Burdens in Murder-Voluntary Manslaughter Cases: An Affirmative Defense Approach, 59 Chi.Kent L. Rev. 23 (1982). Respondent did not object to the instructions. The jury returned a guilty verdict on the murder charge, and respondent was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment.
Respondent unsuccessfully challenged his conviction on appeal, then filed a petition for state postconviction relief. The Circuit Court dismissed the petition. But while respondent’s appeal was pending, the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the Illinois pattern jury instructions on murder and voluntary manslaughter. People v. Reddick, 123 Ill. 2d 184, 526 N. E. 2d 141 (1988). According to the Supreme Court, under Illinois law, the instructions should have placed on the prosecution the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a mitigating mental state. Id., at 197, 526 N. E. 2d, at 146. Respondent sought to take advantage of Reddick on appeal, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of postconviction relief on the ground that Reddick did not involve constitutional error, the only type of error that would support the grant of relief. People v. Taylor, 181 Ill. App. 3d 538, 536 N. E. 2d 1312 (1989). The Illinois Supreme Court denied respondent’s request for leave to appeal.
Having exhausted his state remedies, respondent sought federal habeas relief, attacking his conviction on the ground that the jury instructions given at his trial violated due process. Eleven days later, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held as much in Falconer v. Lane, 905 F. 2d 1129 (1990). The defect identified by the Falconer court was quite different from that identified in Reddick: Because the murder instructions preceded the voluntary-manslaughter instructions, but did not expressly direct the jury that it could not return a murder conviction if it found that the defendant possessed a mitigating mental state, it was possible for a jury to find that a defendant was guilty of murder without even considering whether he was entitled to a voluntary-manslaughter conviction instead. 905 F. 2d, at 1136. “Explicit misdirection on this scale,” the Seventh Circuit held, “violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.” Id., at 1137. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals placed principal reliance on Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973).
At respondent’s federal habeas proceeding, the State conceded that the jury instructions given at respondent’s trial were unconstitutional under Falconer, but argued that the rule announced in Falconer.was “new” within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), and therefore could not form the basis for federal habeas relief. The District Court agreed, but the Court of Appeals reversed. 954 F. 2d 441 (1992). Although the Seventh Circuit now thought Cupp was “too general to have compelled Falconer within the meaning of Teague,” 954 F. 2d, at 452, it concluded that Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370 (1990), and Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S. 73 (1983) (plurality opinion), were “specific enough to have compelled” the result reached in Falconer, 954 F. 2d, at 453. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the rule announced in Falconer was not “new” within the meaning of Teague, and that Teague therefore did not bar the retroactive application of Falconer in respondent’s case. Id., at 453. We granted certiorari, 506 U. S. 814 (1992), and now reverse.
The retroactivity of Falconer under Teague and its progeny is the only question before us in this case. Subject to two narrow exceptions, a case that is decided after a defendant’s conviction and sentence become final may not provide the basis for federal habeas relief if it announces a “new rule.” Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461, 466-467 (1993); Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 227 (1992); Teague, supra, at 305-311 (plurality opinion). Though we have offered various formulations of what constitutes a new rule, put “meaningfully for the majority of cases, a decision announces a new rule ‘“if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” ’ ” Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 412 (1990) (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 314 (1989), in turn quoting Teague, supra, at 301 (emphasis in original)); see also Graham, supra, at 467; Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 234 (1990); Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484, 488 (1990); Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 329 (1989). “The ‘new rule’ principle ... validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts,” 494 U. S., at 414, and thus effectuates the States’ interest in the finality of criminal convictions and fosters comity between federal and state courts.
We begin our analysis with the actual flaw found by the Falconer court in the challenged jury instructions. It was not that they somehow lessened the State’s burden of proof below that constitutionally required by eases such as In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970); nor was it that the instructions affirmatively misstated applicable state law. (The Court of Appeals in no way relied upon People v. Reddick, supra, which the Illinois Supreme Court had subsequently held was subject to prospective application only. People v. Flowers, 138 Ill. 2d 218, 561 N. E. 2d 674 (1990).) Rather, the flaw identified by the Falconer court was that when the jury instructions were read consecutively, with the elements of murder set forth before the elements of voluntary manslaughter, a juror could conclude that the defendant was guilty of murder after applying the elements of that offense without continuing on to decide whether the elements of voluntary manslaughter were also made out, so as to justify returning a verdict on that lesser offense instead.
In concluding that this defect violated due process, the Falconer court relied on Cupp v. Naughten, supra. That ease involved a due process challenge to a jury instruction that witnesses are presumed to tell the truth, which the defendant claimed had the effect of shifting the burden of proof on his innocence. Because the jury had been explicitly instructed on the defendant’s presumption of innocence as well as the State’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we held that the instruction did not amount to a constitutional violation. See 414 U. S., at 149.
We think Cupp is an unlikely progenitor of the rule announced in Falconer, a view now shared by the Seventh Circuit. The cases following Cupp in the Winship line establish that States must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element of the offense charged, but that they may place on defendants the burden of proving affirmative defenses. See Martin v. Ohio, 480 U. S. 228 (1987); Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197 (1977). The State argues that these later cases support the proposition that any error committed in instructing a jury with respect to an affirmative defense, which does not lessen the State’s Winship burden in proving every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, is one wholly of state law. Cf. Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 119-121, and n. 21 (1982) (challenge to correctness of self-defense instructions under state law provides no basis for federal habeas relief). We need not address this contention other than to say that cases like Patterson and Martin make it crystal clear that Cupp does not compel the result reached in Falconer.
In its decision in the present case, the Court of Appeals offered two additional cases which it believed did dictate the result in Falconer. The first is Boyde v. California, supra. There, we clarified the standard for reviewing on federal habeas a claim that ambiguous jury instructions impermissibly restricted the jury’s consideration of “constitutionally relevant evidence.” 494 U. S., at 380. Although Boyde was decided after respondent’s conviction and sentence became final, it did not work a change in the law favoring criminal defendants, and therefore may be considered in our Teague analysis. See Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U. S. 364, 373 (1993). Nevertheless, Boyde was a capital case, with respect to which we have held that the Eighth Amendment requires a greater degree of accuracy and factfinding than would be true in a noncapital case. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 399 (1993); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980). Outside of the capital context, we have never said that the possibility of a jury misapplying state law gives rise to federal constitutional error. To the contrary, we have held that instructions that contain errors of state law may not form the basis for federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62 (1991).
Moreover, under the standard fashioned in Boyde, the relevant inquiry is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.” 494 U. S., at 380. In Boyde, the petitioner argued that the trial court’s instruction on California’s “catchall” factor for determining whether a defendant should be sentenced to death restricted the jury’s consideration of certain mitigating evidence. Since “[t]he Eighth Amendment requires that the jury be able to consider and give effect to all relevant mitigating evidence,” id., at 377-378, this evidence was plainly constitutionally relevant. In this case, by contrast, petitioner argues that the challenged instructions prevented the jury from considering evidence of his affirmative defense. But in a noncapital ease such as this there is no counterpart to the Eighth Amendment’s doctrine of “constitutionally relevant evidence” in capital cases.
The Court of Appeals also relied on the plurality opinion in Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S. 73 (1983). That case dealt with the question whether an instruction that violates due process under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979), may be subject to harmless-error analysis. But in the course of deciding this question, the plurality discussed the nature of Sandstrom error, and it is this discussion on which the Court of Appeals relied below. Sandstrom is a lineal descendant of Winship; it simply held that an instruction which creates a presumption of fact violates due process if it relieves the State of its burden of proving all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals read the Johnson plurality’s discussion of Sandstrom as establishing the “due process principle” that instructions are unconstitutional if they lead “the jury to ignore exculpatory evidence in finding the defendant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.” 954 F. 2d, at 453 (emphasis added). But neither Sandstrom nor Johnson can be stretched that far beyond Winship. The most that can be said of the instructions given at respondent’s trial is that they created a risk that the jury would fail to consider evidence that related to an affirmative defense, with respect to which Winship’s due process guarantee does not apply. See Martin v. Ohio, supra; Patterson v. New York, supra.
Respondent offers a separate (but related) rationale he claims is supported by our cases and also compels the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Falconer: viz., the jury instructions given at his trial interfered with his fundamental right to present a defense. We have previously stated that “the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 683, 690 (1986) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U. S. 479, 485 (1984)). But the cases in which we have invoked this principle dealt with the exclusion of evidence, see, e. g., Crane v. Kentucky, supra; Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284 (1973), or the testimony of defense witnesses, see, e. g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U. S. 95 (1972) (per curiam); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967). None of them involved restrictions imposed on a defendant’s ability to present an affirmative defense. Drawing on these cases, respondent argues that the right to present a defense includes the right to have the jury consider it, and that confusing instructions on state law which prevent a jury from considering an affirmative defense therefore violate due process. But such an expansive reading of our eases would make a nullity of the rule reaffirmed in Estelle v. McGuire, supra, that instructional errors of state law generally may not form the basis for federal habeas relief. And the level of generality at which respondent invokes this line of cases is far too great to provide any meaningful guidance for purposes of our Teague inquiry. See Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S., at 491.
For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with the Seventh Circuit and respondent that our precedent foreordained the result in Falconer, and therefore hold that the rule announced in Falconer is “new” within the meaning of Teague. All that remains to be decided is whether this rule falls into one of Teague’s exceptions, under which a new rule may be given retroactive effect on collateral review. The first exception applies to those rules that “plac[e] certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe.” Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S., at 307 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). This exception is clearly inapplicable here, since the rule announced in Falconer does not “decriminalize” any class of conduct. See Saffle v. Parks, supra, at 495. Teague’s second exception permits the retroactive application of “ ‘watershed rules of criminal procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” 494 U. S., at 495 (quoting Teague, supra, at 311). This exception is also inapplicable. Although the Falconer court expressed concern that the jury might have been confused by the instructions in question, we cannot say that its holding falls into that “small core of rules requiring ‘observance of those procedures that... are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’” Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S., at 478 (quoting Teague, supra, at 311 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because the rule announced in Falconer is “new” within the meaning of Teague and does not fall into one of Teague’s exceptions, it cannot provide the basis for federal habeas relief in respondent’s case. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
JusTiCE Souter joins all but footnote 3 of this opinion.
Effective July 1, 1987, the offense of voluntary manslaughter was reclassified as second-degree murder and the burden of proof as to the existence of a mitigating mental state was expressly placed on the defendant. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 9-2 (1987). The Illinois pattern jury instructions were rewritten accordingly. 1 Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions — Criminal §7.02B (3d ed. 1992, Supp. 1993).
Respondent also relies on Cool v. United States, 409 U. S. 100 (1972) (per curiam). That case involved a due process challenge to an instruction that the jury should disregard defense testimony unless it believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony was true. Relying on In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), and Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14 (1967), we held that this instruction required reversal of the defendant’s conviction because it “place[d] an improper burden on the defense and allow[ed] the jury to convict despite its failure to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 409 U. S., at 102-103. This, in turn, we emphasized, contravened Winship’s command that the State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 409 U. S., at 104. Cool is a progeny of Winship, and therefore provides no predicate under Teague for the rule announced in Falconer.
Strongly fortifying this conclusion is the fact that the instructions deemed unconstitutional in Falconer were modeled after, and virtually identical to, the Illinois pattern jury instructions on murder and voluntary manslaughter, which were formally adopted in 1981 — five years before respondent’s trial — but on which Illinois judges had relied since 1961. As we have stated, the purpose of Teague’s “new rule” principle is to. “validate reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts.” Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 414 (1990). The existence of such an institutionalized state practice over a period of years is strong evidence of the reasonableness of the interpretations given existing precedent by state courts.
Justice Blackmon in dissent would elevate the instructional defect contained in the Illinois pattern jury instructions on murder and voluntary manslaughter not merely to the level of a federal constitutional violation, but to one that is so fundamental as to come within Teagues, second exception. He reaches this result by combining several different constitutional principles — the prohibition against ex post facto laws, the right to a fair trial, and the right to remain silent — into an unrecognizable constitutional stew.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 June 25, 1973, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) served a subpoena on the petitioner, Karl J. Bray, directing him to produce business records for examination and to appear for questioning in connection with an inquiry into possible violations of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 799, as amended, 85 Stat. 743, note following 12 U. S. C. § 1904 (1970 ed., Supp. III). When he failed to comply, the IRS filed a petition for enforcement of the subpoena in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Following a hearing, the District Court ordered him to comply with the subpoena. Upon his refusal to testify or produce the records, the court directed him to show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt. He was subsequently convicted of criminal contempt under 18 U. S. C. § 401 and sentenced to imprisonment for 60 days. He appealed the judgment of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but that court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that the appeal came within the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals (TECA) by § 211 (b)(2) of the Economic Stabilization Act. This petition for certiorari asks us to review the propriety of the dismissal of Bray’s appeal.
As part of the Economic Stabilization Act Amendments of 1971, Congress created the TECA and vested it with “exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals from the district courts of the United States in cases and controversies arising under this title or under regulations or orders issued thereunder.” §211 (b)(2), 86 Stat. 749. This judicial-review provision was designed to provide speedy resolution of cases brought under the Act and “to funnel into one court all the appeals arising out of the District Courts and thus gain in consistency of decision.” S. Rep. No. 92-507, p. 10 (1971). The provision thus carved out a limited exception to the broad jurisdiction of the courts of appeals over “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 1291.
The Tenth Circuit held that, “notwithstanding Bray’s prosecution under 18 U. S. C. [§] 401,” the contempt charge did not “change the substantive nature of the original enforcement proceedings” and therefore remained “a 'case or controversy’ arising under the [Economic Stabilization] Act.” This was, we think, a misreading of both the language and the purpose of the stabilization statute. The Act does not contain any provision prohibiting the violation of a district court’s enforcement order or establishing penalties for such a violation. Thus, rather than “arising under” any provision of the Act, the contempt prosecution was commenced under 18 U. S. C. § 401, the provision of the Criminal Code that empowers federal courts to punish certain contempts of their authority. Nothing in the Act or in its legislative history indicates that Congress intended “to include existing offenses, already covered under Title 18, under the umbrella of the Stabilization Act.” United States v. Cooper, 482 F. 2d 1393, 1398 (TECA 1973). Review in the TECA of criminal contempt convictions relating to compliance investigations or enforcement efforts is not necessary to assure uniform interpretation of the substantive provisions of the stabilization scheme. Indeed, a requirement of such review would only serve to undermine the prompt resolution of Stabilization Act questions by burdening the TECA with additional appeals.
The charge brought against the petitioner based on his refusal to obey a lawful order of the District Court initiated “a separate and independent proceeding at law for criminal contempt, to vindicate the authority of the court” and was “not a part of the original cause.” Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 445, 451. Although the contempt charge related to an order entered in connection with an investigation of Stabilization Act violations, it was not dependent on the existence of such violations or even the continuation of the investigation. As the Court noted in United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 294: “Violations of an order are punishable as criminal contempt even though the order is set aside on appeal, Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14 (1887), or though the basic action has become moot, Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418 (1911).” Here the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner for criminal contempt constituted a final decision of the District Court that was then appealable to the appropriate court of appeals. We therefore grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The District Court stayed execution of the judgment pending appeal.
In Cooper, the TECA held that a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. § 1001 for willfully and knowingly making false representations to an IRS agent in connection with a Stabilization Act investigation was not “a controversy 'arising under’ any title of the Stabilization Act or under regulations or orders issued thereunder.” 482 F. 2d, at 1307.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1972 Congress extended the protection of Title VII of the Civil Nights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), to employees of the Federal Government. A principal goal of the amending legislation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103, was to eradicate “ 'entrenched discrimination in the Federal service/ ” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 547, by strengthening internal safeguards and by according “[a]ggrieved [federal] employees or applicants... the full rights available in the courts as are granted to individuals in the private sector under title VII.” The issue presented by this case is whether the 1972 Act gives federal employees the same right to a trial de novo of employment discrimination claims as “private sector” employees enjoy under Title VII.
I
The petitioner, Mrs. Jewell Chandler, is a Negro. In 1972 she was employed as a claims examiner by the Veterans’ Administration. In August of that year she applied for a promotion to the position of supervisory claims examiner. Following a selection procedure she was designated as one of three finalists for the position. The promotion was awarded to a Filipino-American male. The petitioner subsequently filed a complaint with the Veterans’ Administration alleging that she had been denied the promotion because of unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and race. After an administrative hearing on the claim, the presiding complaints examiner submitted proposed findings to the effect that the petitioner had been discriminated against on the basis of sex but not race and recommended that she be given a retroactive promotion to the position for which she had applied. The agency rejected the proposed finding of sex discrimination as not “substantiated by the evidence,” and accordingly granted no relief. The petitioner filed a timely appeal to the Civil Service Commission Board of Appeals and Review, which affirmed the agency’s decision.
Within 30 days after receiving notice of the Commission’s decision, the petitioner brought the present suit in a Federal District Court under § 717 (c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as added by § 11 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 111, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-16 (c) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). After moving unsuccessfully for summary judgment, she initiated discovery proceedings by filing notice of two depositions and a request for the production of documents. The respondents moved for an order prohibiting discovery on the ground that the judicial action authorized by § 717 (c) is limited to a review of the administrative record. The petitioner opposed the motion, asserting that she had a right under §717 (c) to a plenary judicial trial de novo. The District Court adopted the holding of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F. Supp. 1247, rev’d sub nom. Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U. S. App. D. C. 376, 520 F. 2d 108, that a “trial de novo is not required [under §717 (c)] in all cases” and that review of the administrative record is sufficient if “an absence of discrimination is affirmatively established by the clear weight of the evidence in the record... 360 F. Supp., at 1252. Applying this standard of review* the District Court determined that “the absence of discrimination is firmly established by the clear weight of the administrative record” and granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, agreeing with the District Court’s ruling that § 717 (c) contemplates not a trial de novo but the “intermediate scope of inquiry expounded in Hackley v. Johnson Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F. 2d 251, 255 (CA9). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits concerning the nature of the judicial proceeding provided by § 717 (c). 423 U. S. 821.
II
We begin with the language of the statute. Section 717 (c), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16 (c) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), states that within 30 days after notice of final adverse administrative action on a federal employee’s diserimin ition complaint by either the employing agency or the Civil Service Commission (in the event a permissive appeal is taken), or after 180 days of delay by the agen3y or the Commission, the employee “may file a civil action as provided in section 706, in which civil action the head of the department agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant.” Section 717 (d), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16 (d) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), goes on to specify that “[t]he provisions of section 706 (f) through (k), as applicable, shall govern civil actions brought hereunder.”
Section 706 (f) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to bring “civil actions” on behalf of private sector employees in federal district court. Alternatively, §706 (f)(1) authorizes an individual employee to sue on his own behalf if a specified period of delay has elapsed or if the EEOC has declined to represent him on the basis of its initial determination that “there is not reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true....” § 706 (b), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Sections 706 (f) through (k), 42 U. S. C. §§2000e-5(f) through (k) (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), provide specific rules and guidelines for private-sector “civil actions.”
It is well established that § 706 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 accords private-sector employees the right to de novo consideration of their Title VII claims. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 798-799; Norman v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 414 F. 2d 73, 75 n. 2 (CA8). The “employee’s statutory right to a trial de novo under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]...,” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra, at 38, embodies a congressional decision to “vest federal courts with plenary powers to enforce the [substantive] requirements [of Title VII]... Id., at 47.
The 1972 amendments to the 1964 Act added language to § 706 which reflects the de novo character of the private sector “civil action” even more clearly than did the 1964 version. Section 706 (f)(4), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f)(4) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), for instance, requires the chief judge of the district in which a “civil action” is pending to “immediately... designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case.” The judge so designated must “assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date....” §706 (f)(5). If the case has not been “scheduled... for trial within one hundred and twenty days after issue has been joined,” then the designated judge may appoint a special master to hear it. Ibid. And, as under the 1964 version, if the district court “finds” that the respondent has intentionally committed an unlawful employment practice, then the court may order appropriate relief. § 706 (g), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (g) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). The terminology employed by Congress — “assign the case for hearing,” “scheduled... for trial,” “finds” — indicates clearly that the “civil action” to which private-sector employees are entitled under the amended version of Title VII is to be a trial de novo.
Since federal-sector employees are entitled by § 717 (c) to “file a civil action as provided in section 706 [42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (1970 ed., Supp. IV)]” and since the civil action provided in § 706 is a trial de novo, it would seem to follow syllogistically that federal employees are entitled to a trial de novo of their employment discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals, however, held that a contrary result was indicated by the words “as applicable” in § 717 (d) and by the legislative history of § 717, and in support of that position the respondents further argue that routine de novo trials of federal employees’ claims would clash with the 1972 Act’s delegation of enforcement responsibilities to the Civil Service Commission and would contravene this Court’s view that “de novo review is generally not to be presumed.” Consolo v. FMC, 383 U. S. 607, 619 n. 17.
A. The Meaning of the Phrase “As Applicable”
The opinion of the District Court for the District of Columbia in Hackley v. Johnson, relied on by the Court of Appeals here, expressed the view that the phrase “as applicable” in § 717 (d) evidences a congressional intent to restrict or qualify the right to a de novo proceeding granted by § 717 (c). 360 F. Supp., at 1252 n. 9. A careful reading of § 717 (d) and the provisions to which it refers indicates, however, that the phrase was intended merely to reflect the fact that certain provisions in §§ 706 (f) through (k) pertain to aspects of the Title VII enforcement scheme that have no possible relevance to judicial proceedings involving federal employees.
Section 717 (d) states that “[t]he provisions of section 706 (f) through (k), as applicable, shall govern civil actions brought hereunder." Sections 706 (f) through (k) set forth specific procedures and guidelines to be followed in private-sector “civil actions." Several of these procedures could not possibly apply to civil actions involving federal employees. Section 706 (f)(1), for instance, provides that in the private sector the EEOC “may bring a civil action against any respondent not a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision” and that the Attorney General of the United States may bring a civil action for employment discrimination against a state government, agency, or political subdivision. The individual complainant retains the right to intervene in suits brought by the EEOC or the Attorney General. In the case of a “civil action” maintained by an individual complainant against a private or state governmental employer, the EEOC or the Attorney General, respectively, may be permitted to intervene “upon certification that the case is of general public importance.” These provisions, allowing suits and permissive intervention by the EEOG or the Attorney General, could have no possible application to “civil actions” under § 717 (c), because the individual federal employee or job applicant is the only party who can institute and maintain a “civil action” under that subsection.
Similarly, the provision in § 706 (f) (2) permitting the EEOC or the Attorney General to “bring an action for appropriate temporary or preliminary relief pending final disposition” of a charge where the EEOC has “conclude [d] on the basis of a preliminary investigation that prompt judicial action is necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act” could not possibly apply without modification to “civil actions” involving federal employees, because the EEOC is given no general responsibility for investigating or prosecuting the complaints of federal employees.
The most natural reading of the phrase “as applicable” in § 717 (d) is that it merely reflects the inapplicability of provisions in §§ 706 (f) through (k) detailing the enforcement responsibilities of the EEOC and the Attorney General. We cannot, therefore, agree with the view expressed, by the District Court in Hackley v. Johnson, supra, and relied on by the Court of Appeals here, that Congress used the words “as applicable" to voice its intent to disallow trials de novo by aggrieved federal employees who have received prior administrative hearings. As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in reversing Hackley v. Johnson, supra, such an interpretation of the phrase “as applicable” would require a strained and unnatural reading of §§706 (f) through (k). Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U. S. App. D. C., at 389, 620 F. 2d, at 121. This Court pointed out in Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370, that “ ‘the plain, obvious and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.’ ” To read the phrase “as applicable” in § 717 (d) as obliquely qualifying the federal employee’s right to a trial de novo under § 717 (c) rather than as merely reflecting the inapplicability to § 717 (c) actions of provisions relating to the enforcement responsibilities of the EEOC or the Attorney General would violate this elementary canon of construction.
B. Legislative History
The legislative history of the 1972 amendments reinforces the plain meaning of the statute and confirms that Congress intended to accord federal employees the same right to a trial de novo as is enjoyed by private-sector employees and employees of state governments and political subdivisions under the amended Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Two themes dominated the debates, proposals, and committee reports which preceded the enactment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. The first was the inadequacy of the individually instituted and maintained trial de novo as an enforcement technique in the private sector under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second was federal employees’ lack of adequate internal safeguards against employment discrimination and Congress’ perception of their lack of access to the courts to raise claims of job discrimination.
In 1971, the House Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare reported out bills designed to remedy these deficiencies. The proposed bills, H. R. 1746 and S. 2515, gave the EEOC cease-and-desist powers in the private sector while retaining the private-sector complainant’s preexisting right to a trial de novo in certain instances. The grant of cease-and-desist power to the EEOC provoked strong dissenting statements in both committee reports. While nearly all members of both committees agreed that the EEOC should be given enforcement powers in the private sector, there was sharp disagreement over whether the EEOC should be given the power merely to institute de novo suits in federal trial courts on behalf of employees or the power actually to adjudicate discrimination controversies subject only to review on a substantial-evidence basis in the federal courts of appeals.
The dissenting members of the two committees favored the trial de novo approach. As Senator Dominick put it in a minority statement in the Senate Report:
“The issue is no longer whether we need enforcement powers for Title VII, but rather what form and scope of enforcement is needed to best protect the rights of all parties involved. To accomplish this end the Senate is given two types of enforcement machinery to choose from — vesting EEOC with cease and desist powers or giving EEOC the authority to sue directly in Federal Courts.
“... Determination of employment civil rights deserves and requires non-partisan judgment. This judgment is best afforded by Federal court judges who, shielded from political influence by life tenure, are more likely to withstand political pressures and render their decisions in a climate tempered by judicial reflection and supported by historical judicial independence.”
In response to these criticisms and in justification of their contrary position, the majority members of the two committees set forth in considerable detail their reasons for choosing the approach of agency adjudication with appellate court review. The House committee majority thought that the EEOC was “better equipped to handle the complicated issues involved in employment discrimination cases” and “better suited to rapid resolution of such complex issues than are Courts.” In addition, the majority thought that an administrative tribunal would offer procedural advantages in that it would be “less subject to technical rules governing such matters as pleadings and motion practice... and... less constrained by formal rules of evidence....” The Senate Report spelled out in even greater detail the perceived differences between “enforcement by district court trials rather than through agency hearings followed by appellate court review,” stressing the delays that would be occasioned by court trials and the need for administrative expertise in recognizing and remedying complex forms of employment discrimination. The Report stated that the committee had given “full and careful consideration” to an “alternative measure providing for court enforcement for title VII” but that that proposal had been rejected in favor of the administrative agency approach.
It was against this backdrop of focused debate on the issue of administrative agency versus wholly judicial enforcement machinery in the area of discrimination in private employment that the two committees proposed extending to a federal employee the right to file a “civil action” if “aggrieved” by his employing agency’s action in dealing with his complaint of discrimination. The fact that the federal employee, prior to filing such a “civil action,” would have enjoyed the benefit of improved internal safeguards, including “appropriate procedures for an impartial [agency] adjudication of the complain [t],” might well have provided a rationale for reposing primary adjudicative authority in the appropriate federal agency rather than in the district courts. But the two committees clearly chose to permit de novo judicial trial of such complaints rather than mere judicial review of employing agency determinations: In both the House and Senate Committee Bills, the sections which accorded an aggrieved federal employee the right to file a “civil action” following adverse agency action referred not to the substantial-evidence review provisions applicable to EEOC cease-and-desist orders but rather to other provisions which retained the private-sector employee’s right to a trial de novo in specified circumstances. It is inconceivable that the two congressional committees, which were keenly aware of the consequences of vesting in an administrative agency rather than in the federal courts the primary adjudicative responsibility, did not act in a knowing and deliberate manner in thus equating a federal employee’s “civil action” with private-sector plenary trials and in eschewing any reference to the private-sector provisions of the proposed legislation which provided for agency adjudication subject only to review on a substantial-evidence basis in the federal courts of appeals.
In short, the bills reported out of the Senate and House committees and the accompanying Reports reveal a thorough and meticulous consideration of the question whether an administrative agency or a court should be given primary adjudicative responsibility for particular categories of Title VII complaints and an unambiguous choice to grant federal employees the right to plenary trials in the federal district courts.
The House Committee Bill was opposed on the floor of the House on the ground that it placed primary adjudicative responsibility over private-sector Title VII complaints in an agency which was also responsible for prosecuting such complaints. Opponents contended that such a commingling of functions would bias the agency's adjudications. This argument prevailed, and H. R. 1746 was amended on the floor by H. R. 9247, which granted the EEOC the right to file private-sector “civil actions” in district court but not the power to issue cease- and desist orders. The amendment changed H. R. 1746 in one other important respect: It deleted the provisions extending Title VII to federal employees. As amended, H. R. 1746 passed the House.
The Senate Committee Bill, like its House counterpart, was strongly opposed on the floor. As in the House, controversy centered on whether agency adjudication with limited appellate judicial review in the federal appellate courts should be the technique by which the EEOC would enforce Title VII in the private sector. Early in the four-week Senate floor debate which preceded passage of S. 2515, Senator Dominick introduced an amendment which would replace the EEOC’s cease- and desist authority with a right to institute de novo proceedings in the federal district courts on behalf of private-sector employees. This amendment conformed to the dissenting views he had expressed in the Senate Report. The principal aim of the amendment was to separate prosecutorial from adjudicative functions in private-sector Title VII proceedings.
A central theme of Senator Dominick’s argument, stressed repeatedly in the floor debate, was that the Committee Bill already contemplated the resolution of federal employees’ claims through district court and not agency adjudication. Speaking of the Senate committee’s deliberations, Senator Dominick stated that when the committee had “examined the Federal employee situation” he had
“pointed out again that we were creating an agency czar in the EEOC which could determine personnel policies in all the other Federal agencies of the Government. I doubted the wisdom of creating such an omnipotent agency. After some discussion on this... we were able to work out an agreement whereby a Federal employee who feels he is discriminated against can go through his agency, and if he is still dissatisfied, he is empowered to bring suit in Federal court or through the existing Civil Service Board of Appeals and Beviews to Federal court. So on two of the major groups of employees covered by this legislation; namely, State and local employees on the one hand, and Federal employees on the other, the committee itself agreed to grievance remedy procedures through the Federal district courts; yet with the private employee they say, ‘No, you cannot have that. We will have an agency that can do it all by itself.’ That is discrimination in and of itself, right within the bill; and it strikes me that one of the first things we have to do is at least to put employees holding their jobs, be they government or private employees, on the same plane so that they have the same rights, so that they have the same opportunities, and so that they have the same equality within their jobs, to make sure that they are not being discriminated against and have the enforcement, investigatory procedure carried out the same way.
“As I said earlier, it seems wrong to me to say to an aggrieved employee, ‘Certainly we will hear your case. We will do the investigating. We will bring the charges. We will do everything else, but you will not get a decision for over 2 years.’ That is not justice. This is not equal employment opportunity. But if we have the investigator saying that this is a legitimate complaint, and that it will be brought to the district court and will get priority treatment there, we can get the matter decided in half the time it would take in any other way.
“It strikes me that this is right on principle. It is right in terms of administrative procedures. It conforms to what we did with State and local employees and with Federal employees.”
Senator Dominick reiterated the theme of remedial disparity throughout the floor debates, arguing for equal treatment of private-sector and federal-sector complainants: Since the latter were entitled to plenary adjudication of their claims by a federal district court, rather than mere appellate review on a substantial-evidence basis following agency adjudication, he contended, the former should be treated similarly.
Senator Dominick’s amendment was eventually adopted and S. 2515, as amended, passed the Senate. The House had already passed the amended version of H. R. 1746, which differed from the amended Senate Committee Bill in that it did not apply to federal employees. The bills accordingly went to a conference committee, which adopted the Senate Committee Bill’s provision extending Title VII to federal employees. The conference bill was enacted by the Senate and the House.
Since the federal employee provisions of the Senate bill were eventually adopted by the conference committee and passed by Congress, the legislative history of that bill is the most helpful on the issue presented here. The sequence of debate, amendment, and Senate passage of S. 2515 shows unmistakably that the Senate decided to provide both private- and federal-sector employees the adjudicative mechanism which the Senate committee had advocated for federal-, but not private-sector, employees. No changes were made or even proposed with respect to the committee’s choice to allow federal employees judicial trials rather than “substantial evidence” review of administrative dispositions of their discrimination claims. On the contrary, it was the federal-sector de novo procedure which served as the model for Senator Dominick’s proposed alteration of private-sector enforcement provisions. The passage of the Dominick amendment and the subsequent approval of S. 2515 by the Senate achieved the parity which Senator Dominick had advocated — judicial trial de novo for private as well as federal employees.
The Court of Appeals held that “the district judge faced with a demand for a trial de novo is entitled to determine, at a pretrial conference or otherwise, why the plaintiff believes that a trial de novo is necessary,” 515 F. 2d, at 255, and concluded that the petitioner had presented “nothing before the district court to indicate that a useful purpose would be served by having a trial de novo.”' Ibid. This approach substantially parallels the holding in Hackley v. Johnson:
“The trial de novo is not required in all cases. The District Court is required by the Act to examine the administrative record with utmost care. If it determines that an absence of discrimination is affirmatively established by the clear weight of the evidence in the record, no new trial is required. If this exacting standard is not met, the Court shall, in its discretion, as appropriate, remand, take testimony to supplement the administrative record, or grant the plaintiff relief on the administrative record.” 360 F. Supp., at 1252.
Nothing in the legislative history indicates that the federal-sector “civil action” was to have this chameleon-like character, providing fragmentary de novo consideration of discrimination claims where “appropriate,” ibid., and otherwise providing record review. On the contrary, the options which Congress considered were entirely straightforward. It faced a choice between record review of agency action based on traditional appellate standards and trial de novo of Title VII claims. The Senate committee selected trial de novo as the proper means for resolving the claims of federal employees. The Senate broadened the category of claims entitled to trial de novo to include those of private-sector employees, and the Senate’s decision to treat private- and federal-sector employees alike in this respect was ratified by the Congress as a whole.
C. Presumption Against De Novo Review
Given the clear expression of congressional intent, as revealed in both the plain language of § 717 and the legislative history of the 1972 amendments, we find unpersuasive the respondents’ reliance on decisions by this Court indicating that “de novo review is generally not to be presumed.” Consolo v. FMC, 383 U. S., at 619 n. 17; United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709, 715.
Consolo involved review of agency action under provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act giving “a reviewing court authority to'set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion... [or] (5) unsupported by substantial evidence 383 U. S., at 619. In this context, the Court observed: “We do not read the opinion below as asserting that the Court of Appeals, in a direct review proceeding, may conduct a de novo review of the equities of a reparation award. We find nothing in the Shipping Act, the Hobbs Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act that would authorize a de novo review in these circumstances, and in the absence of specific statutory authorization, a de novo review is generally not to be presumed.” Id., at 619 n. 17. Here, by contrast, there is a “specific statutory authorization” of á district court “civil action,” which both the plain language of the Statute and the legislative history reveal to be a trial de novo.
The respondents’ contention that administrative dispositions of federal employee discrimination complaints would, unlike arbitral decisions under collective-bargaining agreements or preliminary EEOC findings of “no reasonable cause,” typically furnish an adequate basis for “substantial evidence” review cannot overcome the clear import of the statutory language and the legislative history. The Congress was aware of the fact that federal employees would have the benefit of “appropriate procedures for an impartial [agency] adjudication of the complain [t],” and yet chose to give employees who had been through those procedures the right to file a de novo “civil action” equivalent to that enjoyed by private-sector employees. It may well be, as the respondents have argued, that routine trials de novo in the federal courts will tend ultimately to defeat, rather than to advance, the basic purposes of the statutory scheme. But Congress has made the choice, and it is not for us to disturb it.
Since the Court of Appeals in this case erroneously concluded that § 717 (c) does not accord a federal employee the same right to a trial de novo as private-sector employees enjoy under Title VII, its judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 16 (1971) (hereinafter cited as Senate Report).
The Veterans’ Administration accepted the examiner’s proposed finding of no race discrimination.
The District Court in Hackley had held that even if that “exacting standard” were not met, a full trial de novo would not necessarily be required. Rather a district court could, “in its discretion, as appropriate, remand, take testimony to supplement the administrative record, or grant the plaintiff relief on the administrative record.” 360 F. Supp., at 1252.
Four Courts of Appeals have held that §717 (c) gives federal employees the right to a trial de novo in the district court. Abrams v. Johnson, 534 F. 2d 1226 (CA6); Caro v. Schultz, 521 F. 2d 1084 (CA7); Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U. S. App. D. C. 376, 520 F. 2d 108; Sperling v. United States, 515 F. 2d 465 (CA3). Three other Courts of Appeals have held that federal employees are not generally entitled to trials de novo. Haire v. Calloway, 526 F. 2d 246 (CA8); Chandler v. Johnson, 515 F. 2d 251 (CA9) (opinion below); Salone v. United States, 511 F. 2d 902 (CA10).
The Attorney General of the United States is given responsibility for instituting Title VII civil actions on behalf of employees of state governments, governmental agencies, or political subdivisions. §706 (f)(1), 42 U. 8. C. §2000e-5 (f)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706, 78 Stat. 259.
See Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U. S. App. D. C., at 387-388, 520 F. 2d, at 119-120.
As stated in the Senate Report:
“The most striking deficiency of the 1964 Act is that the EEOC does not have the authority to issue judicially enforceable orders to back up its findings of discrimination. In prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, religion, color, sex or national origin, the 1964 Act limited the Commission’s enforcement authority to ‘informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion.’
“As a consequence, unless the Department of Justice concludes that a pattern or practice of resistance to Title VII is involved, the burden of obtaining enforceable relief rests upon each individual victim of discrimination, who must go into court as a private party, with the delay and expense that entails, in order to secure the rights promised him under the law. Thus, those persons whose economic disadvantage was a prime reason for enactment of equal employment opportunity provisions find that their only recourse in the face of unyielding discrimination is one that is time consuming, burdensome, and all too often, financially prohibitive.” Senate Report 4.
The Senate Report stated:
“The testimony before the Labor Subcommittee reflected a general lack of confidence in the effectiveness of the complaint procedure on the part of Federal employees. Complaints have indicated skepticism regarding the Commission’s record in obtaining just resolutions of complaints and adequate remedies. This has, in turn, discouraged persons from filing complaints with the Commission for fear that doing so will only result in antagonizing their supervisors and impairing any future hope of advancement.” Id., at 14.
“The testimony of the Civil Service Commission notwithstanding, the committee found that an aggrieved Federal employee does not have access to the courts. In many cases, the employee must overcome a U. S. Government defense of sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies with no certainty as to the steps required to exhaust such remedies. Moreover, the remedial authority of the Commission and the courts has also been in doubt.” Id., at 16.
Under both committee bills, the private-sector employee could bring a civil action within 60 days after the EEOC gave notice that it had dismissed the charge of employment discrimination or that 180 days had elapsed from the filing of the charge without the EEOC having issued a complaint or having entered into an acceptable conciliation agreement. H. R. 1746, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., §8 (j) (1971) (hereinafter cited as H. R. 1746 or House Committee Bill); S. 2515, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., §4 (a) (1971) (hereinafter cited as S. 2515 or Senate Committee Bill).
Representatives Ashbrook and Landgrebe did not favor granting the EEOC any enforcement authority. H. R. Rep. No. 92-238, p. 70 (1971) (hereinafter cited as House Report).
Senate Report 85. Similar minority views were expressed in the Report of the House committee. House Report 58-63.
Id., at 10-11.
Senate Report 18.
Id., at 17-19.
Id., at 17.
House Report 26.
The House Committee Bill, supra, n. 10, provided in relevant part that a federal employee, if aggrieved by final administrative disposition of his complaint, “may file a civil action as provided in section 715....” § 11. Section 715 of the proposed bill preserved the private-sector employee’s right to institute a trial de novo in certain limited circumstances. § 8 (j). See n. 10, supra.
The Senate Committee Bill, supra, n. 10, provided in relevant part that a federal employee, if aggrieved by final administrative disposition of his complaint or by failure to take action on his complaint, “may file a civil action as provided in section 706 (q)....” § 11. Section 706 (q) of the proposed bill preserved the private-sector employee’s right to a trial de novo in specified instances. § 4 (a). See n. 10, supra.
The House and Senate Reports as well as the Committee Bills themselves evince a detailed awareness of the interaction in the private sector of the new cease-and-desist remedy and the preexisting right to a trial de novo. See House Committee Bill §8 (j); House Report 12; Senate Committee Bill § 4 (a); Senate Report 24.
The respondents argue that because private-sector employees enjoyed only a conditional right to plenary trials under the Senate Committee
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These consolidated cases present the question whether officers of a private, nonprofit corporation administering and expending federal community development block grants are “public officials” for purposes of the federal bribery statute. 18 U. S. C. § 201(a).
I
In 1979, the city of Peoria received two federal block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The first was a $400,000 Community Development Block Grant; the second a $638,000 Metro Reallocation Grant. Both grants were funded through the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA), 88 Stat. 633, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§5301-5320 (1976 ed. and Supp. V). Under that Act, the Secretary of HUD is authorized to dispense federal block grants to state and local governments and nonprofit community organizations for urban renewal programs such as the rehabilitation of residential structures, code enforcement in deteriorating areas, and the construction of public works projects.
The city of Peoria subsequently designated United Neighborhoods, Inc. (UNI), a community-based, social-service organization, to be the city’s subgrantee in charge of the administration of the federal block grant funds. UNI in turn hired petitioner Dixson to serve as the corporation’s Executive Director and petitioner Hinton as its Housing Rehabilitation Coordinator. Petitioner Dixson was responsible for the general supervision of UNI’s programs, including fiscal control and execution of contracts. Petitioner Hinton’s duties included contracting with persons applying for housing rehabilitation assistance, and contracting with demolition firms.
A federal grand jury named petitioners in an 11-count indictment filed on March 12, 1981. The indictment charged that petitioners, as “public officials” under 18 U. S. C. § 201(a), had sought a series of bribes in return for “being influenced in their performance of an official act in respect to the awarding of housing rehabilitation contracts” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 201(c)(1),(2).
According to the Government’s evidence at trial, petitioners used their positions to extract $42,694 in kickbacks from contractors seeking to work on UNI’s housing rehabilitation projects. One contractor testified how he was approached by petitioner Hinton and persuaded to pay petitioners 10 percent of each housing rehabilitation contract that petitioners awarded him. The contractor explained that on 10 occasions, he received first draw checks from UNI for 20 percent of the contract price, deposited the check at his bank, and paid half the amount of the check in cash to petitioners. A second contractor testified as to substantially the same arrangement.
Before trial, petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that they were not “public officials” within the meaning of the federal statute. Their motions were denied, and following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, petitioners were convicted as charged. The District Court sentenced each to TA years’ imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years’ probation. Petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed. 688 P. 2d 195 (1982). Both petitioners filed petitions for writs of certiorari, and we granted the writs. 459 U. S. 1085 (1982). We now affirm.
HH H-l
Petitioners sole claim is that they were not “public officials” within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. § 201(a) and therefore not subject to prosecution under the federal bribery statute. Since our disposition of this claim turns on the relationship between petitioners and the Federal Government, we begin our discussion with an analysis of the HCDA block grant program and petitioners’ role in administering that program.
Congress passed the HCDA to meet the social, economic, and environmental problems facing cities. 42 U. S. C. § 5301(a) (1976 ed. and Supp. V). The primary objective of the Act is “the development of viable urban communities.” § 5301(c). While the HCDA addressed a national problem, Congress enacted the legislation as a federal block grant statute, under which the day-to-day administration of the federal program, including the actual expenditure of federal funds, is delegated to state and local authorities.
The HCDA creates a “consistent system of Federal aid,” § 5301(d), by distributing funds committed by Congress through organizations outside the Federal Government, while retaining federal control to assure compliance with statutory federal objectives and implementing regulations. Congress itself specified the 17 categories of community projects upon which HCDA grants can be spent. § 5305. Within the federal constraints, grant recipients design programs addressing local needs. To obtain federal funds, local communities must submit to the Secretary a plan made in accordance with national urban growth policies, and supplement the plan with annual performance reports. §§ 5304(a), (d). The Federal Government retains the right to audit the records of HCDA programs, § 5304(e), and to recover improperly expended funds. § 5311(b)(2).
HCDA grantees give assurances to HUD that they, and their subgrantees, will abide by specific financial accountability, equal opportunity, fair labor, environmental, and other requirements. §§ 5304, 5309, 5310; 24 CFR § 570.307 (1983). By administering HCDA funds, private nonprofit organizations subject themselves to numerous federal restrictions beyond those imposed directly by HUD. Like other recipients of federal grant funds, HUD grantees and subgrantees are subject to a uniform audit procedure, adopted by the Federal Government as “an integral element” of “full accountability by those entrusted with the responsibility for administering the programs.”
UNI voluntarily assumed the status of an HCDA sub-grantee when UNI and the city of Peoria signed five separate grant agreements in March and October 1979, pursuant to which UNI hired petitioners. Under the first four of these agreements, the city promised to provide UNI with $492,500, and UNI committed itself to spend these funds on urban renewal projects and related administrative costs, such as salaries and fringe benefits for UNI employees. The agreements specifically allocated funds to petitioners’ salaries: $16,000 of the city grants was for UNI’s Executive Director and $15,500 was for a Rehabilitation Coordinator.
In a fifth agreement, Peoria promised UNI another $669,200 to be used “solely for a program operated by UNI which provides loans and grants to the rehabilitation of residential housing units in the designated Metropolitan Reallocation Grant Area.” One anomaly in the five Peoria-UNI contracts is that, beyond this reference to the “Metropolitan Reallocation Grant Area” and to “312 loans,” none of these first contracts explicitly refers to the federal Act or to UNI’s new status of subgrantee. UNI’s application to participate in the federally funded program, however, unequivocally shows UNI’s awareness of the Federal Government’s relationship to, and interest in, the grant agreements. UNI’s proposal to Peoria stated: “[W]e wish to undertake a joint effort with the City of Peoria to achieve the common goals as set forth in the Housing and Community Develop ment Act to insure safe, sanitary and decent housing for all people.” Record, Govt. Exh. 19. (Emphasis added.)
Moreover, there is no suggestion in the record that petitioners and other UNI executives failed to understand that they were involved in a federal program. As described above, the task of distributing HCDA funds is governed in numerous respects by federal statutes and regulations. Knowledge of the existence and applicability of these federal requirements and guidelines is presumed as a matter of law. As a matter of fact, the federal interest in protecting the integrity of its block grant funds undoubtedly was driven home to petitioners when, in early 1980, in the midst of the period covered by the Government’s indictment, Arthur Andersen & Co. conducted an audit of UNI’s records in accordance with HUD’s Audit Guide and Standards for Community Development Block Grant Recipients.
Petitioners’ responsibilities included receiving applications for housing assistance and soliciting contractor bids for qualified rehabilitation proposals. According to UNI’s organizational structure, petitioners were supposed to submit the bids on qualified proposals to UNI’s Housing Committee for final approval, but, in fact, the Committee’s review was a “mere formality.” As a practical matter, petitioners alone decided which property owners and contractors in the city of Peoria would be the beneficiaries of the federal funds made available to the city through the HCDA block grant program.
HH » — i HH
Petitioners contend now, as they have throughout this litigation, that, as executives of a private nonprofit corporation unaffiliated with the Federal Government, they were never “public officials” as Congress defined that term. 18 U. S. C. § 201(a).
Under § 201(a), the term “public official” includes “an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof,... in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government.” There being no basis for claiming that petitioners were officers or employees of the United States, the Government’s sole contention is that petitioners acted “for or on behalf of” the United States “in an official function” under the authority of HUD.
Petitioners argue that they cannot be considered to have acted “for or on behalf of the United States” because neither they nor their employer UNI ever entered into any agreement with the United States or any subdivision of the Federal Government. In advancing this position, petitioners rely primarily on two Second Circuit decisions holding that a New York City employee involved in the administration of the federal Model Cities Program was not a public official under §201. United States v. Loschiavo, 531 F. 2d 659 (1976); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F. 2d 656, cert. denied, 423 U. S. 826 (1975). Petitioners and these Second Circuit decisions rest on the premise that an individual does not work “for or on behalf of the United States... in any official function” without some formal bond with the United States, such as an agency relationship, an employment contract, or a direct contractual obligation.
The Government, in response, argues that the term “public official” has a broader sweep, covering not only parties in privity with the United States, but also any private individuals responsible for administering federally funded and federally supervised programs. The Government defends the decision of the Seventh Circuit in the instant cases which held that the “substantial federal supervision over the cities and all sub-grantees responsible for local distribution of grant funds” made petitioners’ public officials for purposes of §201. 683 F. 2d, at 197-198. The court reasoned that petitioners “were acting as federal agents in the sense of having discretion in administering the expenditure of federal funds. ” Id., at 199.
As is often the case in matters of statutory interpretation, the language of § 201(a) does not decide the dispute. The words can be interpreted to support either petitioners’ or the Government’s reading. We must turn, therefore, to the legislative history of the federal bribery statute to determine whether these materials clarify which of the proposed readings is consistent with Congress’ intent. If the legislative history fails to clarify the statutory language, our rule of lenity would compel us to construe the statute in favor of petitioners, as criminal defendants in these cases. See Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971).
A
Congress passed the current federal bribery provisions, including § 201(a), in 1962, as part of an effort to reformulate and rationalize all federal criminal statutes dealing with the integrity of government. At the time of the 1962 revisions, general federal bribery statutes had been in existence for more than a century. From the start, Congress drafted its bribery statutes with broad jurisdictional language, and periodically amended the provisions to ensure that the scope of federal criminal liability kept pace with the growth and diversification of the Federal Government. Prior to 1962, in recognition of Congress’ apparent desire for the federal bribery statutes to have wide application, the federal judiciary interpreted the statutes and, indeed, the phrase “person acting for or on behalf of the United States” to have a broad jurisdictional reach.
When drafting § 201(a), Congress was aware of previous federal bribery statutes, as well as the judicial interpretation given those statutes. The phrase at issue here — “person acting for or on behalf of the United States” — was taken directly from predecessor bribery statutes. Moreover, the reenactment of this language was no happenstance. Earlier versions of the 1962 statute omitted the phrase, but Department of Justice testimony that “its removal would be undesirable” convinced Congress to retain the language.
Standing alone, Congress’ purposeful retention of the “acting for or on behalf of the Government” phrase does not advance our inquiry into the scope and meaning of those words. When, however, we compare the phrase as enacted with the proposed definition of “public official” in earlier draft bills that were not enacted, we conclude that Congress could not have meant to restrict the definition, as petitioners argue, to those persons in an employment or agency relationship with the Federal Government. Such persons were clearly covered by successive, rejected versions of the reform bill, which defined “public official” in pertinent part as “an officer, agent, or employee of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government, or of any agency.” If Congress intended courts to restrict their reading of the jurisdictional definition to persons in a formal employment or agency relationship with the Government, it would have had no reason to accede to the Department of Justice’s urging to retain the “acting for or on behalf of” language.
Moreover, we find the legislative history of § 201(a) inconsistent with the view that the words “person acting for or on behalf of the United States” were added simply to bring within the jurisdiction of the federal bribery laws those individuals tied to the Federal Government by direct contractual obligations. Committee Reports from both Houses of Congress emphasized that the new bribery laws made “no significant changes of substance” and “would not restrict the broad scope of the present bribery statutes as construed by the courts.” S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1962); H. R. Rep. No. 748, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1961). Federal courts interpreting the federal bribery laws prior to 1962 had generally avoided formal distinctions, such as the requirement of a direct contractual bond, that would artificially narrow the scope of federal criminal jurisdiction. See n. 10, supra.
Of particular relevance to the instant case is the House Judiciary Committee’s citation of the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Levine, 129 F. 2d 745 (1942), as an exam-pie of how the judiciary had in the past properly construed the federal bribery laws. See H. R. Rep. No. 748, supra, at 17. The Levine decision involved the application of the 1909 bribery statute to a low-level official in a decentralized federal assistance program. The defendant in Levine worked for a locally administered price stabilization program, the New York Metropolitan Milk Marketing Area, and was responsible for receiving milk handlers’ market surplus claims, and checking them for accuracy. Levine solicited a bribe from one of the handlers within his jurisdiction in return for his promise to prevent investigations of the claims.
Although hired by a Market Administrator who, in turn, had been appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, Levine himself was neither employed by the United States nor paid with federal funds. Nevertheless, Levine’s duties were critical to the proper administration of the federally assisted New York Milk Marketing Area. Because claims for payment were not rechecked by anyone else, his duties resulted in expenditures from the Federal Treasury. After reviewing these facts, the Second Circuit concluded that, notwithstanding the absence of a direct contractual bond between the defendant and the United States, Levine’s responsible position made him a “public official” for purposes of the federal bribery laws. 129 F. 2d, at 747. By explicitly endorsing the Second Circuit’s analysis in Levine, the House Judiciary Committee strongly intimated that the phrase “acting for or on behalf of the United States” covers something more than a direct contractual bond.
Congress’ longstanding commitment to a broadly drafted federal bribery statute, its expressed desire to continue that tradition with the 1962 revisions, its affirmative adoption of the language at issue in this case, and the House Report’s endorsement of the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Levine, combine to persuade us that Congress never intended § 201 (a)’s open-ended definition of “public official” to be given the cramped reading proposed by petitioners. We agree with the Government that § 201(a) has been accurately characterized as a “comprehensive statute applicable to all persons performing activities for or on behalf of the United States,” whatever the form of delegation of authority. To determine whether any particular individual falls within this category, the proper inquiry is not simply whether the person had signed a contract with the United States or agreed to serve as the Government’s agent, but rather whether the person occupies a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities. Persons who hold such positions are public officials within the meaning of § 201 and liable for prosecution under the federal bribery statute.
B
Given the structure of the HCDA program and petitioners’ responsible positions as administrators of the subgrant, we have little difficulty concluding that these persons served as public officials for purposes of § 201(a). As executives of UNI, petitioners had operational responsibility for the administration of the HCDA grant program within the city of Peoria. In allocating the federal resources made available to the city through the HCDA grant program, petitioners were charged with abiding by federal guidelines, which dictated both where and how the federal funds could be distributed. By accepting the responsibility for distributing these federal fiscal resources, petitioners assumed the quintessentially official role of administering a social service program established by the United States Congress.
Lest there be any doubt that Congress intended § 201(a) to cover local officials like petitioners, one need only compare petitioners to the defendant in Levine, whose conviction the House Judiciary Committee explicitly endorsed. See swpra, at 494-496. Both Levine and petitioners worked in decentralized federal assistance programs. Both Levine and petitioners effectively determined who would be the beneficiary of federal dollars, and both solicited bribes to influence their official decisions. Levine held a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities: to collect and investigate the accuracy of data submitted by milk producers in support of their claims for federal subsidies. Petitioners held a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities: allocating federal resources, pursuant to complex statutory and regulatory guidelines, in the form of residential rehabilitation contracts. Indeed, in certain respects, petitioners performed duties that were more clearly “official” and more obviously undertaken “for or on behalf of the United States” than the responsibilities of the defendant in Levine. Where Levine was paid through a levy imposed on local businesses participating in the marketing order, petitioners’ salaries were completely funded by the HCDA grant. Where Levine simply compiled data that were submitted to the Department of Agriculture for eventual disbursement, petitioners personally bestowed the benefits of the HCDA program to residents of Peoria.
IV
A
In concluding that employment by the United States or some other similarly formal contractual or agency bond is not a prerequisite to prosecution under the federal bribery statute, we are supported by the majority of recent decisions in the Federal District Courts and Courts of Appeals. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F. 2d 751 (1982), the Ninth Circuit determined that an employee of the Federal Eeserve Bank of San Francisco, which is a private banking institution, was a public official for purposes of § 201(a) because the employee was responsible for carrying out tasks delegated by a federal agency and was subject to substantial federal supervision. The defendant received bribes and kickbacks from independent contractors to influence him in making capital purchase requisitions. In short, like petitioners, he was in a position of responsibility, acting for or on behalf of the Federal Government in administering expenditure of federal funds. Similarly, in United States v. Kirby, 587 F. 2d 876, 879-880 (1978), the Seventh Circuit ruled that two privately employed grain inspectors, licensed by the Department of Agriculture, were public officials because they had responsibility for implementing a warehouse licensing program established by Congress. For analogous reasons, the Federal District Court for the District of New Mexico found a state employee responsible for administering the Farmers Home Administration rural housing improvement grant program to be included within § 201(a). United States v. Gallegos, 510 F. Supp. 1112, 1113-1114 (1981). Again, the defendant’s official duties in processing grant applications directly influenced the expenditure of federal funds. See also United States v. Mosley, 659 F. 2d 812 (CA7 1981); Harlow v. United States, 301 F. 2d 361 (CA5), cert. denied, 371 U. S. 814 (1962); United States v. Griffin, 401 F. Supp. 1222 (SD Ind. 1975), affirmance order sub nom. United States v. Metro Management Corp., 541 F. 2d 284 (CA7 1976). But see United States v. Loschiavo, 531 F. 2d 659 (CA2 1976); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F. 2d 656 (CA2), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 826 (1975); United States v. Hoskins, 520 F. Supp. 410 (ND Ill. 1981).
B
By finding petitioners to be public officials within the meaning of § 201(a), we do not mean to suggest that the mere presence of some federal assistance brings a local organization and its employees within the jurisdiction of the federal bribery statute or even that all employees of local organizations responsible for administering federal grant programs are public officials within the meaning of § 201(a). To be a public official under § 201(a), an individual must possess some degree of official responsibility for carrying out a federal program or policy. Our opinion today is, therefore, fully consistent with Krichman v. United States, 256 U. S. 363 (1921), in which this Court ruled that a baggage porter, although employed by a federally controlled railroad, could not be said to have “acted for or on behalf of the United States” because the porter lacked any duties of an official character. Similarly, individuals who work for block grant recipients and business people who provide recipients with goods and services cannot be said to be public officials under § 201(a) unless they assume some duties of an official nature.
We recognize that the manner in which the HCDA block grant program combines local administration with federal funding initially creates some confusion as to whether local authorities administering HCDA grants should be considered public officials under the federal bribery statute. However, when one examines the structure of the program and sees that the HCDA vests in local administrators like petitioners Hinton and Dixson the power to allocate federal fiscal resources for the purpose of achieving congressionally established goals, the confusion evaporates and it becomes clear that these local officials hold precisely the sort of positions of national public trust that Congress intended to cover with the “acting for or on behalf of” language in the bribery statute. The Federal Government has a strong and legitimate interest in prosecuting petitioners for their misuse of Government funds. As this Court has said in another, closely related context, grant funds to state and local governments “are as much in need of protection from [fraud] as any other federal money, and the statute does not make the extent of [grant moneys’] safeguard dependent upon the bookkeeping devices used for their distribution.” United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537, 544 (1943) (footnote omitted) (holding that one who contracts with a local governmental unit to work on federally funded projects can “cheat the United States” through the state intermediary).
Because we agree with the Seventh Circuit that petitioners were public officials under § 201(a), the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Local recipients of HCDA block grants have the option of distributing the funds directly or of subcontracting the administration of the funds to private, nonprofit organizations. 42 U. S. C. §§ 5302(a)(1), (c) (1976 ed. and Supp. V); 24 CFR § 570.204 (1983).
Title 18 U. S. C. §201 reads in pertinent part:
“(a) For the purpose of this section: ‘public official’ means Member of Congress, the Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
“(c) Whoever, being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive anything of value for himself or for any other person or entity, in return for:
“(1) being influenced in his performance of any official act; or
“(2) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the United States;...
“Shall be fined not more than $20,000 or three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
Guidelines for Financial and Compliance Audits of Federally Assisted Programs, reprinted at 45 Fed. Reg. 21837, 21838 (1980). The Guidelines explain the uniform audit procedure, and are distributed as Attachment P to OMB Circular A-102 (1980), Uniform Requirements for Assistance to State and Local Governments. See also OMB Circular A-110 (1976). Attachment O, which contains a Code of Conduct for administering federal funds, including a specific requirement that “the [grantee’s] officers, employees or agents shall neither solicit nor accept... anything of monetary value from contractors or potential contractors [or parties to subagreements].”
One of Peoria’s HCDA grants was a Metro Reallocation Grant. 42 U. S. C. § 5306(c) (1976 ed. and Supp. V). HUD rehabilitation loans to owners and tenants in urban renewal areas are called “312 loans.” Pub. L. 88-560, §312, 78 Stat. 790, codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1452b (1976 ed. and Supp. V). The Secretary of HUD is authorized by statute “to delegate to or use as his agent any Federal or local public or private agency or organization... to carry out the objectives of [the loan program].” § 1452b(f).
When UNI and Peoria renewed their agreement for the following fiscal year, a few days after the period named in the indictment, they amended the first series of contracts to warrant in explicit terms that UNI would comply with HUD Community Development Block Grants regulations, 24 CFR pt. 570 (1983). Record, Govt. Exh. 25.
44 U. S. C. §1507. The appearance of rules and regulations in the Federal Register gives legal notice of their contents.
Of the 10 contracts awarded to one of the contractors who testified on behalf of the Government at trial, UNI’s Housing Committee approved only one. Petitioner Hinton signed the remaining nine.
Congress passed the first federal bribery statute of general application in 1853. See Act of Feb. 26,1853, ch. 81, § 6,10 Stat. 171. As its name— “An Act to Prevent Frauds upon the Treasury” — implies, the Act sought to prevent the misuse of federal funds by any person charged with a public trust. See Cong. Globe, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., 392 (1853). Although primarily concerned with individuals who were bringing fraudulent claims against the United States, id., at 242, 295-296, Congress did not limit this early statute to fraudulent claims, but chose to draft a general provision encompassing the bribery not only of Members of Congress, but also of “any officer of the United States, or person holding any place of [public] trust or profit, or discharging any official function under, or in connection with, any department of the Government of the United States.” (Emphasis supplied.)
One telling amendment came in 1948, largely as a result of this Court’s decision in United States v. Strang, 254 U. S. 491 (1921). In Strang, the Court had considered whether a person working for a federally owned and controlled corporation was covered by the 1909 version of the federal conflict-of-interest statute. Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 41, 35 Stat. 1097. The Court ruled that such a person was not covered because his employer was “a separate entity” from the United States. 254 U. S., at 493. To Congress, the Strang decision indicated that the existing federal bribery statute was inadequate to reach “the present ramifications of the executive branch [which] were not foreseen” when the 1909 Code was enacted. H. R. Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A14 (1947). Accordingly, the 1948 Congress supplemented its earlier language to read “any officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department or agency thereof, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department or agency.” Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 201, 62 Stat. 691 (italics indicate new language). While the 1948 amendment expressly broadened the scope of the federal bribery law, a House Report suggests that drafters of the 1948 revisions were uncertain whether the amendments were necessary and included them only to guarantee “what appeared unquestionably to be the intent of Congress, namely, to cover all persons acting for the United States Government in an official function.” H. R. Rep. No. 304, supra, at A15.
For instance, before 1948, employees of Government agencies were not expressly covered by the federal bribery statutes. See n. 9, supra. Nevertheless, federal courts repeatedly found that these employees were covered by the term “person acting for or on behalf of the United States.” See, e. g., United States v. Birdsall, 233 U. S. 223, 230-231 (1914); United States v. Levine, 129 F. 2d 745 (CA2 1942). But cf. United States v. Strang, supra.
The term “any person acting for or on behalf of the United States” was coined in the recodifications of the 1870’s, Rev. Stat. §§ 5451, 5501, and replaced the phrase “person holding any place of [public] trust or profit, or discharging any official function under, or in connection with [the Government],” which appeared in previous statutes. See n. 8, supra. For purposes of our decision today, it is of some relevance that the term “persons acting for or on behalf of the United States” was originally drafted as a stylistic substitution for “person[s] holding any [position] of [public] trust,” and that Congress accepted the analogous language. See 2 Cong. Rec. 129 (1873) (remarks of Rep. Butler) (statutory Revision Committee’s authority limited); Dwan & Feidler, The Federal Statutes — Their History and Use, 22 Minn. L. Rev. 1008, 1012-1017 (1938) (1878 version corrected congres-sionally identified errors in 1873 Rev. Stat.).
Federal Conflict of Interest Legislation: Hearings on H. R. 302, H. R. 3050, H. R. 3411, H. R. 3412, and H. R. 7139 before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 36 (1961). The Department of Justice analysis of H. R. 3411 stated:
“The definition of ‘public official’... does not include any reference to persons ‘acting for or in [sic] behalf of the United States.’ This latter phrase appears in the existing law and we think its removal would be undesirable. Under the proposed definition it could be construed that, under certain circumstances, a person acting in behalf of the United States would not be held to be an ‘officer, agent, or employee of the United States’ as these terms are used in the bill. Persons acting in such a capacity should be protected from bribe offers (or punished for their acceptance).” Ibid.
See H. R. 12547, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., §201(a) (1958); H. R. 2156, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., §201(a) (1959); H. R. 3411, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., § 201(a) (1961). The complete definition of “public official” in each of these bills was: “Member of, or Delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, an officer, agent, or employee of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government, or of any agency, or juror.”
At the time of the Levine opinion, the federal bribery statute applied by its terms only to officers of the United States or persons acting for or on behalf of the United States or Congress in any official capacity. § 117 of the Criminal Code of 1909, 18 U. S. C. §207 (1946 ed.).
The program was established by the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve goals set by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. See 5 Fed. Reg. 1258 (1940). The Act authorized the Secretary to stabilize farm prices by issuing marketing orders to regulate production in whichever regions of the country were in need of such assistance. 7 U. S. C. §§ 601, 608c (1940 ed.). As such, the Act was an early form of federal assistance program, and, in its present form, is still classified as such. See Office of Management and Budget, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance § 10.155 (1983). A Marketing Administrator, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and paid with federal funds, was to supervise the Area. The Marketing Administrator was to hire his own staff to administer the price stabilization program locally. The staff salary and other administrative expenses were to be paid through a levy imposed on milk producers within the Area. 5 Fed. Reg. 1263 (1940).
Conflicts of Interest: Hearing on H. R. 8140 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 22 (1962) (statement of Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach).
Petitioners argue that the Kirby defendants were liable under the federal bribery statute only because the Grain Standards Act explicitly provides that grain inspectors are “persons acting
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court (Parts I and III) together with an opinion (Part II), and announced the judgment of the Court.
in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice White joined,
In Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968), this Court reversed the robbery conviction of a defendant who had been implicated in the crime by his codefendant’s extrajudicial confession. Because the codefendant had not taken the stand at the joint trial and thus could not be cross-examined, the Court held that admission of the codefendant’s confession had deprived the defendant of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The issue before us in this case is whether Bruton requires reversal of a defendant’s conviction when the defendant himself has confessed and his confession “interlocks” with and supports the confession of his codefendant. We hold that it does not.
I
Respondents were convicted of murder committed during the commission of a robbery and were sentenced to life imprisonment. The cast of characters playing out the scenes that led up to the fatal shooting could have come from the pen of Bret Harte. The story began in June 1970, when one William Douglas, a professional gambler from Las Vegas, Nev., arrived in Memphis, Tenn., calling himself Ray Blay-lock and carrying a gun and a deck of cards. It ended on the evening of July 6, 1970, when Douglas was shot and killed in a Memphis apartment.
Testimony at the trial in the Tennessee state court showed that one Woppy Gaddy, who was promised a cut of Douglas’ take, arranged a game of chance between Douglas and Robert Wood, a sometime Memphis gambler. Unwilling to trust the outcome of the contest entirely to luck or skill, . Douglas marked the cards, and by game’s end Robert Wood and his money had been separated. A second encounter between the two men yielded similar results, and Wood grew suspicious of Douglas’ good fortune. In order to determine whether and how Douglas was cheating, Wood brought to the third game an acquaintance named Tommy Thomas, who had a reputation of being a “pretty good poker player.” Unknown to Wood, however, Thomas’ father and Douglas had been close friends; Thomas, predictably, threw in his lot with Douglas, purposefully lost some $1,000, and reported to Wood that the game was clean. Wood nonetheless left the third game convinced that he was being cheated and intent on recouping his now considerable losses. He explained the situation to his brother, Joe E. Wood, and the two men decided to relieve Douglas of his ill-gotten gains by staging a robbery of the upcoming fourth game.
At this juncture respondents Randolph, Pickens, and Hamilton entered the picture. To carry out the staged robbery, Joe Wood enlisted respondent Hamilton, who was one of his employees, and the latter in turn associated respondents Randolph and Pickens. Douglas and Robert Wood sat down to the fourth and final contest on the evening of July 6, 1970. Joe Wood and Thomas were present in the room as spectators. During the course of the game, Douglas armed himself with a .38-caliber pistol and an automatic shotgun; in response to this unexpected development Joe Wood pulled a derringer pistol on Douglas and Thomas, gave the gun to Robert Wood, and left to tell respondents to move in on the game. Before respondents arrived, however, Douglas reached for his pistol and was shot and killed by Robert Wood. Moments later, respondents and Joe Wood broke down the apartment door, Robert Wood gathered up the cash left on the table, and the gang of five fled into the night. Respondents were subsequently apprehended by the police and confessed to their involvement in the crime.
Respondents and the Wood brothers were jointly tried and convicted of murder during the commission of a robbery. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2402 (1975). Each defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Robert Wood took the stand at trial, admitting that he had killed Douglas, but claiming that the shooting was in self-defense. Thomas described Douglas’ method of cheating at cards and admitted his complicity in the fraud on Robert Wood. He also testified in substance that he was present in the room when Joe Wood produced the derringer and when Robert Wood shot and killed Douglas.
None of the respondents took the stand. Thomas could not positively identify any of them, and although Robert Wood named Hamilton as one of the three men involved in the staged robbery, he did not clearly identify Randolph and Pickens as the other two. The State’s case against respondents thus rested primarily on their oral confessions, found by the trial court to have been freely and voluntarily given, which were admitted into evidence through the testimony of several officers of the Memphis Police Department. A written confession signed by Pickens was also admitted into evidence over his objection that it had been obtained in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). The trial court instructed the jury that each confession could be used only against the defendant who gave it and could not be considered as evidence of a codefendant’s guilt.
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed respondents’ convictions, holding that they could not be guilty of felony murder since Douglas had been shot before they arrived on the scene and, alternatively, that admission of their confessions at the joint trial violated this Court’s decision in Bruton. The Tennessee Supreme Court in turn reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstated the convictions. Because “each and every defendant either through words or actions demonstrated his knowledge that 'killing may be necessary,’ ” App. 237, the court held that respondents’ agreement to participate in the robbery rendered them liable under the Tennessee felony-murder statute for Douglas’ death. The Tennessee Supreme Court also disagreed with the Court of Criminal Appeals that Bruton had been violated,- emphasizing that the confession at issue in Bruton had inculpated a nonconfessing defendant in a joint trial at which neither defendant took the stand. Here, in contrast, the “interlocking inculpatory confessions” of respondents Randolph, Pickens, and Hamilton, “clearly demonstrated the involvement of each, as to crucial facts such as time, location, felonious activity, and awareness of the overall plan or scheme.” App. 245. Accordingly, the Tennessee Supreme Court concluded: “The fact that jointly tried codefendants have confessed precludes a violation of the Bruton rule where the confessions are similar in material aspects.” Ibid., quoting State v. Elliott, 524 S. W. 2d 473, 477-478 (Tenn. 1975).
The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee thereafter granted respondents’ applications for writs of habeas corpus, ruling that their rights under Bruton had been violated and that introduction of respondent Pickens’ uncounseled written confession had violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, supra. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that admission of the confessions violated the rule announced in Bruton and that the error was not harmless since the evidence against each respondent, even considering his confession, was “not so overwhelming as to compel the jury verdict of guilty . . . .” 575 P. 2d 1178, 1182 (1978). The Court of Appeals frankly acknowledged that its decision conflicts with decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding the Bruton rule inapplicable “[w]here the jury has heard not only a codefendant’s confession but the defendant’s own [interlocking] confession . . . .” United States ex rel. Catanzaro v. Mancusi, 404 F. 2d 296, 300 (1968), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 942 (1970). Accord, United States ex rel. Stanbridge v. Zelker, 514 P. 2d 45, 48-50, cert. denied, 423 U. S. 872 (1975); United States ex rel. Duff v. Zelker, 452 F. 2d 1009, 1010 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U. S. 932 (1972). We granted certiorari in this case to resolve that conflict. 439 U. S. 978 (1978).
II
In Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U. S. 232 (1957), a nontestifying codefendant's confession, which incriminated a defendant who had not confessed, was admitted at a joint trial over defendant’s hearsay objection. Concluding that “it was reasonably possible for the jury to follow” the trial court’s instruction to consider the confession only against the de-clarant, this Court held that admission of the confession did not constitute reversible error. Little more than a decade later, however, Delli Paoli was expressly overruled in Bruton v. United States. In that case, defendants Bruton and Evans were convicted of armed postal robbery after a joint trial. Although Evans did not take the stand, a postal inspector was allowed to testify that Evans had orally confessed to having committed the robbery with Bruton. The trial judge instructed the jury that Evans’ confession was competent evidence against Evans, but was inadmissible hearsay against Bruton and therefore could not be considered in determining Bruton’s guilt.
This Court reversed Bruton’s conviction, noting that despite the trial court’s admittedly clear limiting instruction, “the introduction of Evans’ confession added substantial, perhaps even critical, weight to the Government’s case in a form not subject to cross-examination.” 391 U. S., at 127-128. Bruton was therefore held to have been denied his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The Bruton court reasoned that although in many cases the jury can and will follow the trial judge’s instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence,
“there are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial. Not only are the incriminations devastating to the defendant but their credibility is inevitably suspect, a fact recognized when accomplices do take the stand and the jury is instructed to weigh their testimony carefully given the recognized motivation to shift blame onto others. The unreliability of such evidence is intolerably compounded when the alleged accomplice, as here, does not testify and cannot be tested by cross-examination. It was against such threats to a fair trial that the Confrontation Clause was directed.” Id., at 135-136 (citations and footnotes omitted).
One year after Bruton was decided, this Court rejected the notion that erroneous admission at a joint trial of evidence such as that introduced in Bruton automatically requires reversal of an otherwise valid conviction. See Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969). In some cases, the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant’s admission so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that introduction of the admission at trial was harmless error.
Petitioner urges us to follow the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to hold that the Bruton rule does not apply in the context of interlocking confessions. Alternatively, he contends that if introduction of interlocking confessions at a joint trial does violate Bruton, the error is all but automatically to be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with petitioner that admission at the joint trial of respondents’ interlocking confessions did not infringe respondents’ right of confrontation secured by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, but prefer to cast the issue in a slightly broader form than that posed by petitioner.
Bruton recognized that admission at a joint trial of the incriminating extrajudicial statements of a nontestifying codefendant can have “devastating” consequences to a non-confessing defendant, adding “substantial, perhaps even critical, weight to the Government’s case.” 391 U. S., at 128. Such statements go to the jury untested by cross-examination and, indeed, perhaps unanswered altogether unless the defendant waives his Fifth Amendment privilege and takes the stand. The prejudicial impact of a codefendant’s confession upon an incriminated defendant who has, insofar as the jury is concerned, maintained his innocence from the beginning is simply too great in such cases to be cured by a limiting instruction. The same cannot be said, however, when the defendant’s own confession — “probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him,” id., at 139 (White, J., dissenting) — is properly introduced at trial. ' The defendant is “the most knowledgeable and unimpeachable source of information about his past conduct,” id., at 140 (White, J., dissenting), and one can scarcely imagine evidence more damaging to his defense than his own admission of guilt. Thus, the incriminating statements of a codefendant will seldom, if ever, be of the “devastating” character referred to in Bruton when the incriminated defendant has admitted his own guilt. The right protected by Bruton — the “constitutional right of cross-examination,” id., at 137 — has far less practical value to a defendant who has confessed to the crime than to one who has consistently maintained his innocence. Successfully impeaching a codefendant’s confession on cross-examination would likely yield small advantage to the defendant whose own admission of guilt stands before the jury unchallenged. Nor does the natural “motivation to shift blame onto others,” recognized by the Bruton Court to render the incriminating statements of codefendants “inevitably suspect,” id., at 136, require application of the Bruton rule when the incriminated defendant has corroborated his codefendant’s statements by heaping blame onto himself.
The right of confrontation conferred by the Sixth Amendment is a safeguard to ensure the fairness and accuracy of criminal trials, see Dutton v. Evans, 400 U. S. 74, 89 (1970), and its reach cannot be divorced from the system of trial by jury contemplated by the Constitution. A crucial assumption underlying that system is that juries will follow the instructions given them by the trial judge. Were this not so, it would be pointless for a trial court to instruct a jury, and even more pointless for an appellate court to reverse a criminal conviction because the jury was improperly instructed. The Confrontation Clause has never been held to bar the admission into evidence of every relevant extrajudicial statement made by a nontestifying declarant simply because it in some way incriminates the defendant. See, e. g., id., at 80; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 240-244 (1895). And an instruction directing the jury to consider a codefendant’s extrajudicial statement only against its source has been found sufficient to avoid offending the confrontation right of the implicated defendant in numerous decisions of this Court.
When, as in Bruton, the confessing codefendant has chosen not to take the stand and the implicated defendant has made no extrajudicial admission of guilt, limiting instructions cannot be accepted as adequate to safeguard the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. Under such circumstances, the “practical and human limitations of the jury system,” Bruton v. United States, supra, at 135, override the theoretically sound premise that a jury will follow the trial court’s instructions. But when the defendant’s own confession is properly before the jury, we believe that the constitutional scales tip the other way. The possible prejudice resulting from the failure of the jury to follow the trial court’s instructions is not so “devastating” or “vital” to the confessing defendant to require departure from the general rule allowing admission of evidence with limiting instructions. We therefore hold that admission of interlocking confessions with proper limiting instructions conforms to the requirements of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to respondents Hamilton and Randolph is reversed.
III
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s granting of habeas corpus relief to respondent Pickens on the additional ground that his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), had been violated. Although petitioner sought review of this ruling, our grant of certiorari was limited to the Bruton issue. We thus have no occasion to pass on the merits of the Court of Appeals’ Miranda ruling. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to respondent Pickens is affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
As the Court of Appeals aptly commented: “This appeal involves a sequence of events which have the flavor of the old West before the law ever crossed the Pecos. The difference is that here there are no heroes and here there was a trial.” 575 F. 2d 1178, 1179 (CA6 1978).
Tennessee Code Ann. §39-2402 (1975) provides in pertinent part as follows:
“An' individual commits murder in the first degree if . . .
“(4) he commits a willful, deliberate and malicious killing or murder during the perpetration of any arson, rape, robbery, burglary, larceny, kidnapping, aircraft piracy, or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.”
Each of the confessions was subjected to a process of redaction in which references by the confessing defendant to other defendants were replaced with the words “blank” or “another person.” As the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit observed below, the confessions were nevertheless “such as to leave no possible doubt in the jurors’ minds concerning the (person[s]’ referred to.” 575 F. 2d, at 1180.
The conflict extends throughout the Courts of Appeals. The Courts of Appeals for the Third and Sixth Circuits have expressly ruled that the Bruton rule applies in the context of interlocking confessions, see Hodges v. Rose, 570 F. 2d 643 (CA6 1978); United States v. DiGilio, 538 F. 2d 972, 981-983 (CA3 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Lupo v. United States, 429 U. S. 1038 (1977), and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has done so impliedly, see Ignacio v. Guam, 413 F. 2d 513, 515-516 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 943 (1970). In addition to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, at least four other Courts of Appeals have rejected the Bruton claims of confessing defendants. Cases frqm the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have reasoned that the Bruton rule does not apply in the context of interlocking confessions and that, even if it does, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Mack v. Maggio, 538 F. 2d 1129, 1130 (CA5 1976); United States v. Spinks, 470 F. 2d 64, 65-66 (CA7), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1011 (1972). Two other Courts of Appeals have rejected the Bruton claims of confessing defendants, refusing to concern themselves “with the legal nicety as to whether the . . . case is 'without’ the Bruton rule, or is 'within’ Bruton [and] the violation thereof constitutes] only harmless error.” Metropolis v. Turner, 437 F. 2d 207, 208-209 (CA10 1971); accord, United States v. Walton, 538 F. 2d 1348, 1353— 1354 (CA8), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1025 (1976). State-court decisions in this area are in similar disarray. Compare, e. g., Stewart v. State, 257 Ark. 753, 519 S. W. 2d 733 (1975), and People v. Moll, 26 N. Y. 2d 1, 256 N. E. 2d 185, cert. denied sub nom. Stanbridge v. New York, 398 U. S. 911 (1970), with People v. Rosochacki, 41 Ill. 2d 483, 244 N. E. 2d 136 (1969), and State v. Oliver, 160 Conn. 85, 273 A. 2d 867 (1970).
In Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969), four defendants were found guilty of murder after a joint trial. Defendant Harrington’s extrajudicial statements placed him at the scene of the crime, but “fell short of a confession.” Id., at 252. His three codefendants, however, confessed, and their confessions were introduced at trial with the instruction that the jury was to consider each confession only against its source. One of Harrington’s codefendants, whose confession implicated Harrington, took the stand and was subject to cross-examination. The other two codefend-ants, whose statements corroborated Harrington's admitted 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 his codefendants’ statements, the Court held that “the lack of opportunity to cross-examine [the non-testifying co-defendants] constituted harmless error under the rule of Chapman [v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967)].” Id., at 253.
On two subsequent occasions, this Court has applied the harmless-error doctrine to claimed violations of Bruton. In Schneble v. Florida, 405 U. S. 427 (1972), Schneble and a codefendant were found guilty of murder following a joint trial. Although neither defendant took the stand, police officers were allowed to testify as to a detailed confession given by Schneble and a statement given by his codefendant which tended to corroborate certain portions of Schneble’s confession. We assumed, without deciding, that admission of the codefendant’s statement had violated Bruton, but held that in view of the overwhelming evidence of Schneble’s guilt and the comparatively insignificant impact of the codefendant’s statement, “any violation of Bruton that may have occurred at petitioner’s trial was harmless [error] beyond a reasonable doubt.” 405 U. S., at 428 (emphasis added).
In Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223 (1973), the prosecution introduced police testimony regarding extrajudicial statements made by two nontestifying codefendants'. Each statement implicated both of the co-defendants in the crimes charged. Neither codefendant took the stand, and the police testimony was admitted into evidence at their joint trial. Because the Solicitor General conceded that the statements were admitted into evidence in violation of Bruton, we had no occasion to consider the question whether introduction of the interlocking confessions violated Bruton. Proceeding from the Solicitor General's concession, we held that the police testimony “was merely cumulative of other overwhelming and largely uncontroverted evidence properly before the jury.” 411 U. S., at 231. Thus, any Bruton error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84 (1954), petitioner contended that the trial court had erred in overruling his motion for severance, arguing that the jury may have improperly considered statements of his co-defendant, which were inadmissible as to petitioner, in finding petitioner guilty. This Court rejected the contention:
“It was within the sound discretion of the trial judge as to whether the defendants should be tried together or severally and there is nothing in the record to indicate an abuse of such discretion when petitioner’s motion for severance was overruled. The trial judge here made clear and repeated admonitions to the jury at appropriate times that Hollifield’s incriminatory statements were not to be considered in establishing the guilt of the petitioner. To say that the jury might have been confused amounts to nothing more than an unfounded speculation that the jurors disregarded clear instructions of the court in arriving at their verdict. Our theory of trial relies upon the ability of a jury to follow instructions. There is nothing in this record to call for reversal because of any confusion or injustice arising from the joint trial. The record contains substantial competent evidence upon which the jury could find petitioner guilty.” Id., at 95 (footnote omitted).
See, e. g., Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U. S. 539, 552-553 (1947).
Mr. Justice SteveNS characterizes our decision as an attempt “to create a vaguely defined exception” to the Bruton rule for eases involving interlocking confessions, post, at 82, and suggests that the “proposed exception” is designed “to limit the effect of [the Bruton] rule to the largely irrelevant set of facts in the case that announced it.” Post, at 87. First, the dissent describes what we believe to be the “rule” as the “exception.” The “rule” — indeed, the premise upon which the system of jury trials functions under the American judicial system — is that juries can be trusted to follow the trial court's instructions. Bruton was an exception to this rule, created because of the “devastating” consequences that failure of the jury to disregard a codefendant's inculpatory confession could have to a nonconfessing defendant’s case. We think it entirely reasonable to apply the general rule, and not the Bruton exception, when the defendant’s case has already been devastated by his own extrajudicial confession of guilt.
Second, under the reasoning of Bruton, its facts were anything but “irrelevant” to its holding. The Bruton Court recognized:
“[T]here are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. . . . Such a context is presented here ....” 391 U. S., at 135.
Clearly, Bruton was tied to the situation in which it arose: “where the powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial.” Id., at 135-136.
Mr. Justice SteveNS, in dissent, states that our holding “squarely overrule[s]” this Court’s decisions in Roberts v. Russell, 392 U. S. 293 (1968); Hopper v. Louisiana, 392 U. S. 658 (1968); Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223 (1973); and Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (1969). “In all four of these cases,” according to the dissent, “the Court found a Bruton error even though the defendants’ confessions interlocked.” Post, at 83 n. 3. We disagree.
We think that the dissent fails both to note significant factual distinctions between the present case and Roberts v. Russell, supra, and to recognize the difference in precedential value between decisions of this Court which have been fully argued and disposed of on their merits and unargued summary dispositions, a difference which we noted in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 670-671 (1974). In Roberts “[t]he facts paralleled] the facts in Bruton.” 392 U. S., at 293. Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery after a joint trial in which a codefendant's confession inculpating petitioner was introduced through the testimony of a police officer. Petitioner’s cousin testified at trial that petitioner had “indicated that he thought . . . Tennessee was an easy place to commit a robbery.” App. to Brief in Opposition, O. T. 1967, No, 920, Misc., p. 4. This extrajudicial statement, while inculpatory, was by no stretch of the imagination a “confession.” The District Court denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, expressly relying on the authority of Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U. S. 232 (1957), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court subsequently overruled Delli Paoli in Bruton, and granted the petition for certiorari in Roberts to consider “the question whether Bruton [was] to be applied retroactively.” Roberts v. Russell, supra, at 293. The Court decided the question affirmatively, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration in light of Bruton, in no way passing on the merits of petitioner’s Bruton claim. Thus, Roberts, contrary to the dissent’s reading, neither involved interlocking confessions nor “found a Bruton error.”
Hopper v. Louisiana, supra, came to this Court in much the posture as Roberts. Petitioners’ manslaughter convictions were affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court when Delli Paoli was still good law, but while their petition for certiorari was pending before this Court, Bruton was decided. In a two-sentence summary disposition, this Court granted petitioners’ petition for certorari, vacated the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court, and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, and Roberts v. Russell, [392 U. S.] 293.” 392 U. S., at 658. Not having passed on the merits of petitioners’ Bruton claim, this Court can hardly be said to have “found a Bruton error” in Hopper.
The dissent, we believe, likewise misreads Harrington v. Califonia, supra, and Brown v. United States, supra, as our discussion of those cases in n. 5, supra, reveals.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 SCALIAdelivered the opinion of the Court.
The Truth in Lending Act gives borrowers the right to rescind certain loans for up to three years after the transaction is consummated. The question presented is whether a borrower exercises this right by providing written notice to his lender, or whether he must also file a lawsuit before the 3-year period elapses.
On February 23, 2007, petitioners Larry and Cheryle Jesinoski refinanced the mortgage on their home by borrowing $611,000 from respondent Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Exactly three years later, on February 23, 2010, the Jesinoskis mailed respondents a letter purporting to rescind the loan. Respondent Bank of America Home Loans replied on March 12, 2010, refusing to acknowledge the validity of the rescission. On February 24, 2011, the Jesinoskis filed suit in Federal District Court seeking a declaration of rescission and damages.
Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the District Court granted. The court concluded that the Act requires a borrower seeking rescission to file a lawsuit within three years of the transaction's consummation. Although the Jesinoskis notified respondents of their intention to rescind within that time, they did not file their first complaint until four years and one day after the loan's consummation. 2012 WL 1365751, *3 (D.Minn., Apr. 19, 2012). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. 729 F.3d 1092, 1093 (2013)(per curiam).
Congress passed the Truth in Lending Act, 82 Stat. 146, as amended, to help consumers "avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing." 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a). To this end, the Act grants borrowers the right to rescind a loan "until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the [disclosures required by the Act], whichever is later, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the [Federal Reserve] Board, of his intention to do so." § 1635(a) (2006 ed.).This regime grants borrowers an unconditional right to rescind for three days, after which they may rescind only if the lender failed to satisfy the Act's disclosure requirements. But this conditional right to rescind does not last forever. Even if a lender nevermakes the required disclosures, the "right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever comes first." § 1635(f). The Eighth Circuit's affirmance in the present case rested upon its holding in Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc.,720 F.3d 721, 727-728 (2013)that, unless a borrower has filed a suit for rescission within three years of the transaction's consummation, § 1635(f)extinguishes the right to rescind and bars relief.
That was error. Section 1635(a)explains in unequivocal terms how the right to rescind is to be exercised: It provides that a borrower "shall have the right to rescind ... by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so" (emphasis added). The language leaves no doubt that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind. It follows that, so long as the borrower notifies within three years after the transaction is consummated, his rescission is timely. The statute does not also require him to sue within three years.
Nothing in § 1635(f)changes this conclusion. Although § 1635(f)tells us whenthe right to rescind must be exercised, it says nothing about howthat right is exercised. Our observation in Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank,523 U.S. 410, 417, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998), that § 1635(f)"govern[s] the life of the underlying right" is beside the point. That case concerned a borrower's attempt to rescind in the course of a foreclosure proceeding initiated six years after the loan's consummation. We concluded only that there was "no federal right to rescind, defensively or otherwise, after the 3-year period of § 1635(f)has run," id.,at 419, 118 S.Ct. 1408, not that there was no rescission until a suit is filed.
Respondents do not dispute that § 1635(a)requires only written notice of rescission. Indeed, they concede that written notice suffices to rescind a loan within the first three days after the transaction is consummated. They further concede that written notice suffices after that period if the parties agree that the lender failed to make the required disclosures. Respondents argue, however, that if the parties dispute the adequacy of the disclosures-and thus the continued availability of the right to rescind-then written notice does notsuffice.
Section 1635(a)nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter. In an effort to sidestep this problem, respondents point to a neighboring provision, § 1635(g), which they believe provides support for their interpretation of the Act. Section 1635(g)states merely that, "[i]n any action in which it is determined that a creditor has violated this section, in addition to rescission the court may award relief under section 1640 of this title for violations of this subchapter not relating to the right to rescind." Respondents argue that the phrase "award relief" "in addition to rescission" confirms that rescission is a consequence of judicial action. But the fact that it can be a consequence of judicial action when § 1635(g)is triggered in no way suggests that it can onlyfollow from such action. The Act contemplates various situations in which the question of a lender's compliance with the Act's disclosure requirements may arise in a lawsuit-for example, a lender's foreclosure action in which the borrower raises inadequate disclosure as an affirmative defense.Section 1635(g)makes clear that a court may not only award rescission and thereby relieve the borrower of his financial obligation to the lender, but may also grant any of the remedies available under § 1640 (including statutory damages). It has no bearing upon whether and how borrower-rescission under § 1635(a)may occur.
Finally, respondents invoke the common law. It is true that rescission traditionally required either that the rescinding party return what he received before a rescission could be effected (rescission at law), or else that a court affirmatively decree rescission (rescission in equity). 2 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 9.3(3), pp. 585-586 (2d ed. 1993). It is also true that the Act disclaims the common-law condition precedent to rescission at law that the borrower tender the proceeds received under the transaction. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b). But the negation of rescission-at-law's tender requirement hardly implies that the Act codifies rescission in equity. Nothing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a congressional Act must be construed as implementing its closest common-law analogue. Cf. Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino,501 U.S. 104, 108-109, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991). The clear import of § 1635(a)is that a borrower need only provide written notice to a lender in order to exercise his right to rescind. To the extent § 1635(b)alters the traditional process for unwinding such a unilaterally rescinded transaction, this is simply a case in which statutory law modifies common-law practice.
* * *
The Jesinoskis mailed respondents written notice of their intention to rescind within three years of their loan's consummation. Because this is all that a borrower must do in order to exercise his right to rescind under the Act, the court below erred in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Eighth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Following the events in this case, Congress transferred the authority to promulgate rules implementing the Act to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, §§ 1061(b)(1), 1100A(2), 1100H, 124 Stat. 2036, 2107, 2113.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burger
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice Powell, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and Mr. Justice Stevens joined.
The question presented by this appeal is whether a Tennessee statute barring “Minister[s] of the Gospel, or priest[s] of any denomination whatever” from serving as delegates to- the State's limited’ constitutional convention deprived appellant McDaniel, an ordained minister, of the right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The First Amendment forbids all laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. .v
I
In its first Constitution, in 1796, Tennessee disqualified ministers from serving as legislators. That disqualifying provision has continued unchanged since its adoption; it is now Art. 9, § 1, of the State Constitution. The state legislature applied this provision to candidates for delegate to the State’s 1977 limited constitutional convention when it enacted ch. 848, § 4, of 1976 Tenn. Pub. Acts: “Any citizen of the state who can qualify for membership in the House of Representatives of the General Assembly may become a candidate for delegate to the convention . . . .”
McDaniel, an ordained minister of a Baptist Church in Chattanooga, Tenn., filed as a candidate for delegate to the constitutional convention. An opposing candidate, appellee Selma Cash Paty, sued in the Chancery Court for a declaratory judgment that McDaniel was disqualified from serving as a delegate and for a judgment striking his name from the ballot. Chancellor Franks of the Chancery Court held that § 4 of ch. 848 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution and declared McDaniel eligible for the office of delegate. Accordingly, McDaniel’s name remained on the ballot and in the ensuing election he was elected by a vote almost equal to that of three opposing candidates.
After the election, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court, holding that the disqualification of clergy imposed no burden upon “religious belief” and restricted “religious action . . . [only] in the lawmaking process of government — where religious action is absolutely prohibited by the establishment clause . . . .” 547 S. W. 2d 897, 903 (1977). The state interests in preventing the establishment of religion and in avoiding the divisiveness and tendency to channel political activity along religious lines, resulting from clergy participation in political affairs, were deemed by that court sufficiently weighty to justify the disqualification, notwithstanding the guarantee of the Free Exercise Clause.
We noted probable jurisdiction. 432 U. S. 905 (1977).
II
A
The disqualification of ministers from legislative office was a practice carried from England by seven of the original States; later six new States similarly excluded clergymen from some political offices. 1 A. Stokes, Church and State in the United States 622 (1950) (hereafter Stokes). In England the practice of excluding clergy from the House of Commons was justified on a variety of grounds: to prevent dual officeholding, that is, membership by a minister in both Parliament and Convocation ; to insure that the priest or deacon devoted himself to his “sacred calling” rather than to “such mundane activities as were appropriate to a member of the House of Commons”; and to prevent ministers, who after 1533 were subject to the Crown’s powers over the benefices of the clergy, from using membership in Commons to diminish its independence by increasing the influence of the King and the nobility. In re MacManaway, [1951] A. C. 161,164,170-171.
The purpose of the several States in providing for disqualification was primarily to assure the success of a new political experiment, the separation of church and state. Stokes 622. Prior to 1776, most of the 13 Colonies had. some form of an established, or government-sponsored, church. Id., at 364 — 446. Even after ratification of the First Amendment, which prohibited the Federal Government from following such a course, some States continued pro-establishment provisions. See id., at 408, 418-427, 444. Massachusetts, the last State to accept disestablishment, did so in 1833. Id., at 426-427.
In light of this history and a widespread awareness during that period of undue and often dominant clerical influence in public and political affairs here, in England, and on the Continent, it is not surprising that strong views were held by some that one way to assure disestablishment was to keep clergymen out of public office. Indeed, some of the foremost political philosophers and statesmen of that period held such views regarding the clergy. Earlier, John Locke argued for confining the authority of the English clergy “within the bounds of the church, nor can it in any manner be extended to civil affairs; because the church itself is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth.” 5 Works of John Locke 21 (C. Baldwin ed. 1824). Thomas Jefferson initially advocated such a position in his 1783 draft of a constitution for Virginia. James Madison, however, disagreed and vigorously urged the position which in our view accurately reflects the spirit and purpose of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Madison’s response to Jefferson’s position was:
“Does not The exclusion of Ministers of the Gospel as such violate a fundamental principle of liberty by punishing a religious profession with the privation of a civil right? does it [not] violate another article of the plan itself which exempts religion from the cognizance of Civil power? does it not violate justice by at once taking away a right and prohibiting a compensation for it? does it not in fine violate impartiality by shutting the door [against] the Ministers of one Religion and leaving it open for those of every other.” 5 Writings of James Madison 288 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
Madison was not the only articulate opponent of clergy disqualification. When proposals were made earlier to prevent clergymen from holding public office, John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister, president of Princeton University, and the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence, made a cogent protest and, with tongue in cheek, offered an amendment to a provision much like that challenged here:
“ ‘No clergyman, of any denomination, shall be capable of being elected a member of the Senate or House of Representatives, because (here insert the grounds of offensive disqualification, which I have not been able to discover) Provided always, and it is the true intent and meaning of this part of the constitution, that if at any time he shall be completely deprived of the clerical character by those by whom he was invested with it, as by deposition for cursing and swearing, drunkenness or uncleanness, he shall then be fully restored to all the privileges of a free citizen; his offense [of being a clergyman] shall no more be remembered against him; but he may be chosen either to the Senate or House of Representatives, and shall be treated with all the respect due to his brethren, the other members of Assembly.’ ” Stokes 624-625.
As the value of the disestablishment experiment was perceived, 11 of the 13 States disqualifying the clergy from some types of public office gradually abandoned that limitation. New York, for example, took that step in 1846 after delegates to the State’s constitutional convention argued that the exclusion of clergymen from the legislature was an “odious distinction.” 2 C. Lincoln, The Constitutional History of New York 111-112 (1906). Only Maryland and Tennessee continued their clergy-disqualification provisions into this century and, in 1974, a District Court held Maryland’s provision violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantees of the free exercise of religion. Kirkley v. Maryland, 381 F. Supp. 327. Today Tennessee remains the only State excluding ministers from certain public offices.
The essence of this aspect of our national history is that in all but a few States the selection or rejection of clergymen for public office soon came to be viewed as something safely left to the good sense and desires of the people.
B
This brief review of the history of clergy-disqualification provisions also amply demonstrates, however, that, at least during the early segment of our national life, those provisions enjoyed the support of responsible American statesmen and were accepted as having a rational basis. Against this background we do not lightly invalidate a statute enacted pursuant to a provision of a state constitution which has been sustained by its highest court. The challenged provision came to the Tennessee Supreme Court clothed with the presumption of validity to which that court was bound to give deference.
However, the right to the free exercise of religion unquestionably encompasses the right to preach, proselyte, and perform other similar religious functions, or, in other words, to be a minister of the type McDaniel was found to be. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940). Tennessee also acknowledges the right of its adult citizens generally to seek and hold office as legislators or delegates to the state constitutional convention. Tenn. Const., Art. 2, §§ 9, 25, 26; Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 8-1801, 8-1803 (Supp. 1977). Yet under the clergy-disqualification provision, McDaniel cannot exercise both rights simultaneously because the State has conditioned the exercise of one on the surrender of the other. Or, in James Madison’s words, the State is “punishing a religious profession with the privation of a civil right.” 5 Writings of James Madison, supra, at 288. In so doing, Tennessee has encroached upon McDaniel’s right to the free exercise of religion. “[T]o condition the availability of benefits [including access to the ballot] upon this appellant’s willingness to violate a cardinal principle of [his] religious faith [by surrendering his religiously impelled ministry] effectively penalizes the free exercise of [his] constitutional liberties.” Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 406 (1963).
If the Tennessee disqualification provision were viewed as depriving the clergy of a civil right solely because of their religious beliefs, our inquiry would be at an end. The Free Exercise Clause categorically prohibits government from regulating, prohibiting, or rewarding religious beliefs as such. Id., at 402; Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, at 304. In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488 (1961), the Court reviewed the Maryland constitutional requirement that all holders of “any office of profit or trust in this State” declare their belief in the existence of God. In striking down the Maryland requirement, the Court did not evaluate the interests assertedly justifying it but rather held that it violated freedom of religious belief.
In our view, however, Torcaso does not govern. By its terms, the Tennessee disqualification operates against McDaniel because of his status as a “minister” or “priest.” The meaning of those words is, of course, a question of state law. And although the question has not been examined extensively in state-law sources, such authority as is available indicates that' ministerial status is defined in terms of conduct and activity rather than in terms of belief. Because the Tennessee disqualification is directed primarily at status, acts, and conduct it is unlike the requirement in Torcaso, which focused on belief. Hence, the Free Exercise Clause’s absolute prohibition of infringements on the “freedom to believe” is inapposite here.
This does not mean, of course, that the disqualification escapes judicial scrutiny or that McDaniel’s activity does not enjoy significant First Amendment protection. The Court recently declared in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 215 (1972):
“The essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.”
Tennessee asserts that its interest in preventing the establishment of a state religion is consistent with the Establishment Clause and thus of the highest order. The constitutional history of the several States reveals that generally the interest in preventing establishment prompted the adoption of clergy disqualification provisions, see Stokes 622; Tennessee does not appear to be an exception to this pattern. Cf. post, at 636 n. 9 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). There is no occasion to inquire whether promoting such an interest is a permissible legislative goal, however, see post, at 636-642, for Tennessee has failed to demonstrate that its views of the dangers of clergy participation in the political process have not lost whatever validity they may once have enjoyed. The essence of the rationale underlying the Tennessee restriction on ministers is that if elected to public office they will necessarily exercise their powers and influence to promote the interests of one sect or thwart the interests of another, thus pitting one against the others, contrary to the anti-establishment principle with its command of neutrality. See Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U. S. 664 (1970). However widely that view may have been held in the 18th century by many, including enlightened statesmen of that day, the American experience provides no persuasive support for the fear that clergymen in public offlce will be less careful of anti-establishment interests or less faithful to their oaths of civil office than their unordained counterparts.
We hold that § 4 of ch. 848 violates McDaniel’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
“Whereas Ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of Souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no Minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.” Tenn. Const., Art. VIII, § 1 (1796).
The judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court was stayed until final disposition of this appeal. McDaniel is currently serving as a delegate.
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New York, and Delaware. L. Pfeifer, Church, State, and Freedom 118 (Rev. ed. 1967). Three of these — New York, Delaware, and South Carolina— barred clergymen from holding any political office. Ibid.
6 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 297 (J. Boyd ed. 1962). Jefferson later concluded that experience demonstrated there was no need to exclude clergy from elected office. In a letter to Jeremiah Moor in 1800, he stated: “[I]n the same scheme of a constitution [for Virginia which I prepared in 1783, I observe] an abridgment of the right of being elected, which after 17 years more of experience & reflection, I do not approve. It is the incapacitation of a clergyman from being elected. The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, & ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. They are still so in many countries & even in some of these United States. Even in 1783 we doubted the stability of our recent measures for reducing them to the footing of other useful callings. It now appears that our means were effectual. The clergy here seem to have relinquished all pretensions to privilege, and to stand on a footing with lawyers, physicians, &c. They ought therefore to possess the same rights.” 9 Works of Jefferson 143 (P. Ford ed. 1905).
In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that the disqualification of McDaniel did not interfere with his religious belief. 547 S. W. 2d 897, 903, 904, 907 (1977). But whether the ministerial status, as defined by state law, implicates the “freedom to act” or the absolute “freedom to believe,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 304 (1940), must be resolved under the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, although we consider the Tennessee court’s resolution of that issue, we are not bound by it.
The Tennessee constitutional provision embodying the disqualification inferentially defines the ministerial profession in terms of its “duties,” which include the “care of souls.” Tenn. Const., Art. 9, § 1. In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that the disqualification reaches those filling a “leadership role in religion,” and those “dedicated to the full time promotion of the religious objectives of a particular religious sect.” 547 S. W. 2d, at 903 (emphasis added). The Tennessee court, in defining “priest,” also referred to the dictionary definition as “one who performs sacrificial, ritualistic, mediatorial, interpretative, or ministerial functions . . . .” Id., at 908 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1799-1800 (1971)) (emphasis added).
The absolute protection afforded belief by the First Amendment suggests that a court should be cautious in expanding the scope of that protection since to do so might leave government powerless to vindicate compelling state interests.
Thus, the courts have sustained government prohibitions on handling venomous snakes or drinking poison, even as part of a religious ceremony, State ex rel. Swann v. Pack, 527 S. W. 2d 99 (Tenn. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 954 (1976); State v. Massey, 229 N. C. 734, 51 S. E. 2d 179, appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question sub nom. Bunn v. North Carolina, 336 U. S. 942 (1949), but have precluded the application of criminal sanctions to the religious use of peyote, People v. Woody, 61 Cal. 2d 716, 394 P. 2d 813 (1964); cf. Oliver v. Udall, 113 U. S. App. D. C. 212, 306 F. 2d 819 (1962) (not reaching constitutional issue), or the religiously impelled refusal to comply with mandatory education laws past the eighth grade, Wisconsin v. Yoder.
We need not pass on the conclusions reached in Pack and Woody, which were not reviewed by this Court. Those cases are illustrative of the general nature of free exercise protections and the delicate balancing required by our decisions in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, when an important state interest is shown.
The struggle for separation of church and state in Virginia, which influenced developments in other States — and in the Federal Government— was waged by others in addition to such secular leaders as Jefferson, Madison, and George Mason; many clergymen vigorously opposed any established church. See Stokes 366-379. This suggests the imprecision of any assumption that, even in the early days of the Republic, most ministers, as legislators, would support measures antithetical to the separation of church and 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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
To relieve against what was apparently thought to be the harshness of dismissal, under the doctrine of jorum non conveniens, of an action brought in an inconvenient one of two or more legally available forums, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501, and concerned by the reach of Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U. S. 44, Congress, in 1948, enacted 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a), which provides:
Ҥ 1404. Change of venue.
“(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
The instant cases present the question whether a District Court, in which a civil action has been properly brought, is empowered by § 1404 (a) to transfer the action, on the motion of the defendant, to a district in which the plaintiff did not have a right to bring it.
No. 25, Blaski. — Respondents, Blaski and others, residents of Illinois, brought this patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against one Howell and a Texas corporation controlled by him, alleging that the defendants are residents of, and maintain their only place of business in, the City of Dallas, in the Northern District of Texas, where they are infringing respondents’ patents. After being served with process and filing their answer, the defendants moved, under § 1404 (a), to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District' of Illinois. Respondents objected to the transfer on the ground that, inasmuch as the defendants did not reside, maintain a place of business, or infringe the patents in, and could not have been served with process in, the Illinois district, the courts of that district lacked venue over the action and ability to command jurisdiction over the defendants; that therefore that district was not a forum in which the respondents had a right to bring the action, and, hence, the court was without power to transfer it to that district. Without mentioning that objection or the question it raised, the District Court found that “the motion should be granted for the convenience of the parties and witnesses in the interest of justice,” and ordered the case transferred to the Illinois district. Thereupon, respondents moved in the Fifth Circuit for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the vacation of that order. That court, holding that “[t]he purposes for which § 1404 (a) was enacted would be unduly circumscribed if a transfer could not be made ‘in the interest of justice’ to a district where the defendants not only waive venue but to which they seek the transfer,” denied the motion. Ex parte Blaski, 245 F. 2d 737, 738.
Upon receipt of a certified copy of the pleadings and record, the Illinois District Court assigned the action to Judge Hoffman’s calendar. Respondents promptly moved for an order remanding the action on the ground that the Texas District Court did not have power to make the transfer order and, hence, the Illinois District Court was not thereby vested with jurisdiction of the action. After expressing his view that the “weight of reason and logic” favored “retransfer of this case to Texas,” Judge Hoffman, with misgivings, denied the motion. Respondents then filed in the Seventh Circuit a petition for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Hoffman to reverse his order. After hearing and rehearing, the Seventh Circuit, holding that “[w]hen Congress provided [in § 1404 (a)] for transfer [of a civil action] to a district 'where it might have been brought,’ it is hardly open to doubt but that it referred to a district where the plaintiff . . . had a right to bring the case,” and that respondents did not have a right to bring this action in the Illinois district, granted the writ, one judge dissenting. 260 F. 2d 317.
No. 26, Behimer. — Diversity of citizenship then existing, respondents, Behimer and Roberts, residents of Illinois and New York, respectively, brought this stockholders’ derivative action, as minority stockholders of Utah Oil Refining Corporation, a Utah corporation, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Standard Oil Company and Standard Oil Foundation, Inc., Indiana corporations but licensed to do and doing business in the Northern District of Illinois, for damages claimed to have been sustained through the alleged illegal acquisition by defendants of the assets of the Utah corporation at an inadequate price.
After being served with process and filing their answer, the defendants moved, under § 1404 (a), to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Respondents objected to the transfer on the ground that, inasmuch as the defendants were not incorporated in or licensed to do or doing business in, and could not be served with process in. the district of Utah, the courts of that district lacked venue over the action and ability to command jurisdiction over the defendants; that therefore that district was not a forum in which the respondents had a right to bring the action, and, hence, the court was without power to transfer it to that district. Without mentioning the question raised by that objection, the court found that the proposed transfer would be “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice,” and ordered the case transferred to the district of Utah.
Respondents then filed in the Seventh Circuit a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to reverse its order. After hearing, the Seventh Circuit, following its decision in Blaski v. Hoffman, supra, granted the writ. 261 F. 2d 467.
To settle the conflict that has arisen among the circuits respecting the proper interpretation and application of § 1404 (a), we granted certiorari. 359 U. S. 904; 361 U. S. 809.
Without sacrifice or slight of any tenable position, the parties have in this Court commendably narrowed their contentions to the. scope of the only relevant inquiry. The points of contention may be sharpened by first observing what is not in contest. Discretion of the district judges concerned is not involved. Propriety of the remedy of mandamus is not assailed. No claim is made here that the order of the Fifth Circuit denying the motion of respondents in the Blaski case for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus, 245 F. 2d 737, precluded Judge Hoffman or the Seventh Circuit from remanding that case. Petitioners concede that these actions were properly brought in the respective transferor forums; that statutory venue did not exist over either of these actions in the respective transferee districts, and that the respective defendants were not within the reach of the process of the respective transferee courts. They concede, too, that § 1404 (a), being “not unlimited,” “may be utilized only to direct an action to any other district or division 'where it might have been brought,’ ” and that, like the superseded doctrine of jorum non conveniens, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501, 507, the statute requires “an alternative forum in which plaintiff might proceed.”
Petitioners’ “thesis” and sole claim is that § 1404 (a), being remedial, Ex parte Collett, 337 U. S. 55, 71, should be broadly construed, and, when so construed, the phrase “where it might have been brought” should be held to relate not only to the time of the bringing of the action, but also to the time of the transfer; and that “if at such time the transferee forum has the power to adjudicate the issues of the action, it is a forum in which the action might then have been brought.” (Emphasis added.) They argue that in the interim between the bringing of the action and the filing of a motion to transfer it, the defendants may move their residence to, or, if corporations, may begin the transaction of business in, some other district, and, if such is done, the phrase “where it might have been brought” should be construed to empower the District Court to transfer the action, on motion of the defendants, to such other district; and that, similarly, if, as here, the defendants move to transfer the action to some other district and consent to submit, to the jurisdiction of such other district, the latter district should be held one “in which the action might then have been brought.” (Emphasis added.)
We do not agree. We do not think the § 1404 (a) phrase “where it might have been brought” can be interpreted to mean, as petitioners’ theory would require, “where it may now be rebrought, with defendants’ consent.” This Court has said, in a different context, that § 1404 (a) is “unambiguous, direct [and] clear,” Ex parte Collett, 337 U. S., at 58, and that “the unequivocal words of § 1404 (a) and the legislative history . . . [establish] that Congress indeed meant what it said.” United States v. National City Lines, Inc., 337 U. S. 78, 84. Like the Seventh Circuit, 260 F. 2d, at 322, we think the dissenting opinion of Judges Hastie and McLaughlin in Paramount Pictures, Inc., v. Rodney, 186 F. 2d 111 (C. A. 3d Cir.), correctly answered this contention:
“But we do not see how the conduct of a defendant after suit has been instituted can add to the forums where 'it might have been brought.’ In the normal meaning of words this language of Section 1404 (a) directs the attention of the judge who is considering a transfer to the situation which existed when suit was instituted.”
It is not to be doubted that the transferee courts, like every District Court, had jurisdiction to entertain actions of the character involved, but it is obvious that they did not acquire jurisdiction over these particular actions when they were brought in the transferor courts. The transferee courts could have acquired jurisdiction over these actions only if properly brought in those courts, or if validly transferred thereto under § 1404 (a). Of course, venue, like jurisdiction over the person, may be waived. A defendant, properly served with process by a court having subject matter jurisdiction, waives venue by failing seasonably to assert it, or even simply by making default. Commercial Ins. Co. v. Stone Co., 278 U. S. 177, 179—180; Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Ltd., 308 U. S. 165. But the power of a District Court under § 1404 (a) to transfer an action to another district is made to depend not upon the wish or waiver of the defendant but, rather, upon whether the transferee district was one in which the action “might have been brought” by the plaintiff.
The thesis urged by petitioners would not only do violence to the plain words of § 1404 (a), but would also inject gross discrimination. That thesis, if adopted, would empower a District Court, upon a finding of convenience, to transfer an action to any district desired by the defendants and in which they were willing to waive their statutory defenses as to venue and jurisdiction over their persons, regardless of the fact that such transferee district was not one in which the action “might have been brought” by the plaintiff. Conversely, that thesis would not permit the court, upon motion of the plaintiffs and a like showing of convenience, to transfer the action to the same district, without the consent and waiver of venue and personal jurisdiction defenses by the defendants. Nothing in § 1404 (a), or in its legislative history, suggests such a unilateral objective and we should not, under the guise of interpretation, ascribe to Congress any such discriminatory purpose.
We agree with the Seventh Circuit that:
“If when a suit is commenced, plaintiff has a right to sue in that district, independently of the wishes of defendant, it is a district 'where [the action] might have been brought.’ If he does not have that right, independently of the wishes of defendant, it is not a district 'where it might have been brought,’ and it is immaterial that the defendant subsequently [makes himself subject, by consent, waiver of venue and personal jurisdiction defenses or otherwise, to the jurisdiction of some other forum].” 260 F. 2d, at 321 and 261 E. 2d, at 469.
Inasmuch as the respondents (plaintiffs) did not have a right to bring these actions in the respective transferee districts, it follows that the judgments of the Court of Appeals were correct and must be
, , Affirmed.
See the Reviser’s Notes following 28 U. S. C. § 1404.
The asserted basis of the motion was that trial of the action in the Illinois District Court would be more convenient to the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice because several actions involving the validity of these patents were then pending in that court, and that pretrial and discovery steps taken in those actions had developed a substantial amount of evidence that would be relevant and useful in this action.
Defendants also stated in the motion that, if and when the case be so transferred, they would waive all objections to the venue of the Illinois District Court over the action and would enter their appearance in the action in that court.
See 28 U. S. C. § 1400 (b), quoted in note 10, infra.
See Rule 4 (f) of the Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., quoted in note 11, infra.
The motion asserted, and the court found, that trial of the action in the district of Utah would be more convenient to the parties and witnesses for the reason's, among others, that all of the officers and directors, and a majority of the minority stockholders, of the Utah corporation reside in that district; that the books and records of the corporation are located in that district; that the substantive law of Utah governs the action, and that the calendar of the Utah court was less congested than the Illinois one.
As part of their motion, defendants stated that, in the event of the transfer of the action as requested, they would waive all objections to the venue of the Utah court and enter appearances in the action in that court.
See 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (c), quoted in note 10, infra.
See Rule 4 (f) of the Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., quoted in note 11, infra.
The decisions of the circuits are in great conflict and confusion. The Second Circuit has held one way on a plaintiff’s motion and the other on a defendant’s motion. Compare Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 181 F. 2d 949, 952-953, with Anthony v. Kaufman, 193 F. 2d 85, and Torres v. Walsh, 221 F. 2d 319. The Fifth Circuit, too, has held both ways. Compare Blackmar v. Guerre, 190 F. 2d 427, 429, with Ex parte Blaski, 245 F. 2d 737. The Ninth Circuit has held a District Court to be without power to transfer an action, on plaintiff’s motion, to a district in which plaintiff did not have a legal right to bring it originally. Shapiro v. Bonanza Hotel Co., 185 F. 2d 777, 780. The Third Circuit has held, two of the five judges dissenting, that a District Court has power to transfer an action, on defendant’s motion, to a district in which the plaintiff did not have a legal right to bring it. Paramount Pictures, Inc., v. Rodney, 186 F. 2d 111. The First Circuit has upheld transfer, on defendant’s motion, to a district in which venue existed but where process could not be served on defendants (but defendants had been served in the transferor district). In re Josephson, 218 F. 2d 174.
That order did not purport to determine the jurisdiction of the transferee court and therefore did not preclude Judge Hoffman of power to determine his own jurisdiction, nor did it preclude the power of the Seventh Circuit to review his action. Fettig Canning Co. v. Steckler, 188 F. 2d 715 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Wilson v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 101 F. Supp. 56 (D. C. W. D. Mo.); United States v. Reid, 104 F. Supp. 260, 266 (D. C. E. D. Ark.). Several reasons why principles of res judicata do not apply may be stated in a few sentences. The orders of the Texas and Illinois District Courts on the respective motions to transfer and to remand, like the orders of the Fifth and Seventh Circuits on the respective petitions for mandamus, were (1) interlocutory, (2) not upon the merits, and (3) were entered in the same case by courts of coordinate jurisdiction. Here the sole basis of the right of the Fifth Circuit to entertain the petition for a writ of mandamus was to protect its appellate jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a); Magnetic Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co., 178 F. 2d 866, 869-870 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 181 F. 2d 949, 951 (C. A. 2d Cir.); In re Josephson, 218 F. 2d 174, 177 (C. A. 1st Cir.); Torres v. Walsh, 221 F. 2d 319, 321 (C. A. 2d Cir.) and, by denying leave to file the petition, it forsook such right, but it did not thereby determine that the Illinois District Court had jurisdiction of the action. The question of that court’s jurisdiction still remained subject to attack as of right on appeal to the Seventh Circuit from any final judgment in the action. When, therefore, jurisdiction of the District Court was assailed in the Seventh Circuit, by the petition for mandamus, that court surely had power to determine whether it would hold, on such an appeal, that the Illinois District Court did or did not have jurisdiction of the action and, if not, to say so and thus avoid the delays and expense of a futile trial.
Venue over patent infringement actions is prescribed by 28 U. S. C. § 1400 (b), which provides:
“(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”
See Stonite Prod. Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U. S. 561; Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222.
General venue over actions against corporations is prescribed by 28 U. S. C. § 1391 (c), which provides:
“(c) A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes.”
General provisions respecting service of the process of federal courts are prescribed by Rule 4 (f) of the Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., which provides:
“(f) Territorial limits of effective service.
“All process other than a subpoena may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state in which the district court is held and, when a statute of the United States so provides, beyond the territorial limits of that state. A subpoena may be served within the territorial limits provided in Rule 45.”
A similar view was expressed in Paramount Pictures, Inc., v. Rodney, 186 F. 2d 111 (C. A. 3d Cir.). The court there thought that the § 1404 (a) phrase “might have been brought” means “could now be brought.” Id., at 114.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The questions in these two income tax cases are so much alike that they can be treated in one opinion. Both taxpayers had moneys embezzled by trusted agents and employees. As' usual, the defalcations had been going on for many years before they were discovered. On discovery, efforts were made immediately to identify the takers and fix the dates and amounts of the thefts. In the Alison case, No. 79, the books revealed the thief and the precise amounts taken each year from 1931 to 1940. In No. 80, Stevenson-Chislett, Inc., the cover-up had been so successful that painstaking investigation failed to reveal who took the funds or the time when the un-ascertained person or persons took them. Each taxpayer claimed a tax deduction for the year the losses were discovered and their amounts ascertained. The Government objected, claiming that the deduction should have been taken in each of the prior years during which the moneys were being surreptitiously taken. In the Stevenson-Chislett case, the District Court held that the uncertain circumstances of the embezzlement entitled the taxpayer to take its losses the year the loss was discovered and the amount ascertained. 98 F. Supp. 252. The District Judge decided the other way in the Alison case and denied her declarations. 97 F. Supp. 959. His holding, however, was not in accord with his own views, but was compelled, he thought, by the Third Circuit’s decision in First National Bank of Sharon, Pa. v. Heiner, 66 F. 2d 925. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified to us the question of deductibility in both cases. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (3), we ordered the complete records sent up so that we might decide the entire matters in controversy.
Internal Revenue Code, §§23 (e) and (f) authorize deductions for “. . . losses sustained during the taxable year. . . .” The Government reads this section as requiring a taxpayer to take a deduction for loss from embezzlement in the year in which the theft occurs, even though inability to discover in time might completely deprive the taxpayer of the benefit of this statutory deduction. Only at the time the money is stolen, so it is argued, is a loss “sustained.” But Treasury practice itself belies this rigid construction. For more than thirty years the Regulations have provided that “A loss from theft or embezzlement occurring in one year and discovered in another is ordinarily deductible for the year in which sustained.” 26 CFR § 29.43-2. (Emphasis supplied.) Information contained in a letter from the Commissioner attached as an appendix to the Government’s brief cites many instances in which the Treasury has allowed deductions for embezzlement losses in years subsequent to those in which the thefts occurred. Apparently the Department has felt constrained to do this in order to prevent hardships and injustice. These have been departures from the “ordinary” rule of attributing embezzlement losses to the year of theft.
This Treasury practice evidently stems at least in part from the special nature of the crime of embezzlement. Its essence is secrecy. Taxpayers are usually well aware of all the circumstances of financial losses for which tax deductions are allowed. Not so when a trusted adviser or employee steals. For years his crime may be known only to himself. He may take money planning to return it and he may return it before there is discovery. Furthermore, the terms embezzlement and loss are not synonymous. The theft occurs, but whether there is a loss may remain uncertain. One whose funds have been embezzled may pursue the wrongdoer and recover his property wholly or in part. See Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U. S. 404. Events in the Alison case show the practical value of this right of recovery. A substantial proportion of the embezzled funds was recovered in 1941, ten years after the first embezzlement occurred. This recovery alone is ample refutation of the view that a loss is inevitably “sustained” at the very time an embezzlement is committed.
Whether and when a deductible loss results from an embezzlement is a factual question, a practical one to be decided according to surrounding circumstances. See Boehm v. Commissioner, 326 U. S. 287. An inflexible rule is not needed; the statute does not compel it. For years the Treasury has administered the tax law under regulations saying that deductions shall “ordinarily” be taken in the year of embezzlement. Ordinarily does not mean always.
We hold that the special factual circumstances found by the District Courts in both these cases justify deductions under I. R. C., §§23 (e) and (f) and the long-standing Treasury Regulations applicable to embezzlement losses. See Boston Consolidated Gas Co. v. Commissioner, 128 F. 2d 473; Gwinn Bros. & Co. v. Commissioner, 7 T. C. 320. Accordingly, the judgment in No. 79 is reversed and the judgment in No. 80 is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Burton 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:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we are asked to reconsider prior decisions holding that the privilege against self-incrimination is not safeguarded against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46.
The petitioner was arrested during a gambling raid in 1959 by Hartford, Connecticut, police. He pleaded guilty to the crime of pool selling, a misdemeanor, and was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $500. The sentence was ordered to be suspended after 90 days, at which time he was to be placed on probation for two years. About 16 months after his guilty plea, petitioner was ordered to testify before a referee appointed by the Superior Court of Hartford County to conduct an inquiry into alleged gambling and other criminal activities in the county. The petitioner was asked a number of questions related to events surrounding his arrest and conviction. He refused to answer any question “on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.” The Superior Court adjudged him in contempt, and committed him to prison until he was willing to answer the questions. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the Superior Court, and the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed. 150 Conn. 220, 187 A. 2d 744. The latter court held that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination was not available to a witness in a state proceeding, that the Fourteenth Amendment extended no privilege to him, and that the petitioner had not properly invoked the privilege available under the Connecticut Constitution. We granted certiorari. 373 U. S. 948. We reverse. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed the petitioner the protection of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, and that under the applicable federal standard, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors erred in holding that the privilege was not properly invoked.
The extent to which the Fourteenth Amendment prevents state invasion of rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments has been considered in numerous cases in this Court since the Amendment’s adoption in 1868. Although many Justices have deemed the Amendment to incorporate all eight of the Amendments, the view which has thus far prevailed dates from the decision in 1897 in Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, which held that the Due Process Clause requires the States to pay just compensation for private property taken for public use. It was on the authority of that decision that the Court said in 1908 in Twining v. New Jersey, supra, that “it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law.” 211 U. S., at 99.
The Court has not hesitated to re-examine past decisions according the Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme. Thus, although the Court as late as 1922 said that “neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the States any restrictions about ‘freedom of speech’ . . . ,” Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 543, three years later Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, initiated a series of decisions which today hold immune from state invasion every First Amendment protection for the cherished rights of mind and spirit — the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances.
Similarly, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, decided in 1937, suggested that the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment were not protected against state action, citing, 302 U. S., at 324, the statement of the Court .in 1914 in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 398, that “the Fourth Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of [state] officials.” In 1961, however, the Court held that in the light of later decisions, it was taken as settled that . . the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth . . . Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655. Again, although the Court held in 1942 that in a state prosecution for a noncapital offense, “appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right,” Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, 471; cf. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, only last Term this decision was re-examined and it was held that provision of counsel in all criminal cases was “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,” and thus was made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 343-344.
We hold today that the Fifth Amendment’s exception from compulsory self-incrimination is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States. Decisions of the Court since Twining and Adam-son have departed from the contrary view expressed in those cases. We discuss first the decisions which forbid the use of coerced confessions in state criminal prosecutions.
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, was the first case in which the Court held that the Due Process Clause prohibited the States from using the accused’s coerced confessions against him. The Court'in Brown felt impelled, in light of Twining, to say that its conclusion did not involve the privilege against self-incrimination. “Compulsion by torture to extort a confession is a different matter.” 297 U. S., at 285. But this distinction was soon abandoned, and today the admissibility of a confession in a state criminal prosecution is tested by the same standard applied in federal prosecutions since 1897, when, in Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, the Court held that “[i]n criminal trials, in the courts of the United States, wherever a question arises whether a confession is incompetent because not voluntary, the issue is controlled by that portion of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, commanding that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ ” Id., at 542. Under this test, the constitutional inquiry is not whether the conduct of state officers in obtaining the confession was shocking, but whether the confession was “free and voluntary: that is, [it] must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence. . . .” Id., at 542-543; see also Hardy v. United States, 186 U. S. 224, 229; Wan v. United States, 266 U. S. 1, 14; Smith v. United States, 348 U. S. 147, 150. In other words the person must not have been compelled to incriminate himself. We have held inadmissible even a confession secured by so mild a whip as the refusal, under certain circumstances, to allow a suspect to call his wife until he confessed. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503.
The marked shift to the federal standard in state cases began with Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, where the Court spoke of the accused’s “free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.” Id., at 241. See Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143; Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401; Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315; Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U. S. 528; Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503. The shift reflects recognition that the American system of criminal prosecution is accusatorial, not inquisitorial, and that the Fifth Amendment privilege is its essential mainstay. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534, 541. Governments, state and federal, are thus constitutionally compelled to establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured, and may not by coercion prove a charge against an accused out of his own mouth. Since the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States from inducing a person to confess through “sympathy falsely aroused,” Spano v. New York, supra, at 323, or other like inducement far short of “compulsion by torture,” Haynes v. Washington, supra, it follows a fortiori that it also forbids the States to resort to imprisonment, as here, to compel him to answer questions that might incriminate him. The Fourteenth Amendment secures against state invasion the same privilege that the Fifth Amendment guarantees against federal infringement — the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty, as held in Twining, for such silence.
This conclusion is fortified by our recent decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, overruling Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, which had held “that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure,” 338 U. S., at 33. Mapp held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination implemented the Fourth Amendment in such cases, and that the two guarantees of personal security conjoined in the Fourteenth Amendment to make the exclusionary rule obligatory upon the States. We relied upon the great case of Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, decided in 1886, which, considering the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as running “almost into each other,” id., at 630, held that “Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man’s own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation of [those Amendments] . . . At 630. We said in Mapp:
“We find that, as to the Federal Government, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and, as to the States, the freedom from unconscionable invasions of privacy and the freedom from convictions based upon coerced confessions do enjoy an ‘intimate relation’ in their perpetuation of ‘principles of humanity and civil liberty [secured] . . . only after years of struggle,’ Bram v. Utlited States, 168 U. S. 532, 543-544 .... The philosophy of each Amendment and of each freedom is complementary to, although not dependent upon, that of the other in its sphere of influence — the very least that together they assure in either sphere is that no man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence.” 367 U. S., at 656-657.
In thus returning to the Boyd view that the privilege is one of the “principles of a free government,” 116 U. S., at 632, Mapp necessarily repudiated the Twining concept of the privilege as a mere rule of evidence “best defended not as an unchangeable principle of universal justice but as a law proved by experience to be expedient.” 211 U. S., at 113.
The respondent Sheriff concedes in his brief that under our decisions, particularly those involving coerced confessions, “the accusatorial system has become a fundamental part of the fabric of our society and, hence, is enforceable against the States.” The State urges, however, that the availability of the federal privilege to a witness in a state inquiry is to be determined according to a less stringent standard than is applicable in a federal proceeding. We disagree. We have held that the guarantees of the First Amendment, Gitlow v. New York, supra; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296; Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures of the Fourth Amendment, Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, are all to be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment. In the coerced confession cases, involving the policies of the privilege itself, there has been no suggestion that a confession might be considered coerced if used in a federal but not a state tribunal. The Court thus has rejected the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States only a “watered-down, subjective version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights,” Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U. S. 263, 275 (dissenting opinion). If Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117, and Adamson v. California, supra, suggest such an application of the privilege against self-incrimination, that suggestion cannot survive recognition of the degree to which the Twining view of the privilege has been eroded. What is accorded is a privilege of refusing to incriminate one’s self, and the feared prosecution may be by either federal or state authorities. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, post, p. 52. It would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in a state or federal court. Therefore, the same standards must determine whether an accused’s silence in either a federal or state proceeding is justified.
We turn to the petitioner’s claim that the State of Connecticut denied him the protection of his federal privilege. It must be considered irrelevant that the petitioner was a witness in a statutory inquiry and not a defendant in a criminal prosecution, for it has long been settled that the privilege protects witnesses in similar federal inquiries. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34; Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479. We recently elaborated the content of the federal standard in Hoffman:
“The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction . . . but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute [I] f the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard ... he would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee. To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.” 341 U. S., at 486-487.
We also said that, in applying that test, the judge must be
“ ‘perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer [s] cannot possibly have such tendency’ to incriminate.” 341 U. S., at 488.
The State of Connecticut argues that the Connecticut courts properly applied the federal standards to the facts of this case. We disagree.
The investigation in the course of which petitioner was questioned began when the Superior Court in Hartford County appointed the Honorable Ernest A. Inglis, formerly Chief Justice of Connecticut, to conduct an inquiry into whether there was reasonable cause to believe that crimes, including gambling, were being committed in Hartford County. Petitioner appeared on January 16 and 25, 1961, and in both instances he was asked substantially the same questions about the circumstances surrounding his arrest and conviction for pool selling in late 1959. The questions which petitioner refused to answer may be summarized as follows: (1) for whom did he work on September 11, 1959; (2) who selected and paid his counsel in connection with his arrest on that date and subsequent conviction; (3) who selected and paid his bondsman; (4) who paid his fine; (5) what was the name of the tenant of the apartment in which he was arrested; and (6) did he know John Bergoti. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors ruled that the answers to these questions could not tend to incriminate him because the defenses of double jeopardy and the running of the one-year statute of limitations on misdemeanors would defeat any prosecution growing out of his answers to the first five questions. As for the sixth question, the court held that petitioner’s failure to explain how a revelation of his relationship with Bergoti would incriminate' him vitiated his claim to the protection of the privilege afforded by state law.
The conclusions of the Court of Errors, tested by the federal standard, fail to take sufficient account of the setting in which the questions were asked. The interrogation was part of a wide-ranging inquiry into crime, including gambling, in Hartford. It was admitted on behalf of the- State at oral argument — and indeed it is obvious from the questions themselves — that the State desired to elicit from the petitioner the identity of the person who ran the pool-selling operation in connection with which he had been arrested in 1959. It was apparent that petitioner might apprehend that if this person were still engaged in unlawful activity, disclosure of his name might furnish a link in a chain of evidence sufficient to connect the petitioner with a more recent crime for which he might still be prosecuted.
Analysis of the sixth question, concerning whether petitioner knew John Bergoti, yields a similar conclusion. In the context of the inquiry, it should have been apparent to the referee that Bergoti was suspected by the State to be involved in some way in the subject matter of the investigation. An affirmative answer to the question might well have either connected petitioner with a more recent crime, or at least have operated as a waiver of his privilege with. reference to his relationship with a possible criminal. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367. We conclude, therefore, that as to each of the questions, it was “evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it [was] asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it [could not] be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result,” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S., at 486-487; see Singleton v. United States, 343 U. S. 944.
Reversed.
While Mr. Justice Douglas joins the opinion of the Court, he also adheres to his concurrence in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 345.
In both cases the question was whether comment upon the failure of an accused to take the stand in his own defense in a state prosecution violated the privilege. It was assumed, but not decided, in both cases that such comment in a federal prosecution for a federal offense would infringe the provision of the Fifth Amendment that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” For other statements by the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply the federal privilege in state proceedings, see Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117, 127-129; Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 105.
Ten Justices have supported this view. See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 346 (opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas). The Court expressed itself as unpersuaded to this view in In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 448-449; McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 155, 158-159; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 597-598; Twining v. New Jersey, supra, p. 96. See Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131. Decisions that particular guarantees were not safeguarded against state action by the Privileges and Immunities Clause or other provision of the Fourteenth Amendment are: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 551; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 543 (First Amendment) ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (Second Amendment); Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 398 (Fourth Amendment); Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 538 (Fifth Amendment requirement of grand jury indictments); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 328 (Fifth Amendment double jeopardy); Maxwell v. Dow, supra, at 595 (Sixth Amendment jury trial); Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 92 (Seventh Amendment jury trial); In re Kemmler, supra; McElvaine v. Brush, supra; O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, 332 (Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment).
In Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, decided before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Court, held that this right was not secured against state action by the Fifth Amendment’s provision: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
E. g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 666 (speech and press); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 450 (speech and press); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (speech and press); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 321 (speech); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (press); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (religion); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364 (assembly); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 486 (association); Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, 296 (association); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 (association and speech); Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U. S. 1 (association).
See Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27-28; Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 213.
See also Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660, 666, which, despite In re Kemmler, supra; McElvaine v. Brush, supra; O’Neil v. Vermont, supra, made applicable to the States the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments.
Boyd had said of the privilege, “. . . any compulsory discovery by extorting the party’s oath ... to convict him of crime ... is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.” 116 U. S., at 631-632.
Dean Griswold has said: “I believe the Fifth Amendment is, and has been through this period of crisis, an expression of the moral striving of the community. It has been a reflection of our common conscience, a symbol of the America which stirs our hearts.” The Fifth Amendment Today 73 (1955).
The brief states further:
“Underlying the decisions excluding coerced confessions is the implicit assumption that an accused is privileged against incriminating himself, either in the jail house, the grand jury room, or on the witness stand in a public trial. . . .
“. . . It is fundamentally inconsistent to suggest, as the Court's opinions now suggest, that the State is entirely free to compel an accused to incriminate himself before a grand jury, or at the trial, but cannot do so in the police station. Frank recognition of the fact that the Due Process Clause prohibits the States from enforcing their laws by compelling the accused to confess, regardless of where such compulsion occurs, would not only clarify the principles involved in confession cases, but would assist the States significantly in their efforts to comply with the limitations placed upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
See Greenberg v. United States, 343 U. S. 918, reversing per curiam, 192 F. 2d 201; Singleton v. United States, 343 U. S. 944, reversing per curiam, 193 F. 2d 464. In United States v. Coffey, 198 F. 2d 438 (C. A. 3d Cir.), cited with approval in Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated:
"in determining whether the witness really apprehends danger in answering a question, the judge cannot permit himself to be skeptical; rather must he be acutely aware that in the deviousness of crime and its detection incrimination may be approached and achieved by obscure and unlikely lines of inquiry.’' 198 F. 2d, at 440-441.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974), this Court reaffirmed that a warrantless entry and search by law enforcement officers does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of “unreasonable searches and seizures” if the officers have obtained the consent of a third party who possesses common authority over the premises. The present case presents an issue we expressly reserved in Matlock, see id., at 177, n. 14: Whether a warrantless entry is valid when based upon the consent of a third party whom the police, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not do so.
I
Respondent Edward Rodriguez was arrested in his apartment by law. enforcement officers and charged with possession of illegal drugs. The police gained entry to the apartment with the consent and assistance of Gail Fischer, who had lived there with respondent for several months. The relevant facts leading to the arrest are as follows.
On July 26, 1985, police were summoned to the residence of Dorothy Jackson on South Wolcott in Chicago. They were met by Ms. Jackson’s daughter, Gail Fischer, who showed signs of a severe beating. She told the officers that she had been assaulted by respondent Edward Rodriguez earlier that day in an apartment on South California Avenue. Fischer stated that Rodriguez was then asleep in the apartment, and she consented to travel there with the police in order to unlock the door with her key so that the officers could enter and arrest him. During this conversation, Fischer several times referred to the apartment on South California as “our” apartment, and said that she had clothes and furniture there. It is unclear whether she indicated that she currently lived at the apartment, or only that she used to live there.
The police officers drove to the apartment on South California, accompanied by Fischer. They did not obtain an arrest warrant for Rodriguez, nor did they seek a search warrant for the apartment. At the apartment, Fischer unlocked the door with her key and gave the officers permission to enter. They moved through the door into the living room, where they observed in plain view drug paraphernalia and containers filled with white powder that they believed (correctly, as later analysis showed) to be cocaine. They proceeded to the bedroom, where they found Rodriguez asleep and discovered additional containers of white powder in two open attaché cases. The officers arrested Rodriguez and seized the drugs and related paraphernalia.
Rodriguez was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. He moved to suppress all evidence seized at the time of his arrest, claiming that Fischer had vacated the apartment several weeks earlier and had no authority to consent to the entry. The Cook County Circuit Court granted the motion, holding that at the time she consented to the entry Fischer did not have common authority over the apartment. The Court concluded that Fischer was not a “usual resident” but rather an “infrequent visitor” at the apartment on South California, based upon its findings that Fischer’s name was not on the lease, that she did not contribute to the rent, that she was not allowed to invite others to the apartment on her own, that she did not have access to the apartment when respondent was away, and that she had moved some of her possessions from the apartment. The Circuit Court also rejected the State’s contention that, even if Fischer did not possess common authority over the premises, there was no Fourth Amendment violation if the police reasonably believed at the time of their entry that Fischer possessed the authority to consent.
The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the Circuit Court in all respects. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for leave to appeal, 125 Ill. 2d 572, 537 N. E. 2d 816 (1989), and we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 932 (1989).
II
The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits the warrant-less entry of a person’s home, whether to make an arrest or to search for specific objects. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948). The prohibition does not apply, however, to situations in which voluntary consent has been obtained, either from the individual whose property is searched, see Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973), or from a third party who possesses common authority over the premises, see United States v. Matlock, supra, at 171. The State of Illinois contends that that exception applies in the present case.
As we stated in Matlock, supra, at 171, n. 7, “[cjommon authority” rests “on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes . . . .” The burden of establishing that common authority rests upon the State. On the basis of this record, it is clear that burden was not sustained. The evidence showed that although Fischer, with her two small children, had lived with Rodriguez beginning in December 1984, she had moved out on July 1, 1985, almost a month before the search at issue here, and had gone to live with her mother. She took her and her children’s clothing with her, though leaving behind some furniture and household effects. During the period after July 1 she sometimes spent the night at Rodriguez’s apartment, but never invited her friends there, and never went there herself when he was not home. Her name was not on the lease nor did she contribute to the rent. She had a key to the apartment, which she said at trial she had taken without Rodriguez’s knowledge (though she testified at the preliminary hearing that Rodriguez had given her the key). On these facts the State has not established that, with respect to the South California apartment, Fischer had “joint access or control for most purposes.” To the contrary, the Appellate Court’s determination of no common authority over the apartment was obviously correct.
1 — l 1 — 1 1 — 1
A
The State contends that, even if Fischer did not in fact have authority to give consent, it suffices to validate the entry that the law enforcement officers reasonably believed she did. Before reaching the merits of that contention, we must consider a jurisdictional objection: that the decision below rests on an adequate and independent state ground. Respondent asserts that the Illinois Constitution provides greater protection than is afforded under the Fourth Amendment, and that the Appellate Court relied upon this when it determined that a reasonable belief by the police officers was insufficient.
When a state-court decision is clearly based on state law that is both adequate and independent, we will not review the decision. Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1041 (1983). But when “a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law,” we require that it contain a “‘plain statement’ that [it] rests upon adequate and independent state grounds,” id., at 1040, 1042; otherwise, “we will accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so.” Id., at 1041. Here, the Appellate Court’s opinion contains no “plain statement” that its decision rests on state law. The opinion does not rely on (or even mention) any specific provision of the Illinois Constitution, nor even the Illinois Constitution generally. Even the Illinois cases cited by the opinion rely upon no constitutional provisions other than the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. We conclude that the Appellate Court of Illinois rested its decision on federal law.
B
On the merits of the issue, respondent asserts that permitting a reasonable belief of common authority to validate an entry would cause a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights to be “vicariously waived.” Brief for Respondent 32. We disagree.
We have been unyielding in our insistence that a defendant’s waiver of his trial rights cannot be given effect unless it is “knowing” and “intelligent.” Colorado v. Spring, 479 U. S. 564, 574-575 (1987); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938). We would assuredly not permit, therefore, evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be introduced on the basis of a trial court’s mere “reasonable belief” — derived from statements by unauthorized persons — that the defendant has waived his objection. But one must make a distinction between, on the one hand, trial rights that derive from the violation of constitutional guarantees and, on the other hand, the nature of those constitutional guarantees themselves. As we said in Schneckloth:
“There is a vast difference between those rights that protect a fair criminal trial and the rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. Nothing, either in the purposes behind requiring a ‘knowing’ and ‘intelligent’ waiver of trial rights, or in the practical application of such a requirement suggests that it ought to be extended to the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.” 412 U. S., at 241.
What Rodriguez is assured by the trial right of the exclusionary rule, where it applies, is that no evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be introduced at his trial unless he consents. What he is assured by the Fourth Amendment itself, however, is not that no government search of his house will occur unless he consents; but that no such search will occur that is “unreasonable." U. S. Const., Arndt. 4. There are various elements, of course, that can make a search of a person’s house “reasonable” — one of which is the consent of the person or his cotenant.. The essence of respondent’s argument is that we should impose upon this element a requirement that we have not imposed upon other elements that regularly compel government officers to exercise judgment regarding the facts: namely, the requirement that their judgment be not only responsible but correct.
The fundamental objective that alone validates all un-consented government searches is, of course, the seizure of persons who have committed or are about to commit crimes, or of evidence related to crimes. But “reasonableness,” with respect to this necessary element, does not demand that the government be factually correct in its assessment that that is what a search will produce. Warrants need only be supported by “probable cause,” which demands no more than a proper “assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts . . . .” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 232 (1983). If a magistrate, based upon seemingly reliable but factually inaccurate information, issues a warrant for the search of a house in which the sought-after felon is not present, has never been present, and was never likely to have been present, the owner of that house suffers one of the inconveniences we all expose ourselves to as the cost of living in a safe society; he does not suffer a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Another element often, though not invariably, required in order to render an unconsented search “reasonable” is, of course, that the officer be authorized by a valid warrant. Here also we have not held that “reasonableness” precludes error with respect to those factual judgments that law enforcement officials are expected to make. In Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U. S. 79 (1987), a warrant supported by probable cause with respect to one apartment was erroneously issued for an entire floor that was divided (though not clearly) into two apartments. We upheld the search of the apartment not properly covered by the warrant. We said:
“[T]he validity of the search of respondent’s apartment pursuant to a warrant authorizing the search of the entire third floor depends on whether the officers’ failure to realize the overbreadth of the warrant was objectively understandable and reasonable. Here it unquestionably was. The objective facts available to the officers at the time suggested no distinction between [the suspect’s] apartment and the third-floor premises.” Id., at 88.
The ordinary requirement of a warrant is sometimes supplanted by other elements that render the unconsented search “reasonable.” Here also we have not held that the Fourth Amendment requires factual accuracy. A warrant is not needed, for example, where the search is incident to an arrest. In Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797 (1971), we upheld a search incident to an arrest, even though the arrest was made of the wrong person. We said:
“The upshot was that the officers in good faith believed Miller was Hill and arrested him. They were quite wrong as it turned out, and subjective good-faith belief would not in itself justify either the arrest or the subsequent search. But sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment and on the record before us the officers’ mistake was understandable and the arrest a reasonable response to the situation facing them at the time.” Id., at 803-804.
It would be superfluous to multiply these examples. It is apparent that in order to satisfy the “reasonableness” requirement of the Fourth Amendment, what is generally demanded of the many factual determinations that must regularly be made by agents of the government — whether the magistrate issuing a warrant, the police officer executing a warrant, or the police officer conducting a search or seizure under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement — is not that they always be correct, but that they always be reasonable. As we put it in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949):
“Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability.”
We see no reason to depart from this general rule with respect to facts bearing upon the authority to consent to a search. Whether the basis for such authority exists is the sort of recurring factual question to which law enforcement officials must be expected to apply their judgment; and all the Fourth Amendment requires is that they answer it reasonably. The Constitution is no more violated when officers enter without a warrant because they reasonably (though erroneously) believe that the person who has consented to their entry is a resident of the premises, than it is violated when they enter without a warrant because they reasonably (though erroneously) believe they are in pursuit of a violent felon who is about to escape. See Archibald v. Mosel, 677 F. 2d 5 (CA1 1982).
Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483 (1964), is in our view not to the contrary. There, in holding that police had improperly entered the defendant’s hotel room based on the consent of a hotel clerk, we stated that “the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are not to be eroded ... by unrealistic doctrines of ‘apparent authority.’” Id., at 488. It is ambiguous, of course, whether the word “unrealistic” is descriptive or limiting — that is, whether we were condemning as unrealistic all reliance upon apparent authority, or whether we were condemning only such reliance upon apparent authority as is unrealistic. Similarly ambiguous is the opinion’s earlier statement that “there [is no] substance to the claim that the search was reasonable because the police, relying upon the night clerk’s expressions of consent, had a reasonable basis for the belief that the clerk had authority to consent to the search.” Ibid. Was there no substance to it because it failed as a matter of law, or because the facts could not possibly support it? At one point the opinion does seem to speak clearly:
“It is important to bear in mind that it was the petitioner’s constitutional right which was at stake here, and not the night clerk’s nor the hotel’s. It was a right, therefore, which only the petitioner could waive by word or deed, either directly or through an agent.” Id., at 489.
But as we have discussed, what is at issue when a claim of apparent consent is raised is not whether the right to be free of searches has been waived, but whether the right to be free of unreasonable searches has been violated. Even if one does not think the Stoner opinion had this subtlety in mind, the supposed clarity of its foregoing statement is immediately compromised, as follows:
“It is true that the night clerk clearly and unambiguously consented to the search. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that the police had any basis whatsoever to believe that the night clerk had been authorized by the petitioner to permit the police to search the petitioner’s room.” Ibid, (emphasis added).
The italicized language should have been deleted, of course, if the statement two sentences earlier meant that an appearance of authority could never validate a search. In the last analysis, one must admit that the rationale of Stoner was ambiguous — and perhaps deliberately so. It is at least a reasonable reading of the case, and perhaps a preferable one, that the police could not rely upon the obtained consent because they knew it came from a hotel clerk, knew that the room was rented and exclusively occupied by the defendant, and could not reasonably have believed that the former had general access to or control over the latter. Similarly ambiguous in its implications (the Court’s opinion does not even allude to, much less discuss the effects of, “reasonable belief”) is Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610 (1961). In sum, we were correct in Matlock, 415 U. S., at 177, n. 14, when we regarded the present issue as unresolved.
As Stoner demonstrates, what we hold today does not suggest that law enforcement officers may always accept a person’s invitation to enter premises. Even when the invitation is accompanied by an explicit assertion that the person lives there, the surrounding circumstances could conceivably be such that a reasonable person would doubt its truth and not act upon it without further inquiry. As with other factual determinations bearing upon search and seizure, determination of consent to enter must “be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment . . . ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ ” that the consenting party had authority over the premises? Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 21-22 (1968). If not, then war-rantless entry without further inquiry is unlawful unless authority actually exists. But if so, the search is valid.
* * *
In the present case, the Appellate Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the officers reasonably believed that Fischer had the authority to consent, because it ruled as a matter of law that a reasonable belief could not validate the entry. Since we find that ruling to be in error, we remand for consideration of that question. The judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Justice MARSHALL’S dissent rests upon a rejection of the proposition that searches pursuant to valid third-party consent are “generally reasonable.” Post, at 196. Only a warrant or exigent circumstances, he contends, can produce “reasonableness”; consent validates the search only because the object of the search thereby “limit[s] his expectation of privacy,” post, at 198, so that the search becomes not really a search at all. We see no basis for making such an artificial distinction. To describe a consented search as a noninvasion of privacy and thus a nonsearch is strange in the extreme. And while it must be admitted that this ingenious device can explain why consented searches are lawful, it cannot explain why seemingly consented searches are “unreasonable,” which is all that the Constitution forbids. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 663-654 (1979) (“The essential purpose of the proscriptions in the Fourth Amendment is to impose a standard of ‘reasonableness’ upon the exercise of discretion by government officials”). The only basis for contending that the constitutional standard could not possibly have been met here is the argument that reasonableness must be judged by the facts as they were, rather than by the facts as they were known. As we have discussed in text, that argument has long since been rejected.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
During their examination of a damaged package, the employees of a private freight carrier observed a white powdery substance, originally concealed within eight layers of wrappings. They summoned a federal agent, who removed a trace of the powder, subjected it to a chemical test and determined that it was cocaine. The question presented is whether the Fourth Amendment required the agent to obtain a warrant before he did so.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Early in the morning of May 1, 1981, a supervisor at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport Federal Express office asked the office manager to look at a package that had been damaged and torn by a forklift. They then opened the package in order to examine its contents pursuant to a written company policy regarding insurance claims.
The container was an ordinary cardboard box wrapped in brown paper. Inside the box five or six pieces of crumpled newspaper covered a tube about 10 inches long; the tube was made of the silver tape used on basement ducts. The supervisor and office manager cut open the tube, and found a series of four zip-lock plastic bags, the outermost enclosing the other three and the innermost containing about six and a half ounces of white powder. When they observed the white powder in the innermost bag, they notified the Drug Enforcement Administration. Before the first DEA agent arrived, they replaced the plastic bags in the tube and put the tube and the newspapers back into the box.
When the first federal agent arrived, the box, still wrapped in brown paper, but with a hole punched in its side and the top open, was placed on a desk. The agent saw that one end of the tube had been slit open; he removed the four plastic bags from the tube and saw the white powder. He then opened each of the four bags and removed a trace of the white substance with a knife blade. A field test made on the spot identified the substance as cocaine.
In due course, other agents arrived, made a second field test, rewrapped the package, obtained a warrant to search the place to which it was addressed, executed the warrant, and arrested respondents. After they were indicted for the crime of possessing an illegal substance with intent to distribute, their motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the warrant was the product of an illegal search and seizure was denied; they were tried and convicted, and appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. 683 F. 2d 296 (CA8 1982). It held that the validity of the search warrant depended on the validity of the agents’ warrantless test of the white powder, that the testing constituted a significant expansion of the earlier private search, and that a warrant was required.
As the Court of Appeals recognized, its decision conflicted with a decision of another Court of Appeals on comparable facts, United States v. Barry, 673 F. 2d 912 (CA6), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 927 (1982). For that reason, and because field tests play an important role in the enforcement of the narcotics laws, we granted certiorari, 460 U. S. 1021.
r*H
The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... This text protects two types of expectations, one involving “searches,” the other “seizures.” A “search” occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A “seizure” of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property. This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable “to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.” Walter v. United States, 447 U. S. 649, 662 (1980) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
When the wrapped parcel involved in this case was delivered to the private freight carrier, it was unquestionably an “effect” -within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Letters and other sealed packages are in the general class of effects in which the public at large has a legitimate expectation of privacy; warrantless searches of such effects are presumptively unreasonable. Even when government agents may lawfully seize such a package to prevent loss or destruction of suspected contraband, the Fourth Amendment requires that they obtain a warrant before examining the contents of such a package. Such a warrantless search could not be characterized as reasonable simply because, after the official invasion of privacy occurred, contraband is discovered. Conversely, in this case the fact that agents of the private carrier independently opened the package and made an examination that might have been impermissible for a government agent cannot render otherwise reasonable official conduct unreasonable. The reasonableness of an official invasion of the citizen’s privacy must be appraised on the basis of the facts as they existed at the time that invasion occurred.
The initial invasions of respondents’ package were occasioned by private action. Those invasions revealed that the package contained only one significant item, a suspicious looking tape tube. Cutting the end of the tube and extracting its contents revealed a suspicious looking plastic bag of white powder. Whether those invasions were accidental or deliberate, and whether they were reasonable or unreasonable, they did not violate the Fourth Amendment because of their private character.
The additional invasions of respondents’ privacy by the Government agent must be tested by the degree to which they exceeded the scope of the private search. That standard was adopted by a majority of the Court in Walter v. United States, supra. In Walter a private party had opened a misdirected carton, found rolls of motion picture films that appeared to be contraband, and turned the carton over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Later, without obtaining a warrant, FBI agents obtained a projector and viewed the films. While there was no single opinion of the Court, a majority did agree on the appropriate analysis of a governmental search which follows on the heels of a private one. Two Justices took the position:
“If a properly authorized official search is limited by the particular terms of its authorization, at least the same kind of strict limitation must be applied to any official use of a private party’s invasion of another person’s privacy. Even though some circumstances — for example, if the results of the private search are in plain view when materials are turned over to the Government— may justify the Government’s reexamination of the materials, surely the Government may not exceed the scope of the private search unless it has the right to make an independent search. In these cases, the private party had not actually viewed the films. Prior to the Government screening, one could only draw inferences about what was on the films. The projection of the films was a significant expansion of the search that had been conducted previously by a private party and therefore must be characterized as a separate search.” Id., at 657 (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Stewart, J.) (footnote omitted).
Four additional Justices, while disagreeing with this characterization of the scope of the private search, were also of the view that the legality of the governmental search must be tested by the scope of the antecedent private search.
“ ‘Under these circumstances, since the L’Eggs employees so fully ascertained the nature of the films before contacting the authorities, we find that the FBI’s subsequent viewing of the movies on a projector did not “change the nature of the search” and was not an additional search subject to the warrant requirement.’” Id., at 663-664 (Blackmun, J., dissenting, joined by Burger, C. J., and Powell and Rehnquist, JJ.) (footnote omitted) (quoting United States v. Sanders, 592 P. 2d 788, 793-794 (CA5 1979) (case below in Walter)
This standard follows from the analysis applicable when private parties reveal other kinds of private information to the authorities. It is well settled that when an individual reveals private information to another, he assumes the risk that his confidant will reveal that information to the authorities, and if that occurs the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit governmental use of that information. Once frustration of the original expectation of privacy occurs, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit governmental use of the now nonprivate information: “This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in a third party will not be betrayed.” United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976). The Fourth Amendment is implicated only if the authorities use information with respect to which the expectation of privacy has not already been frustrated. In such a case the authorities have not relied on what is in effect a private search, and therefore presumptively violate the Fourth Amendment if they act without a warrant.
In this case, the federal agents’ invasions of respondents’ privacy involved two steps: first, they removed the tube from the box, the plastic bags from the tube, and a trace of powder from the innermost bag; second, they made a chemical test of the powder. Although we ultimately conclude that both actions were reasonable for essentially the same reason, it is useful to discuss them separately.
II
When the first federal agent on the scene initially saw the package, he knew it contained nothing of significance except a tube containing plastic bags and, ultimately, white powder. It is not entirely clear that the powder was visible to him before he removed the tube from the box. Even if the white powder was not itself in “plain view” because it was still enclosed in so many containers and covered with papers, there was a virtual certainty that nothing else of significance was in the package and that a manual inspection of the tube and its contents would not tell him anything more than he already had been told. Respondents do not dispute that the Government could utilize the Federal Express employees’ testimony concerning the contents of the package. If that is the case, it hardly infringed respondents’ privacy for the agents to reexamine the contents of the open package by brushing aside a crumpled newspaper and picking up the tube. The advantage the Government gained thereby was merely avoiding the risk of a flaw in the employees’ recollection, rather than in further infringing respondents’ privacy. Protecting the risk of misdescription hardly enhances any legitimate privacy interest, and is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Respondents could have no privacy interest in the contents of the package, since it remained unsealed and since the Federal Express employees had just examined the package and had, of their own accord, invited the federal agent to their offices for the express purpose of viewing its contents. The agent’s viewing of what a private party had freely made available for his inspection did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 487-490 (1971); Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 475-476 (1921).
Similarly, the removal of the plastic bags from the tube and the agent’s visual inspection of their contents enabled the agent to learn nothing that had not previously been learned during the private search. It infringed no legitimate expectation of privacy and hence was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
While the agents’ assertion of dominion and control over the package and its contents did constitute a “seizure,” that seizure was not unreasonable. The fact that, prior to the field test, respondents’ privacy interest in the contents of the package had been largely compromised is highly relevant to the reasonableness of the agents’ conduct in this respect. The agents had already learned a great deal about the contents of the package from the Federal Express employees, all of which was consistent with what they could see. The package itself, which had previously been opened, remained unsealed, and the Federal Express employees had invited the agents to examine its contents. Under these circumstances, the package could no longer support any expectation of privacy; it was just like a balloon “the distinctive character [of which] spoke volumes as to its contents — particularly to the trained eye of the officer,” Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 743 (1983) (plurality opinion); see also id,., at 746 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment); or the hypothetical gun case in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 764-765, n. 13 (1979). Such containers may be seized, at least temporarily, without a warrant. Accordingly, since it was apparent that the tube and plastic bags contained contraband and little else, this warrantless seizure was reasonable, for it is well settled that it is constitutionally reasonable for law enforcement officials to seize “effects” that cannot support a justifiable expectation of privacy without a warrant, based on probable cause to believe they contain contraband.
r-H I — l I — I
The question remains whether the additional intrusion occasioned by the field test, which had not been conducted by the Federal Express employees and therefore exceeded the scope of the private search, was an unlawful “search” or “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
The field test at issue could disclose only one fact previously unknown to the agent — whether or not a suspicious white powder was cocaine. It could tell him nothing more, not even whether the substance was sugar or talcum powder. We must first determine whether this can be considered a “search” subject to the Fourth Amendment — did it infringe an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable?
The concept of an interest in privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable is, by its very nature, critically different from the mere expectation, however well justified, that certain facts will not come to the attention of the authorities. Indeed, this distinction underlies the rule that government may utilize information voluntarily disclosed to a governmental informant, despite the criminal’s reasonable expectation that his associates would not disclose confidential information to the authorities. See United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 751-752 (1971) (plurality opinion).
A chemical test that merely discloses whether or not a particular substance is cocaine does not compromise any legitimate interest in privacy. This conclusion is not dependent on the result of any particular test. It is probably safe to assume that virtually all of the tests conducted under circumstances comparable to those disclosed by this record would result in a positive finding; in such cases, no legitimate interest has been compromised. But even if the results are negative — merely disclosing that the substance is something other than cocaine — such a result reveals nothing of special interest. Congress has decided — and there is no question about its power to do so — to treat the interest in “privately” possessing cocaine as illegitimate; thus governmental conduct that can reveal whether a substance is cocaine, and no other arguably “private” fact, compromises no legitimate privacy interest.
This conclusion is dictated by United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983), in which the Court held that subjecting luggage to a “sniff test” by a trained narcotics detection dog was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment:
“A ‘canine sniff’ by a well-trained narcotics detection dog, however, does not require opening the luggage. It does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, as does, for example, an officer’s rummaging through the contents of the luggage. Thus, the manner in which information is obtained through this investigative technique is much less intrusive than a typical search. Moreover, the sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item. Thus, despite the fact that the sniff tells the authorities something about the contents of the luggage, the information obtained is limited.” Id., at 707.
Here, as in Place, the likelihood that official conduct of the kind disclosed by the récord will actually compromise any legitimate interest in privacy seems much too remote to characterize the testing as a search subject to the Fourth Amendment.
We have concluded, in Part II, supra, that the initial “seizure” of the package and its contents was reasonable. Nevertheless, as Place also holds, a seizure lawful at its inception can nevertheless violate the Fourth Amendment because its manner of execution unreasonably infringes possessory interests protected by the the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable seizures.” Here, the field test did affect respondents’ possessory interests protected by the Amendment, since by destroying a quantity of the powder it converted what had been only a temporary deprivation of pos-sessory interests into a permanent one. To assess the reasonableness of this conduct, “[w]e must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” 462 U. S., at 703.
Applying this test, we conclude that the destruction of the powder during the course of the field test was reasonable. The law enforcement interests justifying the procedure were substantial; the suspicious nature of the material made it virtually certain that the substance tested was in fact contraband. Conversely, because only a trace amount of material was involved, the loss of which appears to have gone unnoticed by respondents, and since the property had already been lawfully detained, the “seizure” could, at most, have only a de minimis impact on any protected property interest. Cf. Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 591-592 (1974) (plurality opinion) (examination of automobile’s tires and taking of paint scrapings was a de minimis invasion of constitutional interests). Under these circumstances, the safeguards of a warrant would only minimally advance Fourth Amendment interests. This warrantless “seizure” was reasonable.
In sum, the federal agents did not infringe any constitutionally protected privacy interest that had not already been frustrated as the result of private conduct. To the extent that a protected possessory interest was infringed, the infringement was de minimis and constitutionally reasonable. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
As the test is described in the evidence, it involved the use of three test tubes. When a substance containing cocaine is placed in one test tube after another, it will cause liquids to take on a certain sequence of colors. Such a test discloses whether or not the substance is cocaine, but there is no evidence that it would identify any other substances.
The Court of Appeals did not hold that the facts would not have justified the issuance of a warrant without reference to the test results; the court merely held that the facts recited in the warrant application, which relied almost entirely on the results of the field tests, would not support the issuance of the warrant if the field test was itself unlawful. “ ‘It is elementary that in passing on the validity of a warrant, the reviewing court may consider only information brought to the magistrate’s attention.’ ” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410, 413, n. 3 (1969) (emphasis in original) (quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 109, n. 1 (1964)). See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 238-239 (1983).
See also People v. Adler, 50 N. Y. 2d 730, 409 N. E. 2d 888, cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1014 (1980); cf. United States v. Andrews, 618 F. 2d 646 (CA10) (upholding warrantless field test without discussion), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 824 (1980).
See Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U. S. 765, 771 (1983); United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 280-281 (1983); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 739-741 (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 9 (1968).
See United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983); id., at 716 (Brennan, J., concurring in result); Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730, 747-748 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); see also United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 13-14, n. 8 (1977); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 76 (1906). While the concept of a “seizure” of property is not much discussed in our cases, this definition follows from our oft-repeated definition of the “seizure” of a person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment— meaningful interference, however brief, with an individual’s freedom of movement. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 696 (1981); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U. S. 438, 440, n. (1980) (per curiam); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 551-554 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.); Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 50 (1979); United Stales v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975); Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 294-295 (1973); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721, 726-727 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 16, 19, n. 16.
See 447 U. S., at 656 (opinion of Stevens, J.); id., at 660-661 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 455-456, n. 31 (1976); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 487-490 (1971); Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465 (1921).
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 10 (1977); United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U. S. 249, 251 (1970); Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 733 (1878); see also Walter, 447 U. S., at 654-655 (opinion of Stevens, J.).
See, e. g., United States v. Place, 462 U. S., at 701; United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 809-812 (1982); Robbins v. California, 453 U. S. 420, 426 (1981) (plurality opinion); Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 762 (1979); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S., at 13, and n. 8; United States v. Van Leeuwen, supra. There is, of course, a well-recognized exception for customs searches; but that exception is not involved in this case.
See Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560, 567, n. 11 (1971); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 484 (1963); Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253, 261-262 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 103 (1959); Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301, 312 (1958); United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 595 (1948); Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 29 (1927).
A post-trial affidavit indicates that an agent of Federal Express may have opened the package because he was suspicious about its contents, and not because of damage from a forklift. However, the lower courts found no governmental involvement in the private search, a finding not challenged by respondents. The affidavit thus is of no relevance to the issue we decide.
See also 447 U. S., at 658-659 (footnotes omitted) (“The fact that the cartons were unexpectedly opened by a third party before the shipment was delivered to its intended consignee does not alter the consignor’s legitimate expectation of privacy. The private search merely frustrated that expectation in part. It did not simply strip the remaining unfrustrated portion of that expectation of all Fourth Amendment protection”).
In Walter, a majority of the Court found a violation of the Fourth Amendment. For present purposes, the disagreement between the majority and the dissenters in that case with respect to the comparison between the private search and the official search is less significant than the agreement on the standard to be applied in evaluating the relationship between the two searches.
See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 743-744 (1979); United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 749-753 (1971) (plurality opinion); Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323, 326-331 (1966); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 300-303 (1966); Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206 (1966); Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 437-439 (1963); On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747, 753-754 (1952). See also United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 272 (1980); United States v. Caceres, 440 U. S. 741, 744, 750-751 (1979).
See Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967); Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967); Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961).
Daniel Stegemoller, the Federal Express office manager, testified at the suppression hearing that the white substance was not visible without reentering the package at the time the first agent arrived. App. 42-43, 58. As Justice White points out, the Magistrate found that the “tube was in plain view in the box and the bags with the white powder were visible from the end of the tube.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. The bags were, however, only visible if one picked up the tube and peered inside through a small aperture; even then, what was visible was only the translucent bag that contained the white powder. The powder itself was barely visible, and surely was not so plainly in view that the agents did “no more than fail to avert their eyes,” post, at 130. In any event, respondents filed objections to the Magistrate’s report with the District Court. The District Court declined to resolve respondents’ objections, ruling that fact immaterial and assuming for purposes of its decision “that the newspaper in the box covered the gray tube and that neither the gray tube nor the contraband could be seen when the box was turned over to the... DEA agents.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a-13a. At trial, the federal agent first on the scene testified that the powder was not visible until after he pulled the plastic bags out of the tube. App. 71-72. Respondents continue to argue this case on the assumption that the Magistrate’s report is incorrect. Brief for Respondents 2-3. As our discussion will make clear, we agree with the Distriet Court that it does not matter whether the loose pieces of newspaper covered the tube at the time the agent first saw the box.
See United States v. Caceres, 440 U. S., at 750-751; United States v. White, 401 U. S., at 749-753 (plurality opinion); Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S., at 326-331; On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S., at 753-754. For example, in Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 (1963), the Court wrote: “Stripped to its essentials, petitioner’s argument amounts to saying that he has a constitutional right to rely on possible flaws in the agent’s memory, or to challenge the agent’s credibility without being beset by corroborating evidence.... For no other argument can justify excluding an accurate version of a conversation that the agent could testify to from memory. We think the risk that petitioner took in offering a bribe to Davis fairly included the risk that the offer would be accurately reproduced in court....” Id., at 439 (footnote omitted).
We reject Justice White’s suggestion that this case is indistinguishable from one in which the police simply learn from a private party that a container contains contraband, seize it from its owner, and conduct a war-rantless search which, as Justice White properly observes, would be unconstitutional. Here, the Federal Express employees who were lawfully in possession of the package invited the agent to examine its contents; the governmental conduct was made possible only because private parties had compromised the integrity of this container. Justice White would have this case turn on the fortuity of whether the Federal Express employees placed the tube back into the box. But in the context of their previous examination of the package, their communication of what they had learned to the agent, and their offer to have the agent inspect it, that act surely could not create any privacy interest with respect to the package that would not otherwise exist. See Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U. S., at 771-772. Thus the precise character of the white powder’s visibility to the naked eye is far less significant than the facts that the container could no longer support any expectation of privacy, and that it was virtually certain that it contained nothing but contraband. Contrary to Justice White’s suggestion, we do not “sanctio[n] warrantless searches of closed or covered containers or packages whenever probable cause exists as a result of a prior private search.” Post, at 129. A container which can support a reasonable expectation of privacy may not be searched, even on probable cause, without a warrant. See United States v. Ross, 456 U. S., at 809-812; Robbins v. California, 453 U. S., at 426-427 (plurality opinion); Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S., at 764-765; United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1 (1977).
Both the Magistrate and the District Court found that the agents took custody of the package from Federal Express after they arrived. Although respondents had entrusted possession of the items to Federal Express, the decision by governmental authorities to exert dominion and control over the package for their own purposes clearly constituted a “seizure,” though not necessarily an unreasonable one. See United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U. S. 249 (1970). Indeed, this is one thing on which the entire Court appeared to agree in Walter v. United States, 447 U. S. 649 (1980).
See also United States v. Ross, 456 U. S., at 822-823; Robbins v. California, 453 U. S., at 428 (plurality opinion).
Respondents concede that the agents had probable cause to believe the package contained contraband. Therefore we need not decide whether the agents could have seized the package based on something less than probable cause. Some seizures can be justified by an articulable suspicion of criminal activity. See United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983).
See Place, 462 U. S., at 701-702; Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S., at 741-742 (plurality opinion); id., at 748 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 587 (1980); G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 354 (1977); Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234, 236 (1968) (per curiam).
“Obviously, however, a ‘legitimate’ expectation of privacy by definition means more than a subjective expectation of not being discovered. A burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during the off season may have a thoroughly justified subjective expectation of privacy, but it is not one which the law recognizes as ‘legitimate.’ His presence, in the words of Jones [v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 267 (1960)], is ‘wrongful’; his expectation [of privacy] is not ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” ’ Katz v. United States, 389 U. S., at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). And it would, of course, be merely tautological to fall back on the notion that those expectations of privacy which are legitimate depend primarily on cases deciding exclusionary-rule issues in criminal cases. Legitimation of expectations of privacy by law must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 143-144, n. 12 (1978). See also United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276 (1983) (use of a beeper to track ear’s movements infringed no reasonable expectation of privacy); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979) (use of a pen register to record phone numbers dialed infringed no reasonable expectation of privacy).
See Loewy, The Fourth Amendment as a Device for Protecting the Innocent, 81 Mich. L. Rev. 1229 (1983). Our discussion, of course, is confined to possession of contraband. It is not necessarily the case that the purely “private” possession of an article that cannot be distributed in commerce is itself illegitimate. See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969).
Respondents attempt to distinguish Place, arguing that it involved no physical invasion of Place’s effects, unlike the conduct at issue here. However, as the quotation makes clear, the reason this did not intrude upon any legitimate privacy interest was that the governmental conduct could reveal nothing about noncontraband items. That rationale is fully applicable here.
In Place, the Court held that while the initial seizure of luggage for the purpose of subjecting it to a “dog sniff” test was reasonable, the seizure became unreasonable because its length unduly intruded upon constitutionally protected interests. See id., at 707-710.
See, e. g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1046-1047 (1983); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 654 (1979); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S.,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arises from serious constitutional violations in California’s prison system. The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected. The appeal comes to this Court from a three-judge District Court order directing California to remedy two ongoing violations of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a guarantee binding on the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-men! The violations are the subject of two class actions in two Federal District Courts. The first involves the class of prisoners with serious mental disorders. That case is Coleman v. Brown. The second involves prisoners with serious medical conditions. That ease is Plata v. Brown. The order of the three-judge District Court is applicable to both cases.
After years of litigation, it became apparent that a remedy for the constitutional violations would not be effective absent a reduction in the prison system population. The authority to order release of prisoners as a remedy to cure a systemic violation of the Eighth Amendment is a power reserved to a three-judge district court, not a single-judge district court. 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a). In accordance with that rule, the Coleman and Plata District Judges independently requested that a three-judge court be convened. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit convened a three-judge court composed of the Coleman and Plata District Judges and a third, Ninth Circuit Judge. Because the two cases are interrelated, their limited consolidation for this purpose has a certain utility in avoiding conflicting decrees and aiding judicial consideration and enforcement. The State in this Court has not objected to consolidation, although the State does argue that the three-judge court was prematurely convened. The State also objects to the substance of the three-judge court order, which requires the State to reduce overcrowding in its prisons.
The appeal presents the question whether the remedial order issued by the three-judge court is consistent with requirements and procedures set forth in a congressional statute, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). 18 U. S. C. § 3626; see Appendix A, infra. The order leaves the choice of means to reduce overcrowding to the discretion of state officials. But absent compliance through new construction, out-of-state transfers, or other means — or modification of the order upon a further showing by the State— the State will be required to release some number of prisoners before their full sentences have been served. High recidivism rates must serve as a warning that mistaken or premature release of even one prisoner can cause injury and harm. The release of prisoners in large numbers — assuming the State finds no other way to comply with the order — is a matter of undoubted, grave concern.
At the time of trial, California’s correctional facilities held some 156,000 persons. This is nearly double the number that California’s prisons were designed to hold, and California has been ordered to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity. By the three-judge court’s own estimate, the required population reduction could be as high as 46,000 persons. Although the State has reduced the population by at least 9,000 persons during the pendency of this appeal, this means a further reduction of 37,000 persons could be required. As will be noted, the reduction need not be accomplished in an indiscriminate manner or in these substantial numbers if satisfactory, alternative remedies or means for compliance are devised. The State may employ measures, including good-time credits and diversion of low-risk offenders and technical parole violators to community-based programs, that will mitigate the order’s impact. The population reduction potentially required is nevertheless of unprecedented sweep and extent.
Yet so too is the continuing injury and harm resulting from these serious constitutional violations. For years the medical and mental health care provided by California’s prisons has fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements and has failed to meet prisoners’ basic health needs. Needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result. Over the whole course of years during which this litigation has been pending, no other remedies have been found to be sufficient. Efforts to remedy the violation have been frustrated by severe overcrowding in California’s prison system. Short-term gains in the provision of care have been eroded by the long-term effects of severe and pervasive overcrowding.
Overcrowding has overtaken the limited resources of prison staff; imposed demands well beyond the capacity of medical and mental health facilities; and created unsanitary and unsafe conditions that make progress in the provision of care difficult or impossible to achieve. The overcrowding is the “primary cause of the violation of a Federal right,” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(B)(E)(i), specifically the severe and unlawful mistreatment of prisoners through grossly inadequate provision of medical and mental health care.
This Court now holds that the PLRA does authorize the relief afforded in this case and that the court-mandated population limit is necessary to remedy the violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights. The order of the three-judge court, subject to the right of the State to seek its modification in appropriate circumstances, must be affirmed.
I
A
The degree of overcrowding in California’s prisons is exceptional. California’s prisons are designed to house a population just under 80,000, but at the time of the three-judge court’s decision the population was almost double that. The State’s prisons had operated at around 200% of design capacity for at least 11 years. Prisoners are crammed into spaces neither designed nor intended to house inmates. As many as 200 prisoners may live in a gymnasium, monitored by as few as two or three correctional officers. App. 1337-1338, 1350; see Appendix B, infra. As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet. App. 1337.
The Corrections Independent Review Panel, a body appointed by the Governor and composed of correctional consultants and representatives from state agencies, concluded that California’s prisons are “ ‘severely overcrowded, imperiling the safety of both correctional employees and inmates.’ ” App. to Juris. Statement, O. T. 2009, No. 09-416, p. 56a (hereinafter Juris. App.). In 2006, then-Governor Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency in the prisons, as “ ‘immediate action is necessary to prevent death and harm caused by California’s severe prison overcrowding.’” Id., at 61a. The consequences of overcrowding identified by the Governor include “ ‘increased, substantial risk for transmission of infectious illness’ ” and a suicide rate “ ‘approaching an average of one per week.’ ” Ibid.
Prisoners in California with serious mental illness do not receive minimal, adequate care. Because of a shortage of treatment beds, suieidal inmates may be held for prolonged periods in telephone-booth-sized cages without toilets. See Appendix C, infra. A psychiatric expert reported observing' an inmate who had been held in such a cage for nearly 24 hours, standing in a pool of his own urine, unresponsive and nearly catatonic. Prison officials explained they had “ 'no place to put him.’ ” App. 593. Other inmates awaiting care may be held for months in administrative segregation, where they endure harsh and isolated conditions and receive only limited mental health services. Wait times for mental health care range as high as 12 months. Id., at 704. In 2006, the suicide rate in California’s prisons was nearly 80% higher than the national average for prison populations; and a court-appointed Special Master found that 72.1% of suicides involved “some measure of inadequate assessment, treatment, or intervention, and were therefore most probably foreseeable and/or preventable.” Id., at 1781.
Prisoners suffering from physical illness also receive severely deficient care. California’s prisons were designed to meet the medical needs of a population at 100% of design capacity and so have only half the clinical space needed to treat the current population. Id., at 1024. A correctional officer testified that, in one prison, up to 50 sick inmates may be held together in a 12- by 20-foot cage for up to five hours awaiting treatment. Tr. 597-599. The number of staff is inadequate, and prisoners face significant delays in access to care. A prisoner with severe abdominal pain died after a 5-week delay in referral to a specialist; a prisoner with “ ‘constant and extreme’ ” chest pain died after an 8-hour delay in evaluation by a doctor; and a prisoner died of testicular cancer after a “failure of MDs to work up for cancer in a young man with 17 months of testicular pain.” California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., K. Imai, Analysis of CDCR Death Reviews 2006, pp. 6-7 (Aug. 2007). Doctor Ronald Shansky, former medical director of the Illinois state prison system, surveyed death reviews for California prisoners. He concluded that extreme departures from the standard of care were “widespread,” Tr. 430, and that the proportion of “possibly preventable or preventable” deaths was “extremely high,” id., at 429. Many more prisoners, suffering from severe but not life-threatening conditions, experience prolonged illness and unnecessary pain.
B
These conditions are the subject of two federal cases. The first to commence, Coleman v. Brown, was filed in 1990. Coleman involves the class of seriously mentally ill persons in California prisons. Over 15 years ago, in 1995, after a 39-day trial, the Coleman District Court found “overwhelming evidence of the systemic failure to deliver necessary care to mentally ill inmates” in California prisons. Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1316 (ED Cal.). The prisons were “seriously and chronically understaffed,” id., at 1306, and had “no effective method for ensuring... the competence of their staff,” id., at 1308. The prisons had failed to implement necessary suicide-prevention procedures, “due in large measure to the severe under staffing.” Id., at 1315. Mentally ill inmates “languished for months, or even years, without access to necessary care.” Id., at 1316. “They suffer from severe hallucinations, [and] they decompensate into catatonic states.” Ibid. The court appointed a Special Master to oversee development and implementation of a remedial plan of action.
In 2007,12 years after his appointment, the Special Master in Coleman filed a report stating that, after years of slow improvement, the state of mental health care in California’s prisons was deteriorating. App. 489. The Special Master ascribed this change to increased overcrowding. The rise in population had led to greater demand for care, and existing programming space and staffing levels were inadequate to keep pace. Prisons had retained more mental health staff, but the “growth of the resource [had] not matched the rise in demand.” Id., at 482. At the very time the need for space was rising, the need to house the expanding population had also caused a “reduction of programming space now occupied by inmate bunks.” Id., at 479. The State was “facing a four to five-year gap in the availability of sufficient beds to meet the treatment needs of many inmates/patients.” Id., at 481. “[increasing numbers of truly psychotic inmate/patients are trapped in [lower levels of treatment] that cannot meet their needs.” Ibid. The Special Master concluded that many early “achievements have succumbed to the inexorably rising tide of population, leaving behind growing frustration and despair.” Id., at 489.
C
The second action, Plata v. Brown, involves the class of state prisoners with serious medical conditions. After this action commenced in 2001, the State conceded that deficiencies in prison medical care violated prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights. The State stipulated to a remedial injunction. The State failed to comply with that injunction, and in 2005 the court appointed a Receiver to oversee remedial efforts. The court found that “the California prison medical care system is broken beyond repair,” resulting in an “unconscionable degree of suffering and death.” App. 917. The court found: “[I]t is an uneontested fact that, on average, an inmate in one of California’s prisons needlessly dies every six to seven days due to constitutional deficiencies in the [California prisons’] medical delivery system.” Ibid. And the court made findings regarding specific instances of neglect, including the following:
“[A] San Quentin prisoner with hypertension, diabetes and renal failure was prescribed two different medications that actually served to exacerbate his renal failure. An optometrist noted the patient’s retinal bleeding due to very high blood pressure and referred him for immediate evaluation, but this evaluation never took place. It was not until a year later that the patient’s renal failure was recognized, at which point he was referred to a nephrologist on an urgent basis; he should have been seen by the specialist within 14 days but the consultation never happened and the patient died three months later,” Id., at 928 (citations omitted).
Prisons were unable to retain sufficient numbers of competent medical staff, id., at 937, and would “hire any doctor who had ‘a license, a pulse and a pair of shoes,' ” id., at 926. Medical facilities lacked “necessary medical equipment” and did “not meet basic sanitation standards.” Id., at 944. “Exam tables and counter tops, where prisoners with... communicable diseases are treated, [were] not routinely disinfected.” Ibid.
In 2008, three years after the District Court’s decision, the Receiver described continuing deficiencies in the health care provided by California prisons:
“Timely access is not assured. The number of medical personnel has been inadequate, and competence has not been assured.... Adequate housing for the disabled and aged does not exist. The medical facilities, when they exist at all, are in an abysmal state of disrepair. Basic medical equipment is often not available or used. Medications and other treatment options are too often not available when needed.... Indeed, it is a misnomer to call the existing chaos a ‘medical delivery system' — it is more an act of desperation than a system.” Record in No. 3:01-cv-01351-TEH (ND Cal.), Doc. 1136, p. 9.
A report by the Receiver detailed the impact of overcrowding on efforts to remedy the violation. The Receiver explained that “overcrowding, combined with staffing shortages, has created a culture of cynicism, fear, and despair which makes hiring and retaining competent clinicians extremely difficult.” App. 1031. “[0]vercrowding, and the resulting day to day operational chaos of the [prison system], creates regular 'crisis’ situations which... take time [and] energy... away from important remedial programs.” Id., at 1035. Overcrowding had increased the incidence of infectious disease, id., at 1037-1038, and had led to rising prison violence and greater reliance by custodial staff on lockdowns, which “inhibit the delivery of medical care and increase the staffing necessary for such care,” id., at 1037. “Every day,” the Receiver reported, “California prison wardens and health care managers make the difficult decision as to which of the class actions, Coleman... or Plata they will fail to comply with because of staff shortages and patient loads.” Id., at 1038.
D
The Coleman and Plata plaintiffs, believing that a remedy for unconstitutional medical and mental health care could not be achieved without reducing overcrowding, moved their respective District Courts to convene a three-judge court empowered under the PLRA to order reductions in the prison population. The judges in both actions granted the request, and the cases were consolidated before a single three-judge court. The State has not challenged the validity of the consolidation in proceedings before this Court, so its propriety is not presented by this appeal.
The three-judge court heard 14 days of testimony and issued a 184-page opinion, making extensive findings of fact. The court ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of the prisons’ design capacity within two years. Assuming the State does not increase capacity through new construction, the order requires a population reduction of 38,000 to 46,000 persons. Because it appears all but certain that the State cannot complete sufficient construction to comply fully with the order, the prison population will have to be reduced to at least some extent. The court did not order the State to achieve this reduction in any particular manner. Instead, the court ordered the State to formulate a plan for compliance and submit its plan for approval by the court.
The State appealed to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and the Court postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. Schwarzenegger v. Plata, 560 U. S. 964 (2010).
II
As a consequence of their own actions, prisoners may be deprived of rights that are fundamental to liberty. Yet the law and the Constitution demand recognition of certain other rights. Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. “‘The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man.’” Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 311 (2002) (quoting Prop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 100 (1958) (plurality opinion)).
To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care. A prison’s failure to provide sustenance for inmates “may actually produce physical ‘torture or a lingering death.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 103 (1976) (quoting In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 447 (1890)); see generally A. Eisner, Gates of Injustice: The Crisis in America’s Prisons (2004), Just as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care. A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.
If government fails to fulfill this obligation, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678, 687, n. 9 (1978). Courts must be sensitive to the State’s interest in punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the need for deference to experienced and expert prison administrators faced with the difficult and dangerous task of housing large numbers of convicted criminals. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 547-548 (1979). Courts nevertheless must not shrink from their obligation to “enforce the constitutional rights of all ‘persons/ including prisoners.” Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319, 321 (1972) (per curiam). Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.
Courts faced with the sensitive task of remedying unconstitutional prison conditions must consider a range of available options, including appointment of special masters or receivers and the possibility of consent decrees. When necessary to ensure compliance with a constitutional mandate, courts may enter orders placing limits on a prison’s population. By its terms, the PLEA restricts the circumstances in which a court may enter an order “that has the purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(g)(4). The order in this case does not necessarily require the State to release any prisoners. The State may comply by raising the design capacity of its prisons or by transferring prisoners to county facilities or facilities in other States. Because the order limits the prison population as a percentage of design capacity, it nonetheless has the “effect of reducing or limiting the prison population.” Ibid.
Under the PLRA, only a three-judge court may enter an order limiting a prison population. § 3626(a)(3)(B). Before a three-judge court may he convened, a district court first must have entered an order for less intrusive relief that failed to remedy the constitutional violation and must have given the defendant a reasonable time to comply with its prior orders. § 3626(a)(3)(A). The party requesting a three-judge court must then submit “materials sufficient to demonstrate that [these requirements] have been met.” § 3626(a)(3)(C). If the district court concludes that the materials are, in fact, sufficient, a three-judge court may be convened. Ibid.; see also 28 U. S. C. § 2284(b)(1) (stating that a three-judge court may not be convened if the district court “determines that three judges are not required”); 17A C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, & V. Amar, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4235 (3d ed. 2007).
The three-judge court must then find by clear and convincing evidence that “crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right” and that “no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(3)(E). As with any award of prospective relief under the PLRA, the relief “shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” §3626(a)(1)(A). The three-judge court must therefore find that the relief is “narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary..., and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Ibid. In making this determination, the three-judge court must give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” Ibid. Applying these standards, the three-judge court found a population limit appropriate, necessary, and authorized in this case.
This Court’s review of the three-judge court’s legal determinations is de novo, but factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 573-574 (1985). Deference to trial court factfinding reflects an understanding that “[t]he trial judge’s major role is the determination of fact, and with experience in fulfilling that role comes expertise.” Id., at 574. The three-judge court oversaw two weeks of trial and heard at considerable length from California prison officials, as well as experts in the field of correctional administration. The judges had the opportunity to ask relevant questions of those witnesses. Two of the judges had overseen the ongoing remedial efforts of the Receiver and Special Master. The three-judge court was well situated to make the difficult factual judgments necessary to fashion a remedy for this complex and intractable constitutional violation. The three-judge court’s findings of fact may be reversed only if this Court is left with a “ ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Id., at 573 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395 (1948)).
A
The State contends that it was error to convene the three-judge court without affording it more time to comply with the prior orders in Coleman and Plata.
1
The parties dispute this Court’s jurisdiction to review the determinations of the Coleman and Plata District Courts that a three-judge court should be convened. Plaintiffs claim the State was required to raise this issue first in the Court of Appeals by appealing the orders of the District Courts. When exercising jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1253, however, this Court ‘‘has not hesitated to exercise jurisdiction ‘to determine the authority of the court below,’” including whether the three-judge court was properly constituted. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 95, n. 12 (1974) (quoting Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 34 (1962) (per curiam)); see also Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16, 18 (1934) (per curiam) (“The case is analogous to those in which this Court, finding that the court below has acted without jurisdiction, exercises its appellate jurisdiction to correct the improper action”). The merits of the decision to convene the three-judge court, therefore, are properly before this Court.
2
Before a three-judge court may be convened to consider whether to enter a population limit, the PLRA requires that the court have “previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(3)(A)(i). This provision refers to “an order.” It is satisfied if the court has entered one order, and this single order has “failed to remedy” the constitutional violation. The defendant must also have had “a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders.” § 3626(a)(3)(A)(ii). This provision refers to the court’s “orders.” It requires that the defendant have been given a reasonable time to comply with all of the court’s orders. Together, these requirements ensure that the “ ‘last resort remedy’” of a population limit is not imposed “‘as a first step.’” Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F. 2d 828, 843 (CADC 1988).
The first of these conditions, the previous order requirement of § 3626(a)(3)(A)(i), was satisfied in Coleman by appointment of a Special Master in 1995, and it was satisfied in Plata by approval of a consent decree and stipulated injunction in 2002. Both orders were intended to remedy the constitutional violations. Both were given ample time to succeed. When the three-judge court was convened, 12 years had passed since the appointment of the Coleman Special Master, and 5 years had passed since the approval of the Plata consent decree. The State does not claim that either order achieved a remedy. Although the PLRA entitles a State to terminate remedial orders such as these after two years unless the district court finds that the relief “remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right,” § 3626(b)(3), California has not attempted to obtain relief on this basis.
The State claims instead that the second condition, the reasonable time requirement of § 3626(a)(3)(A)(ii), was not met because other, later remedial efforts should have been given more time to succeed. In 2006, the Coleman District Judge approved a revised plan of action calling for construction of new facilities, hiring of new staff, and implementation of new procedures. That same year, the Plata District Judge selected and appointed a Receiver to oversee the State’s ongoing remedial efforts. When the three-judge court was convened, the Receiver had filed a preliminary plan of action calling for new construction, hiring of additional staff, and other procedural reforms.
Although both the revised plan of action in Coleman and the appointment of the Receiver in Plata were new developments in the courts’ remedial efforts, the basic plan to solve the crisis through construction, hiring, and procedural reforms remained unchanged. These efforts had been ongoing for years; the failed consent decree in Plata had called for implementation of new procedures and hiring of additional staff; and the Coleman Special Master had issued over 70 orders directed at achieving a remedy through construction, hiring, and procedural reforms. The Coleman Special Master and Plata Receiver were unable to provide assurance that further, substantially similar efforts would yield success absent a population reduction. Instead, the Coleman Special Master explained that “many of the clinical advances... painfully accomplished over the past decade are slip-sliding away” as a result of overcrowding. App. 481-482. And the Plata Receiver indicated that, absent a reduction in overcrowding, a successful remedial effort could “all but bankrupt” the State of California. App. 1053.
Having engaged in remedial efforts for 5 years in Plata and 12 in Coleman, the District Courts were not required to wait to see whether their more recent efforts would yield equal disappointment. When a court attempts to remedy an entrenched constitutional violation through reform of a complex institution, such as this statewide prison system, it may be necessary in the ordinary course to issue multiple orders directing and adjusting ongoing remedial efforts. Each new order must be given a reasonable time to succeed, but reasonableness must be assessed in light of the entire history of the court’s remedial efforts. A contrary reading of the reasonable time requirement would in effect require district courts to impose a moratorium on new remedial orders before issuing a population limit. This unnecessary period of inaction would delay an eventual remedy and would prolong the courts’ involvement, serving neither the State nor the prisoners. Congress did not require this unreasonable result when it used the term “reasonable."
The Coleman and Plata courts had a solid basis to doubt that additional efforts to build new facilities and hire new staff would achieve a remedy. Indeed, although five years have now passed since the appointment of the Plata Receiver and approval of the revised plan of action in Coleman, there is no indication that the constitutional violations have been cured. A report filed by the Coleman Special Master in July 2009 describes ongoing violations, including an “absence of timely access to appropriate levels of care at every point in the system.” App. 807. A report filed by the Plata Receiver in October 2010 likewise describes ongoing deficiencies in the provision of medical care and concludes that there are simply “too many prisoners for the healthcare infrastructure.” App. 1655. The Coleman and Plata courts acted reasonably when they convened a three-judge court without further delay.
B
Once a three-judge court has been convened, the court must find additional requirements satisfied before it may impose a population limit. The first of these requirements is that “crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right.” 18 U. S. C. §3626(a)(3)(E)(i).
1
The three-judge court found the primary cause requirement satisfied by the evidence at trial. The court found that overcrowding strains inadequate medical and mental health facilities; overburdens limited clinical and custodial staff; and creates violent, unsanitary, and chaotic conditions that contribute to the constitutional violations and frustrate efforts to fashion a remedy. The three-judge court also found that “until the problem of overcrowding is overcome it will be impossible to provide constitutionally compliant care to California’s prison population.” Juris. App. 141a.
The parties dispute the standard of review applicable to this determination. With respect to the three-judge court’s factual findings, this Court’s review is necessarily deferential. It is not this Court’s place to “duplicate the role” of the trial court. Anderson, 470 U. S., at 573. The ultimate issue of primary cause presents a mixed question of law and fact; but there, too, “the mix weighs heavily on the 'fact’ side.” Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U. S. 116, 148 (1999) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in judgment). Because the “district court is 'better positioned’... to decide the issue,” our review of the three-judge court’s primary cause determination is deferential. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U. S. 225, 233 (1991).
The record documents the severe impact of burgeoning demand on the provision of care. At the time of trial, vacancy rates for medical and mental health staff ranged as high as 20% for surgeons, 25% for physicians, 39% for nurse practitioners, and 54.1% for psychiatrists. Juris. App. 105a, 108a. These percentages are based on the number of positions budgeted by the State. Dr. Ronald Shansky, former medical director of the Illinois prison system, concluded that these numbers understate the severity of the crisis because the State has not budgeted sufficient staff to meet demand. According to Dr. Shansky, “even if the prisons were able to fill all of their vacant health care positions, which they have not been able to do to date,... the prisons would still be unable to handle the level of need given the current overcrowding.” Record in No. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (ED Cal.), Doc. 3231-13, p. 19 (hereinafter Doc. 3231-13). Dr. Craig Haney, a professor of psychology, reported that mental health staff are “managing far larger caseloads than is appropriate or effective.” App. 596. A prison psychiatrist told Dr. Haney that “ ‘we are doing about 50% of what we should be doing.’ ” Ibid. In the context of physical care Dr. Shansky agreed that “demand for care, particularly for the high priority cases, continues to overwhelm the resources available.” Id., at 1408.
Even on the assumption that vacant positions could be filled, the evidence suggested there would be insufficient space for the necessary additional staff to perform their jobs. The Plata Receiver, in his report on overcrowding, concluded that even the “newest and most modern prisons” had been “designed with clinic space which is only one-half that necessary for the real-life capacity of the prisons.” App. 1023 (emphasis deleted). Dr. Haney reported that “[ejach one of the facilities I toured was short of significant amounts of space needed to perform otherwise critical tasks and responsibilities.” Id., at 597-598. In one facility, staff cared for 7,525 prisoners in space designed for one-third as many. Juris. App. 93a. Staff operate out of converted storage rooms, closets, bathrooms, shower rooms, and visiting centers. These makeshift facilities impede the effective delivery of care and place the safety of medical professionals in jeopardy, compounding the difficulty of hiring additional staff.
This shortfall of resources relative to demand contributes to significant delays in treatment. Mentally ill prisoners are housed in administrative segregation while awaiting transfer to scarce mental health treatment beds for appropriate care. One correctional officer indicated that he had kept mentally ill prisoners in segregation for ‘“6 months or more.’” App. 594. Other prisoners awaiting care are held in tiny, phone-booth-sized cages. The record documents instances of prisoners committing suicide while awaiting treatment.
Delays are no less severe in the context of physical care. Prisons have backlogs of up to 700 prisoners waiting to see a doctor. Doc. 3231-13, at 21. A review of referrals for urgent specialty care at one prison revealed that only 105 of 316 pending referrals had a scheduled appointment, and only 2 had an appointment scheduled to occur within 14 days. Id., at 25-26. Urgent specialty referrals at one prison had been pending for six months to a year. Id., at 30.
Crowding also creates unsafe and unsanitary living conditions that hamper effective delivery of medical and mental health care. A medical expert described living quarters in converted gymnasiums or dayrooms, where large numbers of prisoners may share just a few toilets and showers, as “‘breeding grounds for disease.’” Juris. App. 102a. Cramped conditions promote unrest and violence, making it difficult for prison officials to monitor and control the prison population. On any given day, prisoners in the general prison population may become ill, thus entering the plaintiff class; and overcrowding may prevent immediate medical attention necessary to avoid suffering, death, or spread of disease.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, attorneys for taxpayers Martin J. and Allyn Bromley, seek declaratory and injunctive relief against respondent Caplin, the Internal Revenue Commissioner, and the accounting firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., which at the instance of petitioners has been working on the financial records of the Bromleys. Petitioners claim as null and void summonses issued by the Commissioner, under § 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, to Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., directing the production of “all audit reports, work papers and correspondence” in that firm’s custody pertaining to Mr. Bromley and his several business interests. The contention is that the enforced production of the papers is an unlawful appropriation of petitioners’ work product and trial preparation as well as an unreasonable seizure requiring the Bromleys to incriminate themselves and depriving them of the effective assistance of counsel. The District Court concluded that petitioners had no standing to sue; that the complaint failed to state a cause of action; that none of the papers were the work product of the petitioners; and, that the papers did not fall within the attorney-client privilege. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but on the entirely different theory that the suit was, in substance, one against the United States to which it had not consented. 115 U. S. App. D. C. 59, 317 F. 2d 123. We granted certiorari, 374 U. S. 825, and have concluded that petitioners have an adequate remedy at law and that the complaint is therefore subject to dismissal for want of equity. This obviates our passing upon any of the other questions presented.
I.
Petitioner Reisman, an attorney of California, had for several years represented the Bromleys. In April 1960 he associated with himself the three other attorney petitioners of Washington, D. C., as counsel in connection with the Bromleys’ tax matters. Petitioners employed the accounting firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. to assist them in connection with certain civil and criminal tax proceedings arising from the alleged tax liability of the Bromleys. Under the supervision of the petitioners, the accountants analyzed various original records of Mr. Bromley and his business interests and made periodic reports thereof. The products of the joint work of the accountants together with all of the records and papers of Bromley furnished them by the petitioners were kept separate in the accounting firm’s files and labeled as the property of petitioners.
The subpoenas were served on June 13, 1961, after Bromley had refused to make his papers available upon being informed that a criminal investigation against him was pending. The subpoenas were directed to three separate branches of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., located in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. They required the accountants to testify before a special agent of the Commissioner on the work performed and also to produce all documents, work papers and other material in their possession with regard to the Bromley matters. At the time of service there were four civil tax cases pending in the Tax Court contesting alleged deficiencies in income tax returns of the Bromleys. In addition, a criminal investigation of Mr. Bromley on the tax matters was in progress. None of the parties involved here had prepared the tax returns under scrutiny nor advised the Bromleys with regard to the same.
On July 7,1961, petitioners filed the complaint involved here. They alleged that Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. intended to comply with the subpoenas. This would result, they claimed, in an unlawful appropriation of their work product and trial preparation as well as an unconstitutional seizure of confidential and privileged documents for future use in civil and criminal litigation against petitioners’ clients, the Bromleys. They moved for and obtained a temporary restraining order which was later dissolved when the complaint was dismissed. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the complaint was properly dismissed because “it is not within the court’s jurisdiction because it is in substance a suit against the United States to which it has not consented.” 115 U. S. App. D. C. 59, 61, 317 F. 2d 123, 125.
The case reaches us at a stage when the only affirmative action taken by the Commissioner is the issuance of the summonses for the accountants to appear before a hearing officer, i. e., a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service, to testify and produce records. The accountants have not yet refused to do so. It is therefore necessary that we first consider the statutory scheme which Congress has provided for the issuance and enforcement of the summonses.
II.
Section 7602 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, for “the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return . . . , determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax ... , or collecting any such liability . . . [t]o summon the person liable for tax ... , or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax ... , or any other person the Secretary or his delegate may deem proper, to appear . . . and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry . . . .” The petitioners make no claim that this provision suffers any constitutional infirmity on its face. This Court has never passed upon the rights of a party summoned to appear before a hearing officer under § 7602. However, the Government concedes that a witness or any interested party may attack the summons before the hearing officer. There are cases among the circuits which hold that both parties summoned and those affected .by a disclosure may appear or intervene before the District Court and challenge the summons by asserting their constitutional or other claims. In re Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital, 209 F. 2d 122 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Falsone v. United States, 205 F. 2d 734 (C. A. 5th Cir.); and Corbin Deposit Bank v. United States, 244 F. 2d 177 (C. A. 6th Cir.). We agree with that view and see no reason why the same rule would not apply before the hearing officer. Should the challenge to the summons be rejected by the hearing examiner and the witness still refuse to testify or produce, the examiner is given no power to enforce compliance or to impose sanctions for noncompliance.
If the Secretary or his delegate wishes to enforce the summons, he must proceed under § 7402 (b), which grants the District Courts of the United States jurisdiction “by appropriate process to compel such attendance, testimony, or production of books, papers, or other data.”
Any enforcement action under this section would be an adversary proceeding affording a judicial determination of the challenges to the summons and giving complete protection to the witness. In such a proceeding only a refusal to comply with an order of the district judge subjects the witness to contempt proceedings.
III.
It is urged that the penalties of contempt risked by a refusal to comply with the summonses are so severe that the statutory procedure amounts to a denial of judicial review. The leading cases on this question are Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), and Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U. S. 331 (1920). However, we do not believe that this point is well taken here. In Young certain railroad rates could be tested only by a failure to comply, which occasioned a risk of both imprisonment and large fines, regardless of the willfulness of the refusal to comply. And in Oklahoma Operating Co. the laundry rate fixed by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission could be tested only by contempt with a penalty of $500 per day, each day being a separate violation.
On the other hand, in tax enforcement proceedings the hearing officer has no power of enforcement or right to levy any sanctions. It is true that any person summoned who “neglects to appear or to produce” may be prosecuted under § 7210 and is subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment for not more than a year, or both. However, this statute on its face does not apply where the witness appears and interposes good faith challenges to the summons. It only prescribes punishment where the witness “neglects” either to appear or to produce. We need not pass upon the coverage of this provision in light of the facts here. It is sufficient to say that noncompliance is not subject to prosecution thereunder when the summons is attacked in good faith.
Petitioners also point to § 7604 (b) as posing the risk of arrest should the Commissioner proceed under that section for an “attachment ... as for a contempt.” Arguably, such a sanction, even though temporary, might be a penalty severe enough to bring the section within the rationale of Young, supra, but we do not so read § 7604 (b). This section provides that where “any person summoned . . . neglects or refuses to obey such summons” the Commissioner may proceed before the United States Commissioner or the judge of the District Court “for an attachment against him, as for a contempt.” Upon a showing of “satisfactory proof,” an attachment for the person so refusing is issued and he is brought before the United States Commissioner or the district judge who proceeds “to a hearing of the case.” Upon the hearing the United States Commissioner or the district judge may “make such order as he shall deem proper, not inconsistent with the law for the punishment of con-tempts . . . .” The predecessor of § 7604 (b) was adopted by the Congress in 1864 (13 Stat. 226) at a time when Congress was greatly concerned with tax collection delay. Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess. 2440-2441 (1864). The proponents of the bill emphasized that after arrest the witness could assert his objections to the summons. Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess. 2997 (1864). It appears to us that the provision was intended only to cover persons who were summoned and wholly made default or contumaciously refused to comply. Section 7402 (b) came into the statute in 1913 (38 Stat. 179) and has been uniformly used since that time. As we read the legislative history, § 7604 (b) remains in this comprehensive procedure provided by Congress to cover only a default or contumacious refusal to honor a summons before a hearing officer. But even in such cases, just as in a criminal prosecution under § 7210, the witness may assert his objections at the hearing before the court which is authorized to make such order as it “shall deem proper.” § 7604 (b).
Furthermore, we hold that in any of these procedures before either the district judge or United States Commissioner, the witness may challenge the summons on any appropriate ground. This would include, as the circuits have held, the defenses that the material is sought for the improper purpose of obtaining evidence for use in a criminal prosecution, Boren v. Tucker, 239 F. 2d 767, 772-773, as well as that it is protected by the attorney-client privilege, Sale v. United States, 228 F. 2d 682. In addition, third parties might intervene to protect their interests, or in the event the taxpayer is not a party to the summons before the hearing officer, he, too, may intervene. See In re Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital, supra, and Corbin Deposit Bank v. United States, supra. And this would be true whether the contempt be of a civil or criminal nature. Cf. McCrone v. United States, 307 U. S. 61 (1939); Brody v. United States, 243 F. 2d 378. Finally, we hold that such orders are appealable. See O’Connor v. O’Connell, 253 F. 2d 365 (C. A. 1st Cir.) ; In re Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital, supra; Falsone v. United States, supra; Bouschor v. United States, 316 F. 2d 451 (C. A. 8th Cir.); Martin v. Chandis Securities Co., 128 F. 2d 731 (C. A. 9th Cir.); D. I. Operating Co. v. United States, 321 F. 2d 586 (C. A. 9th Cir.). Contra, Application of Davis, 303 F. 2d 601 (C. A. 7th Cir.). It follows that with a stay order a witness would suffer no injury while testing the summons.
Nor would there be a difference should the witness indicate — as has Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. — that he would voluntarily turn the papers over to the Commissioner. If this be true, either the taxpayer or any affected party might restrain compliance, as the Commissioner suggests, until compliance is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. This relief was not sought here. Had it been, the Commissioner would have had to proceed for compliance, in which event the petitioners or the Brom-leys might have intervened and asserted their claims.
Finding that the remedy specified by Congress works no injustice and suffers no constitutional invalidity, we remit the parties to the comprehensive procedure of the Code, which provides full opportunity for judicial review before any coercive sanctions may be imposed. Cf. United States v. Babcock, 250 U. S. 328, 331 (1919).
Affirmed.
Ҥ 7602. Examination of books and witnesses.
“For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any return, making a return where none has been made, determining the liability of any person for any internal revenue tax or the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in respect of any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such liability, the Secretary or his delegate is authorized—
“(1) To examine any books, papers, records, or other data which may be relevant or material to such inquiry;
“(2) To summon the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any officer or employee of such person, or any person having possession, custody, or care of books of account containing entries relating to the business of the person liable for tax or required to perform the act, or any other person the Secretary or his delegate may deem proper, to appear before the Secretary or his delegate at a time and place named in the summons and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give such testimony, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry; and
“(3) To take such testimony of the person concerned, under oath, as may be relevant or material to such inquiry.”
These have been heard and are now under advisement in the Tax Court.
In their answer Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. admitted the essential allegations in the complaint, except the one alleging that they would voluntarily comply with the subpoenas. As to this they said compliance “could compromise trial preparations” in the Tax Court cases. They joined the prayer of petitioners for relief.
Section 7604 (a) and (b) gives an additional remedy which is considered hereafter.
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 7210: “Any person who, being duly summoned to appear to testify, or to appear and produce books, accounts, records, memoranda, or other papers, as required under sections 6420 (e) (2), 6421 (f) (2), 7602, 7603, and 7604 (b), neglects to appear or to produce such books, accounts, records, memoranda, or other papers, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with costs of prosecution.”
The only prosecution under § 7210 is United States v. Becker, 259 F. 2d 869. There the word “neglect” was equated with willfulness. The Government admits that the section is inapplicable to persons who appear and in good faith interpose defenses as a basis for noncompliance. Brief for the Respondent Caplin, pp. 9, 22. Cf. Federal Power Comm’n v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 304 U. S. 375, 387 (1938).
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 7604 (b): “Enforcement.— Whenever any person summoned under section 6420 (e)(2), 6421 (f)(2), or 7602 neglects or refuses to obey such summons, or to produce books, papers, records, or other data, or to give testimony, as required, the Secretary or his delegate may apply to the judge of the district court or to a United States commissioner for the district within which the person so summoned resides or is found for an attachment against him as for a contempt. It shall be the duty of the judge or commissioner to hear the application, and, if satisfactory proof is made, to issue an attachment, directed to some proper officer, for the arrest of such person, and upon his being brought before him to proceed to a hearing of the case; and upon such hearing the judge or the United States commissioner shall have power to make such order as he shall deem proper, not inconsistent with the law for the punishment of contempts, to enforce obedience to the requirements of the summons and to punish such person for his default or disobedience.”
It is true that the attachment procedure of § 7604 (b) has been occasionally used even where the person summoned refused to testify because of a claimed privilege. E. g., Sale v. United States, 228 F. 2d 682, and Brownson v. United States, 32 F. 2d 844. We believe that the use of §'7604 (b) in that context is inappropriate. Attachment of a witness who has neither defaulted nor contumaciously refused to comply would raise constitutional considerations, which need not be considered at this time under our reading of the statute.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a writ of habeas corpus to respondent Gary Bradford Cone after concluding that the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance found by the jury at the sentencing phase of his trial was unconstitutionally vague, and that the Tennessee Supreme Court failed to cure any constitutional deficiencies on appeal. 359 F. 3d 785, 799 (2004). Because this result fails to accord to the state court the deference required by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d), we grant the petition for certiorari and respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse.
I
Respondent killed Shipley Todd, 93, and his wife Cleopatra, 79, on August 10,1980, in their home at the conclusion of a 2-day crime spree. The killings were accomplished in a brutal and callous fashion: The elderly victims were “repeatedly beaten about the head until they died,” State v. Cone, 665 S. W. 2d 87, 90-91 (Tenn. 1984), and their bodies were subsequently discovered “horribly mutilated and cruelly beaten,” id., at 90. A Tennessee jury convicted respondent of, inter alia, two counts of murder in the first degree and two counts of murder in the first degree in the perpetration of a burglary. At the conclusion of the penalty phase of respondent’s trial, the jury unanimously found four aggravating circumstances and concluded that they outweighed the mitigating evidence. Respondent was sentenced to death.
The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed respondent’s convictions and sentence. Id., at 96. As relevant here, the court held that three of the aggravating circumstances found by the jury “were clearly shown by the evidence.” Id., at 94. With respect to the jury’s finding that the murders were “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” the court said:
“The jury also found that the murders in question were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that they involved torture or depravity of mind as provided in [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 39—2—203(i)(5). The evidence abundantly established that both of the elderly victims had been brutally beaten to death by multiple crushing blows to the skulls. Blood was spattered throughout the house, and both victims apparently had attempted to resist, because numerous defensive wounds were found on their persons. The only excuse offered in the entire record for this unspeakably brutal conduct by the accused was that these elderly victims had at some point ceased to ‘cooperate’ with him in his ransacking of their home and in his effort to flee from arrest. As previously stated, it was stipulated by counsel for [respondent] that there was no issue of self-defense even remotely suggested. The deaths of the victims were not instantaneous, and obviously one had to be killed before the other. The terror, fright and horror that these elderly helpless citizens must have endured was certainly something that the jury could have taken into account in finding this aggravating circumstance.” Id., at 94-95.
Respondent twice sought relief from his conviction and sentence in collateral proceedings in state court, to no avail. In his second amended petition for postconviction relief, respondent raised 52 independent claims of constitutional error, including a contention that the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment. The state trial court held each of respondent’s claims barred by Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-111 (1990), which limited the grounds that may be raised on collateral review to those not waived or previously determined in previous proceedings. The trial court explained that respondent’s constitutional challenge to the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance, along with many other claims, was “clearly [a] re-statemen[t] of previous grounds heretofore determined and denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court upon Direct Appeal or the Court of Criminal Appeals upon the First Petition.” Cone v. State, No. P-06874 (Tenn. Crim. Ct., Dec. 16, 1993), p. 6. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of relief on all grounds. Cone v. State, 927 S. W. 2d 579, 582 (1995). The State Supreme Court denied respondent permission to appeal.
II
In 1997, respondent sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, again asserting a multitude of claims. The District Court denied relief; it held respondent’s vagueness challenge to the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance to be procedurally barred by respondent’s failure to raise it on direct appeal in state court. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit subsequently held that respondent was entitled to relief on another ground and did not consider respondent’s challenges to the aggravating circumstances found by the jury. Cone v. Bell, 243 F. 3d 961, 975 (2001). We reversed that judgment. Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 702 (2002).
On remand, the same panel of the Sixth Circuit again granted respondent a writ of habeas corpus, this time with one judge dissenting, on the ground that the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator was unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment. The court first rejected petitioner’s argument that respondent proeedurally defaulted the claim in state court. Based on its understanding of state law, the court concluded that the State Supreme Court’s statutorily .mandated review of each death sentence, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-205(c)(1) (1982), necessarily included the consideration of constitutional deficiencies in the aggravating circumstances found by the jury and therefore that the issue was “fairly presented” to the state court, even if respondent did not raise it himself. 359 F. 3d, at 791-793. Judge Norris dissented on this point. Id., at 806.
Turning to the merits, the Sixth Circuit held that the state court’s affirmance of respondent’s sentence in light of the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance was “contrary to” the clearly established principles set forth in our decision in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980). The Court of Appeals allowed that “[n]o Supreme Court case has addressed the precise language at issue,” 359 F. 3d, at 795, and that no “Supreme Court decisio[n] is ‘on all fours’ with the instruction in Cone’s case,” id., at 796, but nevertheless concluded, in light of Godfrey and the series of cases that followed it, Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U. S. 356 (1988), Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639 (1990), and Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 1 (1990) (per curiam), that federal law dictated the conclusion that the State’s “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator was unconstitutionally vague. 359 F. 3d, at 797. Lastly, the court rejected petitioner’s argument that the Tennessee Supreme Court cured any deficiency in the aggravating circumstance on direct appeal by reviewing the jury’s finding under the narrowed construction of the aggravator that it adopted in State v. Dicks, 615 S. W. 2d 126 (1981). 359 F. 3d, at 797.
hH t-H
A federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim adjudicated by a state court if the state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). A state court’s decision is “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law” “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases,” or “if the state court confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to ours.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 405 (2000).
The law governing vagueness challenges to statutory aggravating circumstances was summarized aptly in Walton, supra, overruled on other grounds, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002):
“When a federal court is asked to review a state court’s application of an individual statutory aggravating or mitigating circumstance in a particular case, it must first determine whether the statutory language defining the circumstance is itself too vague to provide any guidance to the sentencer. If so, then the federal court must attempt to determine whether the state courts have further defined the vague terms and, if they have done so, whether those definitions are constitutionally sufficient, i. e., whether they provide some guidance to the sentencer.” Walton, supra, at 654.
These principles were plain enough at the time the State Supreme Court decided respondent’s appeal. In Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976), we upheld the aggravating circumstance that the murder was “ ‘especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel’ ” on the express ground that a narrowing construction had been adopted by that State’s Supreme Court. Id., at 255 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). And, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), we refused to invalidate the aggravating circumstance that the murder was “‘outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim,’ ” because “there [was] no reason to assume that the Supreme Court of Georgia will adopt ... an open-ended construction” that is potentially applicable to any murder. Id., at 201 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). See generally Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U. S. 764, 774-777 (1990) (reviewing eases).
Indeed, in Godfrey, 446 U. S. 420, the case on which the Court of Appeals relied in declaring the aggravating circumstance to be unconstitutionally vague, the controlling plurality opinion followed precisely this procedure. Like the court below, the plurality looked first to the language of the aggravating circumstance found by the jury and concluded that there was “nothing in these few words, standing alone, that implies any inherent restraint on the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death sentence.” Id., at 428. But the plurality did not stop there: It next evaluated whether the Georgia Supreme Court “applied a constitutional construction” of the aggravating circumstance on appeal. Id., at 432. Because the facts of the case did not resemble those in which the state court had previously applied a narrower construction of the aggravating circumstance and because the state court gave no explanation for its decision other than to say that the verdict was “ ‘factually substantiated,’ ” the plurality concluded that it did not. Id., at 432-433. As we have subsequently explained, this conclusion was the linchpin of the Court’s holding: “Had the Georgia Supreme Court applied a narrowing construction of the aggravator, we would have rejected the Eighth Amendment challenge to Godfrey’s death sentence, notwithstanding the failure to instruct the jury on that narrowing construction.” Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U. S. 518, 531 (1997). See also Walton, supra, at 653-654; Cartwright, supra, at 363-365 (refusing to countenance the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ affirmance of a death sentence based on a facially vague aggravating circumstance where that court had not adopted a narrowing construction of its aggravator when it affirmed the prisoner’s sentence).
In this case, however, the Sixth Circuit rejected the possibility that the Tennessee Supreme Court cured any error in the jury instruction by applying a narrowing construction of the statutory “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator. The court asserted that the State Supreme Court “did not apply, or even mention, any narrowing interpretation or cite to [sic] Dicks,” the case in which the State Supreme Court had adopted a narrowing construction of the aggravating circumstance. 359 F. 3d, at 797. “Instead,” the court said, “the [state] court simply, but explicitly, satisfied itself that the labels ‘heinous, atrocious, or cruel/ without more, applied to [respondent’s] crime.” Ibid.
We do not think that a federal court can presume so lightly that a state court failed to apply its own law. As we have said before, § 2254(d) dictates a “ ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 333, n. 7 (1997), which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam). To the extent that the Court of Appeals rested its decision on the state court’s failure to cite Dicks, it was mistaken. Federal courts are not free to presume that a state court did not comply with constitutional dictates on the basis of nothing more than a lack of citation. See Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U. S. 12, 16 (2003) (per curiam); Early v. Packer, 537 U. S. 3, 8 (2002) (per curiam).
More importantly, however, we find no basis for the Court of Appeals’ statement that the state court “simply, but explicitly, satisfied itself that the labels ‘heinous, atrocious, or cruel/ without more, applied” to the murder. 359 F. 3d, at 797. The state court’s opinion does not disclaim application of that court’s established construction of the aggravating circumstance; the only thing that it states “explicitly” is that the evidence in this case supported the jury’s finding of the statutory aggravator. See Cone, 665 S. W. 2d, at 95 (stating that the aggravating circumstance was “indisputably established by the record”). As we explain below, the State Supreme Court had construed the aggravating circumstance narrowly and had followed that precedent numerous times; absent an affirmative indication to the contrary, we must presume that it did the same thing here. See Visciotti, supra, at 24 (stating the presumption that state courts “know and follow the law”); Lambrix, supra, at 532, n. 4; Walton, 497 U. S., at 653. That is especially true in a case such as this one, where the state court has recognized that its narrowing construction is constitutionally compelled and has affirmatively assumed the responsibility to ensure that the aggravating circumstance is applied constitutionally in each case. See State v. Pritchett, 621 S. W. 2d 127, 139, 140 (Tenn. 1981).
Even absent such a presumption in the state court’s favor, however, we would still.conclude in this case that the state court applied the narrower construction of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance. The State Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case closely tracked its rationale for affirming the death sentences in other eases in which it expressly applied a narrowed construction of the same “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator. Accord, Godfrey, supra, at 432 (holding that “[t]he circumstances of this case ... do not satisfy the criteria [for torture] laid out by the Georgia Supreme Court itself” in its cases construing the aggravating circumstance). The facts the court relied on to affirm the jury’s verdict — that the elderly victims attempted to resist, that their deaths were not instantaneous, that respondent’s actions toward them were “unspeakably brutal,” and that they endured “terror, fright and horror” before being killed, 665 S. W. 2d, at 95—match, almost exactly, the reasons the state court gave when it held the evidence in State v. Melson, 638 S. W. 2d 342, 367 (Tenn. 1982), to be sufficient to satisfy the torture prong of the narrowed “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance. See also Pritchett, supra, at 139 (finding the evidence to be insufficient to satisfy a narrowed construction of the aggravator where the victim’s death was “instantaneous”); State v. Campbell, 664 S. W. 2d 281, 284 (Tenn. 1984) (holding that evidence of the aggravator was “overwhelming” where an elderly murder victim was beaten to death with a blunt object and his hands showed that he had attempted to defend himself). Similarly, the state court’s findings that respondent’s victims had been “brutally beaten to death by multiple crushing blows to the skulls,” that “[bjlood was spattered throughout the house,” and that the victims were helpless, 665 S. W. 2d, at 94-95, accord with the reasons that the state court had previously found sufficient to support findings of depravity of mind. See Melson, supra, at 367; State v. Groseclose, 615 S. W. 2d 142, 151 (Tenn. 1981); Strouth v. State, 999 S. W. 2d 759, 766 (Tenn. 1999). In sum, a review of the state court’s previous decisions interpreting and applying the narrowed construction of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator leaves little doubt that the State Supreme Court applied that same construction in respondent’s case.
The only remaining question is whether the narrowing construction that the Tennessee Supreme Court applied was itself unconstitutionally vague. See Walton, supra, at 654; Godfrey, 446 U. S., at 428. It was not. In State v. Dicks, 615 S. W. 2d 126 (Tenn. 1981), the state court adopted the exact construction of the aggravator that we approved in Proffitt, 428 U. S., at 255: that the aggravator was “directed at 'the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim,”’ Dicks, supra, at 132. See also Sochor v. Florida, 504 U. S. 527, 536 (1992). In light of Prof-fitt, we think this interpretation of the aggravator, standing alone, would be sufficient to overcome the claim that the aggravating circumstance applied by the state court was “contrary to” clearly established federal law under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).
The State Supreme Court’s subsequent application of this aggravating circumstance, as construed in Dicks, stands as further proof that it could be applied meaningfully to narrow the class of death-eligible offenders. Later in the year that Dicks was decided, the court elaborated on the meaning of the aggravator:
“Although the Tennessee aggravating circumstances [sic] [that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel] does not contain the phrase, 'an aggravated battery to the victim[,]’ it is clear that a constitutional construction of this aggravating circumstance requires evidence that the defendant inflicted torture on the victim before death or that [the] defendant committed acts evincing a depraved state of mind; that the depraved state of mind or the torture inflicted must meet the test of heinous, atrocious, or cruel.” Pritchett, 621 S. W. 2d, at 139 (citation omitted).
With respect to the meaning of “torture,” the court held that the aggravator was not satisfied where the victim dies instantly, ibid., but that it was where “the uncontradicted proof shows that [the victim] had defensive injuries to her arms and hands, proving that there was time for her to realize what was happening, to feel fear, and to try to protect herself,” Melson, 638 S. W. 2d, at 367. Accord, Cartwright, 486 U. S., at 364-365 (approving the limitation of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance to killings in which the victim suffered “some kind of torture or serious physical abuse” prior to the murder). As to “depravity of mind,” the court held the fact that the defendant fired a second shotgun blast into a victim after he was dead to be insufficient as a matter of law, see Pritchett, supra, at 139 (explaining that the depravity in such an action falls short of that exhibited by the defendant in Godfrey, supra), but concluded that, “a killing wherein the victim is struck up to thirty times, causing an entire room to be covered with a spray of flying blood, and causing the victim’s brains to extrude through the gaping hole in her skull,” sufficed, Melson, supra, at 367. In light of these holdings, we are satisfied that the State’s aggravating circumstance, as construed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, ensured that there was a “principled basis” for distinguishing between those cases in which the death penalty was assessed and those cases in which it was not. Arave v. Creech, 507 U. S. 463, 474 (1993).
In sum, even assuming that the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude that the State’s statutory aggravating circumstance was facially vague, the court erred in presuming that the State Supreme Court failed to cure this vagueness by applying a narrowing construction on direct appeal. The state court did apply such a narrowing construction, and that construction satisfied constitutional demands by ensuring that respondent was not sentenced to death in an arbitrary or capricious manner. See Godfrey, supra, at 428. The state court’s affirmance of respondent’s sentence on this ground was therefore not “contrary to... clearly established Federal law,” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1), and the Court of Appeals was without power to issue a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistént with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The jury found the following aggravating circumstances: (1) respondent had been convicted of one or more felonies involving the use or threat of violence to a person, (2) the murders were “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that they involved torture or depravity of mind,” (3) respondent committed the murders for the purpose of preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution, and (4) respondent knowingly created a risk of death to two or more persons, other than the victim murdered, during the murder. See State v. Cone, 665 S. W. 2d 87, 94-95 (Tenn. 1984).
The state court rejected the jury’s finding that respondent “ ‘knowingly created a great risk of death to two (2) or more persons, other than the victim murdered, during his act of murder,’ ” on the ground that the considerable threat respondent posed to others earlier in the day was not sufficiently close in time to the murders. Based on the strength of the other aggravating circumstances before the jury, the court held this error to be “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 95.
Petitioner argues that the Sixth Circuit’s conclusion in this regard is in tension with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals, which have held that a petitioner must raise his constitutional claim in state court in order to preserve it, notwithstanding the existence of a mandatory-review statute. See Mu’min v. Pruett, 125 F. 3d 192, 197 (CA4 1997) (Virginia); Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis, 80 F. 3d 1301, 1306 (CA9 1996) (Arizona); Kornahrens v. Evatt, 66 F. 3d 1350, 1362 (CA4 1995) (South Carolina); Nave v. Delo, 62 F. 3d 1024, 1039 (CA8 1995) (Missouri); Julius v. Johnson, 840 F. 2d 1533, 1546 (CA11 1988) (Alabama). We find it unnecessary to express a view on this point. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b)(2) (an application for habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding a petitioner’s failure to exhaust in state court). We do emphasize that, as a general matter, the burden is on the petitioner to raise his federal claim in the state courts at a time when state procedural law permits its consideration on the merits, even if the state court could have identified and addressed the federal question without its having been raised. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U. S. 27, 30-32 (2004).
The jury was instructed with respect to this aggravated circumstance as follows:
“ ‘Heinous’ means extremely wicked or shockingly evil.
“ ‘Atrocious’ means outrageously wicked and vile.
“ ‘Cruel’ means designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the suffering of others, pitiless.” 359 F. 3d, at 794.
The court recognized that these cases postdated the Tennessee Supreme Court’s 1984 decision on direct appeal, but, relying on Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 225 (1992) (which held that Cartwright did not announce a “new rule” of constitutional law because its resolution was dictated by Godfrey), concluded that these later cases were “not only material, but controlling” and required the conclusion that Tennessee’s “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague on its face. 359 F. 3d, at 795. We assume, without deciding, that the Court of Appeals was correct in this conclusion.
In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002), we held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, rather than a judge, to find the aggravating circumstance that renders a defendant death eligible. Id., at 609. Because Ring does not apply retroactively, Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358 (2004), this case does not present the question whether an appellate court may, consistently with Ring, cure the finding of a vague aggravating circumstance by applying a narrower construction.
We find additional support for this conclusion in the fact that respondent’s argument to the State Supreme Court relied squarely on a case in which that court had expressly formulated its narrowing construction of the aggravating circumstance and had applied that construction to the benefit of the defendant. See Brief for Appellant in No. 02C019403CR00052 (Sup. Ct. Tenn. 1983), p. 20 (arguing, based on State v. Pritchett, 621 S. W. 2d 127 (Tenn. 1981), that “the State did not show ... that the victims suffered”). Likewise, the two cases the State relied upon in response to respondent’s argument also expressly applied a narrowing construction of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator. See Brief for Appellee in No. 02C019403CR00052 (Sup. Ct. Tenn. 1983), p. 34 (citing Pritchett, supra, and State v. Melson, 638 S. W. 2d 342, 367 (Tenn. 1982)).
See also State v. Groseclose, 615 S. W. 2d 142, 151 (Tenn. 1981) (holding that raping and stabbing a victim, before killing her by locking her in a car trunk in the summer, satisfied the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance); Strouth v. State, 999 S. W. 2d 759, 766 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting the State Supreme Court’s 1981 opinion denying rehearing, which held that cutting the throat of a victim already rendered unconscious demonstrated “depravity of mind” in that it was “cold-blooded, intentional, conscienceless and pitiless”); State v. Dicks, 615 S. W. 2d 126, 132 (Tenn. 1981) (affirming the jury’s application of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator to the same crime).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act) excludes from the Act’s coverage “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U. S. C. § 1. All but one of the Courts of Appeals which have addressed the issue interpret this provision as exempting contracts of employment of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts, from the FAA’s coverage. A different interpretation has been adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which construes the exemption so that all contracts of employment are beyond the FAA’s reach, whether or not the worker is engaged in transportation. It applied that rule to the instant case. We now decide that the better interpretation is to construe the statute, as most of the Courts of Appeals have done, to confine the exemption to transportation workers.
I
In October 1995, respondent Saint Clair Adams applied for a job at petitioner Circuit City Stores, Inc., a national retailer of consumer electronics. Adams signed an employment application which included the following provision:
“I agree that I will settle any and all previously unas-serted claims, disputes or controversies arising out of or relating to my application or candidacy for employment, employment and/or cessation of employment with Circuit City, exclusively by final and binding arbitration before a neutral Arbitrator. By way of example only, such claims include claims under federal, state, and local statutory or common law, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, including the amendments of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the law of contract and [the] law of tort.” App. 13 (emphasis in original).
Adams was hired as a sales counselor in Circuit City’s store in Santa Rosa, California.
Two years later, Adams filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Circuit City in state court, asserting claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 12900 et seg. (West 1992 and Supp. 1997), and other claims based on general tort theories under California law. Circuit City filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to enjoin the state-court action and to compel arbitration of respondent’s claims pursuant to the FAA, 9 U. S. C. §§ 1-16. The District Court entered the requested order. Respondent, the court concluded, was obligated by the arbitration agreement to submit his claims against the employer to binding arbitration. An appeal followed.
While respondent’s appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court ruled on the key issue in an unrelated case. The court held the FAA does not apply to contracts of employment. See Craft v. Campbell Soup Co., 177 F. 3d 1083 (1999). In the instant ease, following the rule announced in Craft, the Court of Appeals held the arbitration agreement between Adams and Circuit City was contained in a “contract of employment,” and so was not subject to the FAA. 194 F. 3d 1070 (1999). Circuit City petitioned this Court, noting that the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that all employment contracts are excluded from the FAA conflicts with every other Court of Appeals to have addressed the question. See, e. g., McWilliams v. Logicon, Inc., 143 F. 3d 573, 575-576 (CA10 1998); O’Neil v. Hilton Head Hospital, 115 F. 3d 272, 274 (CA7 1997); Pryner v Tractor Supply Co., 109 F. 3d 354, 358 (CA7 1997); Cole v. Burns Int'l Security Servs., 105 F. 3d 1465, 1470-1472 (CADC 1997); Rojas v. TK Communications, Inc., 87 F. 3d 745, 747-748 (CA51996); Asplundh Tree Co. v. Bates, 71F. 3d 592,596-601 (CA6 1995); Erving v. Virginia Squires Basketball Club, 468 F. 2d 1064, 1069 (CA2 1972); Dickstein v. DuPont, 443 F. 2d 783, 785 (CA1 1971); Tenney Engineering, Inc. v. United Elec. & Machine Workers of Am., 207 F. 2d 450 (CA3 1953). We granted certiorari to resolve the issue. 529 U. S. 1129 (2000).
II
A
Congress enacted the FAA in 1925. As the Court has explained, the FAA was a response to hostility of American courts to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, a judicial disposition inherited from then-longstanding English practice. See, e. g., Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 270-271 (1995); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 24 (1991). To give effect to this purpose, the FAA compels judicial enforcement of a wide range of written arbitration agreements. The FAA’s coverage provision, §2, provides that
“[a] written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. § 2.
We had occasion in Allied-Bruce, supra, at 273-277, to consider the significance of Congress’ use of the words “involving commerce” in §2. The analysis began with a reaffirmation of earlier decisions concluding that the FAA was enacted pursuant to Congress’ substantive power to regulate interstate commerce and admiralty, see Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395, 405 (1967), and that the Act was applicable in state courts and pre-emptive of state laws hostile to arbitration, see Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1 (1984). Relying upon these background principles and upon the evident reach of the words “involving commerce,” the Court interpreted §2 as implementing Congress’ intent “to exercise [its] commerce power to the full.” Allied-Bruce, supra, at 277.
The instant case, of course, involves not the basic coverage authorization under §2 of the Act, but the exemption from coverage under § 1. The exemption clause provides the Act shall not apply “to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U. S. C. § 1. Most Courts of Appeals conclude the exclusion provision is limited to transportation workers, defined, for instance, as those workers “‘actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce.’” Cole, supra, at 1471. As we stated at the outset, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit takes a different view and interprets the §1 exception to exclude all contracts of employment from the reach of the FAA. This comprehensive exemption had been advocated by amici curiae in Gilmer, where we addressed the question whether a registered securities representative’s employment discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq., could be submitted to arbitration pursuant to an agreement in his securities registration application. Concluding that the application was not a “contract of employment” at all, we found it unnecessary to reach the meaning of § 1. See Gilmer, supra, at 25, n. 2. There is no such dispute in this case; while Circuit City argued in its petition for certiorari that the employment application signed by Adams was not a “contract of employment,” we declined to grant certiorari on this point. So the issue reserved in Gilmer is presented here.
B
Respondent, at the outset, contends that we need not address the meaning of the § 1 exclusion provision to decide the case in his favor. In his view, an employment contract is not a “contract evidencing a transaction involving interstate commerce” at all, since the word “transaction” in §2 extends only to commercial contracts. See Craft, 177 F. 3d, at 1085 (concluding that §2 covers only “commercial deal[s] or merchant’s sale[s]”). This line of reasoning proves too much, for it would make the § 1 exclusion provision superfluous. If all contracts of employment are beyond the scope of the Act under the §2 coverage provision, the separate exemption for “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in . . . interstate commerce” would be pointless. See, e. g., Pennsylvania Dept of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 562 (1990) (“Our cases express a deep reluctance to interpret a statutory provision so as to render superfluous other provisions in the same enactment”). The proffered interpretation of “evidencing a transaction involving commerce,” furthermore, would be inconsistent with Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20 (1991), where we held that §2 required the arbitration of an age discrimination claim based on an agreement in a securities registration application, a dispute that did not arise from a “commercial deal or merchant’s sale.” Nor could respondent’s construction of §2 be reconciled with the expansive reading of those words adopted in Allied-Bruce, 513 U. S., at 277, 279-280. If, then, there is an argument to be made that arbitration agreements in employment contracts are not covered by the Act, it must be premised on the language of the § 1 exclusion provision itself.
Respondent, endorsing the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the provision excludes all employment contracts, relies on the asserted breadth of the words “contracts of employment of . . . any other class of workers engaged in ... commerce.” Referring to our construction of §2’s coverage provision in Allied-Bruce — concluding that the words “involving commerce” evidence the congressional intent to regulate to the full extent of its commerce power — respondent contends §l’s interpretation should have a like reach, thus exempting all employment contracts. The two provisions, it is argued, are coterminous; under this view the “involving commerce” provision brings within the FAA’s scope all contracts within the Congress’ commerce power, and the “engaged in . . . commerce” language in § 1 in turn exempts from the FA A all employment contracts falling within that authority.
This reading of § 1, however, runs into an immediate and, in our view, insurmountable textual obstacle. Unlike the “involving commerce” language in §2, the words “any other class of workers engaged in... commerce” constitute a residual phrase, following, in the same sentence, explicit reference to “seamen” and “railroad employees.” Construing the residual phrase to exclude all employment contracts fails to give independent effect to the statute’s enumeration of the specific categories of workers which precedes it; there would be no need for Congress to use the phrases “seamen” and “railroad employees” if those same classes of workers were subsumed within the meaning of the “engaged in . . . commerce” residual clause. The wording of §1 calls for the application of the maxim ejusdem generis, the statutory canon that “[w]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction §47.17 (1991); see also Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 U. S. 117, 129 (1991). Under this rule of construction the residual .clause should be read to give effect to the terms “seamen” and “railroad employees,” and should itself be controlled and defined by reference to the enumerated categories of workers which are recited just before it; the interpretation of the clause pressed by respondent fails to produce these results.
Canons of construction need not be conclusive and are often countered, of course, by some maxim pointing in a different direction. The application of the rule ejusdem gen-eris in this case, however, is in full accord with other sound considerations bearing upon the proper interpretation of the clause. For even if the term “engaged in commerce” stood alone in § 1, we would not construe the provision to exclude all contracts of employment from the FAA. Congress uses different modifiers to the word “commerce” in the design and enactment of its statutes. The phrase “affecting commerce” indicates Congress’ intent to regulate to the outer limits of its authority under the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Allied-Bruce, 513 U. S., at 277. The “involving commerce” phrase, the operative words for the reach of the basic coverage provision in § 2, was at issue in Allied-Bruce. That particular phrase had not been interpreted before by this Court. Considering the usual meaning of the word “involving,” and the pro-arbitration purposes of the FAA, Allied-Bruce held the “word ‘involving,’ like ‘affecting,’ signals an intent to exercise Congress’ commerce power to the full.” Ibid. Unlike those phrases, however, the general words “in commerce” and the specific phrase “engaged in commerce” are understood to have a more limited reach. In Allied-Bruce itself the Court said the words “in commerce” are “often-found words of art” that we have not read as expressing congressional intent to regulate to the outer limits of authority under the Commerce Clause. Id., at 278; see also United States v. American Building Maintenance Industries, 422 U. S. 271, 279-280 (1975) (phrase “engaged in commerce” is “a term of art, indicating a limited assertion of federal jurisdiction”); Jones v. United States, 529 U. S. 848, 855 (2000) (phrase “used in commerce” “is most sensibly read to mean active employment for commercial purposes, and not merely a passive, passing, or past connection to commerce”).
It is argued that we should assess the meaning of the phrase “engaged in commerce” in a different manner here, because the PAA was enacted when congressional authority to regulate under the commerce power was to a large extent confined by our decisions. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 556 (1995) (noting that Supreme Court decisions beginning in 1937 “ushered in an era of Commerce Clause jurisprudence that greatly expanded the previously defined authority of Congress under that Clause”). When the PAA was enacted in 1925, respondent reasons, the phrase “engaged in commerce” was not a term of art indicating a limited assertion of congressional jurisdiction; to the contrary, it is said, the formulation came close to expressing the outer limits of Congress’ power as then understood. See, e. g., The Employers’ Liability Cases, 207 U.S. 468, 498 (1908) (holding unconstitutional jurisdictional provision in Federal Employers Liability Act (PELA) covering the employees of “every common carrier engaged in trade or commerce”); Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 48-49 (1912); but cf. Illinois Central B. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473 (1914) (noting in dicta that the amended FELA’s application to common carriers “while engaging in commerce” did not reach all employment relationships within Congress’ commerce power). Were this mode of interpretation to prevail, we would take into account the scope of the Commerce Clause, as then elaborated by the Court, at the date of the PAA’s enactment in order to interpret what the statute means now.
A variable standard for interpreting common, jurisdictional phrases would contradict our earlier cases and bring instability to statutory interpretation. The Court has declined in past cases to afford significance, in construing the meaning of the statutory jurisdictional provisions “in commerce” and “engaged in commerce,” to the circumstance that the statute predated shifts in the Court’s Commerce Clause cases. In FTC v. Bunte Brothers, Inc., 312 U. S. 349 (1941), the Court rejected the contention that the phrase “in commerce” in §5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719,15 U. S. C. §45, a provision enacted by Congress in 1914, should be read in as expansive a manner as “affecting commerce.” See Bunte Bros., supra, at 350-351. We entertained a similar argument in a pair of cases decided in the 1974 Term concerning the meaning of the phrase “engaged in commerce” in §7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 18, another 1914 congressional enactment. See American Building Maintenance, supra, at 277-283; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 199-202 (1974). We held that the phrase “engaged in commerce” in §7 “means engaged in the flow of interstate commerce, and was not intended to reach all corporations engaged in activities subject to the federal commerce power.” American Building Maintenance, supra, at 283; cf. Gulf Oil, supra, at 202 (expressing doubt as to whether an “argument from the history and practical purposes of the Clayton Act” could justify “radical expansion of the Clayton Act’s scope beyond that which the statutory language defines”).
The Court’s reluctance to accept contentions that Congress used the words “in commerce” or “engaged in commerce” to regulate to the full extent of its commerce power rests on sound foundation, as it affords objective and consistent significance to the meaning of the words Congress uses when it defines the reach of a statute. To say that the statutory words “engaged in commerce” are subject to variable interpretations depending upon the date of adoption, even a date before the phrase became a term of art, ignores the reason why the formulation became a term of art in the first place: The plain meaning of the words ‘'engaged in commerce” is narrower than the more open-ended formulations “affecting commerce” and “involving commerce.” See, e. g., Gulf Oil, supra, at 195 (phrase “engaged in commerce” “appears to denote only persons or activities within the flow of interstate commerce”). It would be unwieldy for Congress, for the Court, and for litigants to be required to deconstruct statutory Commerce Clause phrases depending upon the year of a particular statutory enactment.
In rejecting the contention that the meaning of the phrase “engaged in commerce” in § 1 of the FAA should be given a broader construction than justified by its evident language simply because it was enacted in 1925 rather than 1938, we do not mean to suggest that statutory jurisdictional formulations “necessarily have a uniform meaning whenever used by Congress.” American Building Maintenance Industries, supra, at 277. As the Court has noted: “The judicial task in marking out the extent to which Congress has exercised its constitutional power over commerce is not that of devising an abstract formula.” A. B. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517, 520 (1942). We must, of course, construe the “engaged in commerce” language in the FAA with reference to the statutory context in which it is found and in a manner consistent with the FAA’s purpose. These considerations, however, further compel that the § 1 exclusion provision be afforded a narrow construction. As discussed above, the location of the phrase “any other class of workers engaged in . . . commerce” in a residual provision, after specific categories of workers have been enumerated, undermines any attempt to give the provision a sweeping, open-ended construction. And the fact that the provision is contained in a statute that “seeks broadly to overcome judicial hostility to arbitration agreements,” Allied-Bruce, 513 U. S., at 272-273, which the Court concluded in Allied-Bruce counseled in favor of an expansive reading of §2, gives no reason to abandon the precise reading of a provision that exempts contracts from the PAA’s coverage.
In sum, the text of the PAA forecloses the construction of § 1 followed by the Court of Appeals in the case under review, a construction which would exclude all employment contracts from the FAA. While the historical arguments respecting Congress’ understanding of its power in 1925 are not insubstantial, this fact alone does not give us basis to adopt, “by judicial decision rather than amendatory legislation,” Gulf Oil, supra, at 202, an expansive construction of the PAA’s exclusion provision that goes beyond the meaning of the words Congress used. While it is of course possible to speculate that Congress might have chosen a different jurisdictional formulation had it known that the Court would soon embrace a less restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause, the text of § 1 precludes interpreting the exclusion provision to defeat the language of §2 as to all employment contracts. Section 1 exempts from the PAA only contracts of employment of transportation workers.
C
As the conclusion we reach today is directed by the text of § 1, we need not assess the legislative history of the exclusion provision. See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 147-148 (1994) C‘[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear”). We do note, however, that the legislative record on the § 1 exemption is quite sparse. Respondent points to no language in either Committee Report addressing the meaning of the provision, nor to any mention of the § 1 exclusion during debate on the PAA on the floor of the House or Senate. Instead, respondent places greatest reliance upon testimony before a Senate subcommittee hearing suggesting that the exception may have been added in response to the objections of the president of the International Seamen’s Union of America. See Hearing on S. 4213 and S. 4214 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., 9 (1923). Legislative history is problematic even when the attempt is to draw inferences from the intent of duly appointed committees of the Congress. It becomes far more so when we consult sources still more steps removed from the full Congress and speculate upon the significance of the fact that a certain interest group sponsored or opposed particular legislation. Cf. Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U. S. 36, 51, n. 13 (1986) (“[N]one of those statements was made by a Member of Congress, nor were they included in the official Senate and House Reports. We decline to accord any significance to these statements”). We ought not attribute to Congress an official purpose based on the motives of a particular group that lobbied for or against a certain proposal — even assuming the precise intent of the group can be determined, a point doubtful both as a general rule and in the instant case. It is for the Congress, not the courts, to consult political forces and then decide how best to resolve conflicts in the course of writing the objective embodiments of law we know as statutes.
Nor can we accept respondent’s argument that our holding attributes an irrational intent to Congress. “Under petitioner’s reading of § 1,” he contends, “those employment contracts most involving interstate commerce, and thus most assuredly within the Commerce Clause power in 1925 ... are excluded from [the] Act’s coverage; while those employment contracts having a less direct and less certain connection to interstate commerce . . . would come within the Act’s affirmative coverage and would not be excluded.” Brief for Respondent 38 (emphases in original).
We see no paradox in the congressional decision to exempt the workers over whom the commerce power was most apparent. To the contrary, it is a permissible inference that the employment contracts of the classes of workers in § 1 were excluded from the PAA precisely because of Congress’ undoubted authority to govern the employment relationships at issue by the enactment of statutes specific to them. By the time the PAA was passed, Congress had already enacted federal legislation providing for the arbitration of disputes between seamen and their employers, see Shipping Commissioners Act of 1872, 17 Stat. 262. When the PAA was adopted, moreover, grievance procedures existed for railroad employees under federal law, see Transportation Act of 1920, §§300-316, 41 Stat. 456, and the passage of a more comprehensive statute providing for the mediation and arbitration of railroad labor disputes was imminent, see Railway Labor Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 577, 46 U.S.C. §651 (repealed). It is reasonable to assume that Congress excluded “seamen” and “railroad employees” from the PAA for the simple reason that it did not wish to unsettle established or developing statutory dispute resolution schemes covering specific workers.
As for the residual exclusion of “any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” Congress’ demonstrated concern with transportation workers and their necessary role in the free flow of goods explains the linkage to the two specific, enumerated types of workers identified in the preceding portion of the sentence. It would be rational for Congress to ensure that workers in general would be covered by the provisions of the FAA, while reserving for itself more specific legislation for those engaged in transportation. See Pryner v. Tractor Supply Co., 109 F. 3d, at 358 (Posner, C. J.). Indeed, such legislation was soon to follow, with the amendment of the Railway Labor Act in 1936 to include air carriers and their employees, see 49 Stat. 1189, 45 U.S.C. §§181-188.
Ill
Various amici, including the attorneys general of 21 States, object that the reading of the § 1 exclusion provision adopted today intrudes upon the policies of the separate States. They point out that, by requiring arbitration agreements in most employment contracts to be covered by the FAA, the statute in effect pre-empts those state employment laws which restrict or limit the ability of employees and employers to enter into arbitration agreements. It is argued that States should be permitted, pursuant to their traditional role in regulating employment relationships, to prohibit employees like respondent from contracting away their right to pursue state-law discrimination claims in court.
It is not our holding today which is the proper target of this criticism. The line of argument is relevant instead to the Court’s decision in Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1 (1984), holding that Congress intended the FAA to apply in state courts, and to pre-empt state antiarbitration laws to the contrary. See id., at 16.
The question of Southland's continuing vitality was given explicit consideration in Allied-Bruce, and the Court declined to overrule it. 513 U. S., at 272; see also id., at 282 (O’Connor, J., concurring). The decision, furthermore, is not directly implicated in this case, which concerns the application of the FAA in a federal, rather than in a state, court. The Court should not chip away at Southland by indirection, especially by the adoption of the variable statutory interpretation theory advanced by the respondent in the instant case. Not all of the Justices who join today’s holding agreed with Allied-Bruce, see 513 U.S., at 284 (Scaua, J., dissenting); id., at 285 (Thomas, J., dissenting), but it would be incongruous to adopt, as we did in Allied-Bruce, a conventional reading of the FAA’s coverage in §2 in order to implement proarbitration policies and an unconventional reading of the reach of § 1 in order to undo the same coverage. In Allied-Bruce the Court noted that Congress had not moved to overturn Southland, see 513 U. S., at 272; and we now note that it has not done so in response to Allied-Bruce itself.
Furthermore, for parties to employment contracts not involving the specific exempted categories set forth in § 1, it is true here, just as it was for the parties to the contract at issue in Allied-Bruce, that there are real benefits to the enforcement of arbitration provisions. We have been clear in rejecting the supposition that the advantages of the arbitration process somehow disappear when transferred to the employment context. See Gilmer, 500 U. S., at 30-32. Arbitration agreements allow parties to avoid the costs of litigation, a benefit that may be of particular importance in employment litigation, which often involves smaller sums of money than disputes concerning commercial contracts. These litigation costs to parties (and the accompanying burden to the courts) would be compounded by the difficult choice-of-law questions that are often presented in disputes arising from the employment relationship, cf. Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, post, at 149 (noting possible “choice-of-law problems” presented by state laws affecting administration of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 plans), and the necessity of bifurcation of proceedings in those cases where state law precludes arbitration of certain types of employment claims but not others. The considerable complexity and uncertainty that the construction of §1 urged by respondent would introduce into the enforceability of arbitration agreements in employment contracts would call into doubt the efficacy of alternative dispute resolution procedures adopted by many of the Nation’s employers, in the process undermining the PAA’s proarbitration purposes and “breeding litigation from a statute that seeks to avoid it.” Allied-Bruce, supra, at 275. The Court has been quite specific in holding that arbitration agreements can be enforced under the PAA without contravening the policies of congressional enactments giving employees specific protection against discrimination prohibited by federal law; as we noted in Gilmer, “ ‘[b]y agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum.’ ” 500 U.S., at 26 (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 628 (1985)). Gilmer, of course, involved a federal statute, while the argument here is that a state statute ought not be denied state judicial enforcement while awaiting the outcome of arbitration. That matter, though, was addressed in Southland and Allied-Bruce, and we do not revisit the question here.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents brought this suit against the Government in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas for a refund of estate taxes paid pursuant to an asserted deficiency. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that respondents were entitled to certain marital deductions under § 812 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and also to deductions for other payments as “claims against the estate” and “administration expenses” under § 812 (b) (3) and (2) of the 1939 Code. 309 F. 2d 592. We granted certiorari to consider questions of statutory interpretation important to the administration of the federal estate tax laws. 372 U. S. 928.
Lowell H. Stapf died testate on July 29,1953, a resident and domiciliary of Texas, a community property jurisdiction. At the time of his death he owned, in addition to his separate estate, a substantial amount of property in community with his wife. His will required that his widow elect either to retain her one-half interest in the community or to take under the will and allow its terms to govern the disposition of her community interest. If Mrs. Stapf were to elect to take under the will, she would be given, after specific bequests to others, one-third of the community property and one-third of her husband’s separate estate. By accepting this bequest she would allow her one-half interest in the community to pass, in accordance with the will, into a trust for the benefit of the children. It was further provided that if she chose to take under the will the executors were to pay “all and not merely one-half” of the community debts and administration expenses.
The relevant facts and computations are not in dispute. The decedent’s separate property was valued at $65,100 and the community property at $258,105. The only debts were community debts totalling $32,368. The administration expenses, including attorneys’ fees, were $4,073. If Mrs. Stapf had not elected to take under the will, she would have retained her fully vested one-half interest in the community property ($129,052) which would have been charged with one-half of the community debts ($16,184) and 35% of the administration expenses ($1,426). Thus, as the parties agree, she would have received a net of $111,443.
In fact Mrs. Stapf elected to take under the will. She received, after specific bequests to others, one-third of the combined separate and community property, a devise valued at $106,268, which was $5,175 less than she would have received had she retained her community property and refused to take under the will.
In computing the net taxable estate, the executors claimed a marital deduction under §812 (e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 for the full value of the one-third of decedent’s separate estate ($22,367) which passed to his wife under the will. The executors also claimed a deduction for the entire $32,368 of community debts as “claims against the estate” under § 812 (b)(3) and for the entire $4,073 of expenses as “administration expenses” under §812 (b)(2). The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the marital deduction and the deductions for claims and administration insofar as these represented debts (50%) and expenses (35%) chargeable to the wife’s one-half of the community. Respondents then instituted this suit for a tax refund. The District Court allowed the full marital deduction but disallowed the disputed claims and expenses. 189 F. Supp. 830. On cross-appeals the Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting on all issues, held that each of the claimed deductions was allowable in full. 309 F. 2d 592. For reasons stated below, we hold that the Commissioner was correct and that none of the disputed deductions is allowable.
I. The Marital Deduction.
By electing to take under the will, Mrs. Stapf, in effect, agreed to accept the property devised to her and, in turn, to surrender property of greater value to the trust for the benefit of the children. This raises the question of whether a decedent’s estate is allowed a marital deduction under § 812 (e)(1) (E)(ii) of the 1939 Code where the bequest to the surviving spouse is on the condition that she convey property of equivalent or greater value to her children. The Government contends that, for purposes of a marital deduction, “the value of the interest passing to the wife is the value of the property given her less the value of the property she is required to give another as a condition to receiving it.” On this view, since the widow had no net benefit from the exercise of her election, the estate would be entitled to no marital deduction. Respondents reject this net benefit approach and argue that the plain meaning of the statute makes detriment to the surviving spouse immaterial.
Section 812 (e)(1)(A) provides that “in general” the marital deduction is for “the value of any interest in property which passes . . . from the decedent to his surviving spouse.” Subparagraph (E) then deals specifically with the question of valuation:
“(E) Valuation Of Interest Passing To Surviving Spouse. — In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (A) the value Of any interest in property passing to the surviving spouse for which a deduction is allowed by this subsection—
“(ii) where such interest or property is incumbered in any manner, or where the surviving spouse incurs any obligation imposed by the decedent with respect to the passing of such interest, such incum-brance or obligation shall be taken into account in the same manner as if the amount of a gift to such spouse of such interest were being determined.”
The disputed deduction turns upon the interpretation of (1) the introductory phrase “any obligation imposed by the decedent with respect to the passing of such interest,” and (2) the concluding provision that “such . . . obligation shall be taken into account in the same manner as if the amount of a gift to such spouse of such interest were being determined.”
The Court of Appeals, in allowing the claimed marital deduction, reasoned that since the valuation is to be “as if” a gift were being taxed, the legal analysis should be the same as if a husband had made an inter vivos gift to his wife on the condition that she give something to the children. In such a case, it was stated, the husband is taxable in the full amount for his gift. The detriment incurred by the wife would not ordinarily reduce the amount of the gift taxable to the husband, the original donor. The court concluded:
“Within gift tax confines the community property of the widow passing under the will of the husband to others may not be ‘netted’ against the devise to the widow, and thus testator, were the transfer inter vivos, would be liable for gift taxes on the full value of the devise.” 309 F. 2d 592, 598.
This conclusion, based on the alleged plain meaning of the final gift-amount clause of § 812 (e)(1)(E) (ii), is not supported by a reading of the entire statutory provision. First, § 812 (e) allows a marital deduction only for the decedent’s gifts or bequests which pass “to his surviving spouse.” In the present case the effect of the devise was not to distribute wealth to the surviving spouse, but instead to transmit, through the widow, a gift to the couple’s children. The gift-to-the-surviving-spouse terminology reflects concern with the status of the actual recipient or donee of the gift. What the statute provides is a “marital deduction” — a deduction for gifts to the surviving spouse — not a deduction for gifts to the children or a deduction for gifts to privately selected beneficiaries. The appropriate reference, therefore, is not to the value of the gift moving from the deceased spouse but to the net value of the gift received by the surviving spouse.
Second, the introductory phrases of § 812 (e) (1) (E) (ii) provide that the gift-amount determination is to be made “where such interest or property is incumbered in any manner, or where the surviving spouse incurs any obligation imposed by the decedent with respect to the passing of such interest . . . .” The Government, drawing upon the broad import of this language, argues: “An undertaking by the wife to convey property to a third person, upon which her receipt of property under the decedent’s will is conditioned, is plainly an 'obligation imposed by the decedent with respect to the passing of such interest.’ ” Respondents contend that “incumbrance or obligation” refers only to “a payment to be made out of property passing to the surviving spouse.” Respondents’ narrow construction certainly is not compelled by a literal interpretation of the statutory language. Their construction would embrace only, for example, an obligation on the property passing whereas the statute speaks of an obligation “with respect to the passing” gift. Finally, to arrive at the real value of the gift “such . . . obligation shall be taken into account . . . .” In context we think this relates the gift-amount determination to the net economic interest received by the surviving spouse.
This interpretation is supported by authoritative declarations of congressional intent. The Senate Committee on Finance, in explaining the operation of the marital deduction, stated its understanding as follows:
“If the decedent bequeaths certain property to his surviving spouse subject, however, to her agreement, or a charge on the property, for payment of $1,000 to X, the value of the bequest (and, accordingly, the value of the interest passing to the surviving spouse) is the value, reduced by $1,000, of such property.” S. Rep. No. 1013, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., Pt. 2, p. 6. (Emphasis added.)
The relevant Treasury Regulation is directly based upon, if not literally taken from, such expressions of legislative intent. Treas. Reg. 106, § 81.47c (b) (1949). The Regulation specifically includes an example of the kind of testamentary disposition involved in this case:
“A decedent bequeathed certain securities to his wife in lieu of her interest in property held by them as community property under the law of the State of their residence. The wife elected to relinquish her community property interest and to take the bequest. For the purpose of the marital deduction, the value of the bequest is to be reduced by the value of the community property interest relinquished by the wife.”
We conclude, therefore, that the governing principle, approved by Congress and embodied in the Treasury Regulation, must be that a marital deduction is allowable only to the extent that the property bequeathed to the surviving spouse exceeds in value the property such spouse is required to relinquish.
Our conclusion concerning the congressionally intended result under §812 (e)(1) accords with the general purpose of Congress in creating the marital deduction. The 1948 tax amendments were intended to equalize the effect of the estate taxes in community property and common-law jurisdictions. Under a community property system, such as that in Texas, the spouse receives outright ownership of one-half of the community property and only the other one-half is included in the decedent’s estate. To equalize the incidence of progressively scaled estate taxes and to adhere to the patterns of state law, the marital deduction permits a deceased spouse, subject to certain requirements, to transfer free of taxes one-half of the non-community property to the surviving spouse. Although applicable to separately held property in a community property state, the primary thrust of this is to extend to taxpayers in common-law States the advantages of “estate splitting” otherwise available only in community property States. The purpose, however, is only to permit a married couple’s property to be taxed in two stages and not to allow a tax-exempt transfer of wealth into succeeding generations. Thus the marital deduction is generally restricted to the transfer of property interests that will be includible in the surviving spouse’s gross estate. Respondents’ construction of §812 (e)(1) would, nevertheless, permit one-half of a spouse’s wealth to pass from one generation to another without being subject either to gift or estate taxes. We do not believe that this result, squarely contrary to the concept of the marital deduction, can be justified by the language of § 812 (e) (1). Furthermore, since in a community property jurisdiction one-half of the community normally vests in the wife, approval of the claimed deduction would create an opportunity for tax reduction that, as a practical matter, would be more readily available to couples in community property jurisdictions than to couples in common-law jurisdictions. Such a result, again, would be unnecessarily inconsistent with a basic purpose of the statute.
Since in our opinion the plain meaning of § 812 (e)(1) does not require the interpretation advanced by respondents, the statute must be construed to accord with the clearly expressed congressional purposes and the relevant Treasury Regulation. We conclude that, for estate tax purposes, the value of a conditional bequest to a widow should be the value of the property given to her less the value of the property she is required to give to another. In this case the value of the property transferred to Mrs. Stapf ($106,268) must be reduced by the value of the community property she was required to relinquish ($111,443). Since she received no net benefit, the estate is entitled to no marital deduction.
II. Claims Against the Estate and Administration Expenses.
A. Claims Against the Estate.
Section 812 (b)(3) of the 1939 Code provides for the deduction from the gross estate of “Such amounts . . . for claims against the estate ... as are allowed by the laws of the jurisdiction . . . under which the estate is being administered . . . The community debts in this case total $32,368, consisting largely of taxes due for past income. The decedent’s will directed that his executors pay “all and not merely one-half” of the community debts. Under Texas law, absent this provision, only one-half of the community debts would be charged to the decedent’s half of the community. The issue presented is whether, as a result of the testamentary direction, a deduction may be taken for the entire amount of the community debts as “claims against the estate . . . allowed by” state law.
The first question to consider is whether the claim is of the type intended to be deductible. It cannot be denied that where the executors are directed to pay the debts of another party the substance of the direction is to confer a beneficial gift on that party. Respondents’ contentions in effect require that § 812 (b) — designed to allow deductions for “expenses, losses, indebtedness, and taxes” — be construed to authorize tax-free gifts despite the general policy that wealth not be transmitted tax free at death. The provisions of § 812 (b) demonstrate that it was not intended to allow deductions for voluntary transfers that deplete the estate merely because the testator described the transfers or payments as the settlement of “claims” or “debts.” This intent is evidenced by the treatment of claims or debts founded upon promises or agreements. The section carefully restricts the deductible amount “in the case of clairhs against the estate . . . or any indebtedness . . . , when founded upon a promise or agreement, ... to the extent that they were contracted bona fide and for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth. . . .” Absent such an offset or augmentation of the estate, a testator could disguise transfers as payments in settlement of debts and claims and thus obtain deductions for transmitting gifts. As this requirement suggests, a deduction under § 812 (b) should not be predicated solely on the finding that a promise or claim is legally enforceable under the state laws governing the validity of contracts and wills. The claims referred to by the statute are those “claims against” the property of the deceased -which are allowed by and enforceable under the laws of the administering State and not those claims created by the deceased’s gratuitous assumption of debts attaching to the property of another.
The pertinent Treasury Regulation states that the deductible claims are "such only as represent personal obligations of the decedent ...” We cannot agree with respondents’ contention that the debts chargeable to the wife’s community property are “personal obligations” of the decedent within the meaning of the Regulation. It is true, as the Court of Appeals stated, that under Texas law the husband, as manager of the community property, was personally liable for the full amount of community debts. 309 F. 2d 592, 596. His liability for the portion of debts chargeable to his wife’s community property was, however, accompanied by a right over against her half of the community. Ibid. The basic rule of Texas law is that the community is liable for its debts, and, accordingly, half the debts attach to the wife’s community property. Since the will of the decedent cannot be allowed to define what is an "obligation” or a "claim,” where, as in this case, the community is solvent, the debts chargeable to the wife’s property cannot realistically be deemed “personal obligations” of the decedent or “claims against” his estate.
The provisions of § 812 (b), like those of § 812 (e) allowing marital deductions, must be analyzed in light of the congressional purpose of equalizing the incidence of taxation upon couples in common-law and community property jurisdictions. If the deductible “claims” were to include all community debts that might be, in a literal sense, “personal obligations” of the husband as surety, then a married couple in a community property State might readily increase their tax-free estate transfers. For example, by borrowing against the value of the community property and then requiring that his executors pay all community debts, the husband could obtain a tax deduction for what would in effect be a testamentary gift to his wife. That gift might or might not qualify for treatment as a marital deduction, but it certainly was not intended to be made deductible by § 812 (b). A contrary interpretation of § 812 (b)(3) would, in our opinion, generally tend to create unwarranted tax advantages for couples in community property States.
B. Administration Expenses.
The testator’s will provided that administration expenses, as well as community debts, should be paid entirely out of his half of the community property. The administration expenses totalled $4,073. Under Texas law an allocable share of these costs was chargeable to the surviving spouse’s community property. That allocable share was determined to be 35% or $1,426. The issue is whether the executors’ payment of the costs attributable to the wife’s property are deductible “administration expenses . . . allowed by” the law of the State under §812 (b)(2).
The interpretation of “administration expenses” under §812 (b)(2) involves substantially the same considerations that determine the interpretation of “claims against the estate” under § 812 (b)(3). In both instances, the testator, by directing that payment be made of debts chargeable to another or to non-estate property, reduces his net estate and in effect confers a gift or bequest upon another. We believe that the provisions of § 812 (b), like those of § 812 (e) providing the marital deduction, must be read in light of the general policies of taxing the transmission of wealth at death and of equalizing the tax treatment of couples in common-law and in community property jurisdictions. We hold, therefore, that a deduction may not be allowed for administration costs chargeable to the surviving spouse’s community property.
C. The Payment of Debts and Expenses as a Marital Gift.
In our view the payments made as a result of the testator’s assumption of responsibility both for his wife’s share of the community debts and for her share of the administration expenses are more properly characterized as marital gifts rather than as “claims” or “expenses.” Since these gifts were to the surviving spouse, respondents contend that a marital deduction should be allowed. Our interpretation of § 812 (e) disposes of this argument, for under any view of the facts, even if these items are deemed to be gifts to the wife, the will required her to surrender property more valuable than the bequests she received. In the absence of a net benefit passing to the surviving spouse, no marital deduction is allowable.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed and the case remanded for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
62 Stat. 117 (1948), now Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 2056 (b) (4) (B). The provisions involved are § 812 (e) (1) (A) and (E) (ii):
“(e) Bequests, Etc., to SURVIVING Spouse.—
“(1) ALLOWANCE OR MARITAL DEDUCTION. — ■
“(A) In General. — An amount equal to the value of any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse, but only to the extent that such interest is included in determining the value of the gross estate.
“(E) Valuation Of Interest Passing To Surviving Spouse. — In determining for the purposes of subparagraph (A) the value of any interest in property passing to the surviving spouse for which a deduction is allowed by this subsection'—
“(ii) where such interest or property is incumbered in any manner, or where the surviving spouse incurs any obligation imposed by the decedent with respect to the passing of such interest, such incum-brance or obligation shall be taken into account in the same manner as if the amount of a gift to such spouse of such interest were being determined.”
53 Stat. 123 (1939), now Int. Rev. Code of 1954, §2053 (a). Subsequent references will be to the 1939 Code under which the case arose. The pertinent provisions of § 812 (b) authorize deductions for:
“(b) Expenses, Losses, Indebtedness, and Taxes. — Such amounts—
“(1) for funeral expenses,
“(2) for administration expenses,
“(3) for claims against the estate, and
“(4) for unpaid mortgages upon, or any indebtedness in respect to, property where the value of decedent’s interest therein, undiminished by such mortgage or indebtedness, is included in the value of the gross estate,
“as are allowed by the laws of the jurisdiction, whether within or without the United States, under which the estate is being administered, but not including any income taxes upon income received after the death of the decedent, or property taxes not accrued before his death, or any estate, succession, legacy, or inheritance taxes. The deduction herein allowed in the case of claims against the estate, unpaid mortgages, or any indebtedness shall, when founded upon a promise or agreement, be limited to the extent that they were contracted bona fide and for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth . . . .”
The figures stated throughout are rounded to the nearer dollar.
The apportionment of administration expenses was initially determined by a revenue examiner and was sustained by the District Court. 189 F. Supp. 830, 838.
This includes $700 for an automobile specifically bequeathed to Mrs. Stapf. There is some question as to whether Mrs. Stapf should be credited with receiving the full value of the automobile ($1,400) or only a one-half interest ($700). For present purposes the difference is immaterial for it is insufficient to alter the basic fact that the widow did not receive a net benefit by electing to take under the will. We therefore accept the figures used by the courts below and consider Mrs. Stapf as receiving only a one-half interest ($700) in the automobile.
The parties agree that the net effect of taking under the will may be computed by another method. As explained by the Court of Appeals, “Computed differently but with the same result, the widow retained a one-third interest out of the one-half of the community owned by her, thereby transferring only a one-sixth interest under the election to take. Under this method of computation she transferred property having a valuation of $27,541.16 and received property being the one-third interest in the separate property of the husband and the one-half interest in the automobile of the aggregate value of the $22,366.66, making a net loss to her of $5,174.50.” 309 F. 2d 592, 594.
The Commissioner did in fact allow a marital deduction for $700, representing a one-half interest in the automobile. 309 F. 2d 592, 597, n. 5. That allowance was not challenged by the Government in the District Court. We therefore do not review the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it allows this $700 deduction.
See, e. g., Commissioner v. Wemyss, 324 U. S. 303. There the Court stated that under the Revenue Act of 1932 mere detriment to the transferee did not constitute the requisite “consideration in money or money’s worth” to the transferor so as to relieve him of gift tax liability. Respondents’ reliance on this ease ignores that it involved neither a determination of who was to be considered the beneficial donee nor a valuation of the gift received by such donee.
The portion of the language relied upon provides that the valuation be “in the same manner as if the amount of a gift to such spouse of such interest were being determined.”
Treas. Reg. 105, § 81.47c (b) (3) (1949), now Treas. Reg. § 20.2056 (b)-4 (b) (3) (1958). The Regulation provides another relevant illustration “of property interests which passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse subject to the imposition of an obligation by the decedent: (1) A decedent devised a residence valued at $25,000 to his wife, with a direction that she pay $5,000 to his sister. For the purpose of the marital deduction, the value of the property interest passing to the wife is only $20,000.”
See Lowndes and Kramer, Federal Estate and Gift Taxes (1962), § 17.4: “[W]hat the Regulations are driving at seems to be this. If a decedent bequeaths property to his wife in lieu of her interest in community property, which is not part of his estate and which does not pass to her from him, it seems clear that the only thing which the surviving spouse actually receives from the decedent is the excess of the interest bequeathed to her over and above the value of her interest in the community property. Therefore, this should be the only amount which qualifies for the marital deduction . . . .”
This Court has frequently “given considerable and in some cases decisive weight to . . . interpretative Regulations of the Treasury and of other bodies that were not of adversary origin.” Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140. Although the weight to be given to an interpretative rule varies with its statutory and legislative context, a Treasury Regulation is particularly persuasive when, as in this case, it is supported by declarations of congressional intent.
See H. R. Rep. No. 1274, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 24-26; S. Rep. No. 1013, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 26-29; Sugarman, Estate and Gift Tax Equalization — The Marital Deduction (1948), 36 Cal. L. Rev. 223, 228-230.
The congressional concern with the eventual taxability of marital-deduction property is indicated by the terminable interest rule of § 812 (e) (1) (B). See S. Rep. No. 1013, supra, note 12, p. 28; Warren and Surrey, Federal Estate and Gift Taxation (1961), pp. 759-760.
The Court of Appeals recognized the effect of its decision: “Here estate taxes are due now on the property of the husband with the devise to the widow excluded. It is a part of the marital deduction or exclusion on which taxes are deferred to the estate of the widow to be assessed on so much of it as survives on another day. The net of the transfer by the widow became subject to gift taxes at the time of the transfer. The property transferred by the widow will, to the extent of an amount equal to the devise to her, escape both gift and estate taxes.” 309 F. 2d 592, 598. For an illustration of the tax effects of the decision, see the dissent of Judge Wisdom. 309 F. 2d, at 608-609.
See 76 Harv. L. Rev. 1671, 1675.
See Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U. S. 78, 80-81 (concerning the meaning of “general power of appointment” under a federal revenue act): “State law creates legal interests and rights. The federal revenue acts designate what interests or rights, so created, shall be taxed. Our duty is to ascertain the meaning of the words used to specify the thing'taxed. If it is found in a given case that an interest or right created by local law was the object intended to be taxed, the federal law must prevail no matter what name is given to the interest or right by state law.” See Hart and Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System (1953)., pp. 456-457.
See, e. g„ Lowndes and Kramer, op. cit., supra, note 10, §§ 1.2, 2.2.
The majority of the Court of Appeals passed over the adequate-consideration provision because “the debts here were in the main for income taxes and ad valorem taxes, debts imposed by law.” 309 F. 2d 592, 596. However, since one-half of the taxes were chargeable to the wife’s community property, the disputed claims were in fact imposed on the estate only by the terms of the will and the widow’s election to take under those terms.
Treas. Reg. 105, §81.36 (1942), now Treas. Reg. §20.2053-4 (1958): “Claims against the estate. — The amounts that may be deducted under this heading are such only as represent personal obligations of the decedent existing at the time of his death, whether or not then matured, and interest thereon which had accrued at the time of death. . . . Only claims enforceable against the decedent’s estate may be deducted. . . .” With regard to the disputed deduction for the wife’s share of community debts, it has been suggested that: “because the decedent’s estate is not bound, even under state law, until after the widow elects, allowance of the deduction may be incompatible with the regulation requiring that the claims be in existence at the decedent’s death. This requirement could only be fulfilled by an election which would work retroactively.” 37 Tul. L. Rev. 297, 315.
3 09 F. 2d 592, 604 (Wisdom, J., dissenting): “For example, in the twilight of their years, a couple with community property worth $1,000,000 could borrow an additional $1,000,000 and invest it in securities, using the $2,000,000 as collateral. As a result, the community property would be increased from one million to two million dollars, and would have debts against it of one million dollars. If the husband provided by will that all community debts be paid out of his share of the community property, upon his death his share of the community property would be worth $1,000,000. All of this, however, would be matched by deductible community debts. Thus, under the Court’s holding, the entire 'net’ estate of $1,000,000 would pass, untaxed, to the wife.”
See infra, p. 134.
See 76 Harv. L. Rev. 1671, 1675.
Respondents concede that “even with the benefit of the bequest of 1/3 of the separate property to her and the benefit of the debt and expense assumption provisions, Mrs. Stapf ended up with less than she would have owned had she elected to take against the will.” Her share of the gross community assets was $129,052. The portion of the debts ($16,184) and administration expenses ($1,426) chargeable to her was $17,610. When the assumption of the debts and expenses is viewed as a legacy, the effect of taking under the will may be summarized as follows: Mrs. Stapf, in effect retained one-third of the total community property remaining after certain bequests ($83,902; see note 5, supra) and allowed the balance of her community ($129,052 minus $83,902) to pass into the trust for the children. Thus she gave up property worth $45,151. In return she was given separate property valued at $22,367 (see note 6, supra) and the benefit of the debt and expense assumption, or $17,610, a total transfer of $39,976. Thus, the exchange produced a net loss to Mrs. Stapf of $5,175.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant was convicted in Georgia of the crime of distributing obscene material. His conviction, in March 1972, was for showing the film “Carnal Knowledge” in a movie theater in Albany, Georgia. The jury that found appellant guilty was instructed on obscenity pursuant to the Georgia statute, which defines obscene material in language similar to that of the definition of obscenity set forth in this Court's plurality opinion in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 418 (1966):
“Material is obscene if considered as a whole, applying community standards, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion, and utterly without redeeming social value and if, in addition, it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in describing or representing such matters.” Ga. Code Ann. § 26-2101 (b) (1972).
We hold today in Hamling v. United States, ante, p. 87, that defendants convicted prior to the announcement of our Miller decisions but whose convictions were on direct appeal at that time should receive any benefit available to them from those decisions. We conclude here that the film “Carnal Knowledge” is not obscene under the constitutional standards announced in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), and that the First and Fourteenth Amendments therefore require that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia affirming appellant’s conviction be reversed.
Appellant was the manager of the theater in which “Carnal Knowledge” was being shown. While he was exhibiting the film on January 13, 1972, local law enforcement officers seized it pursuant to a search warrant. Appellant was later charged by accusation, Ga. Code Ann. § 27-704 (1972), with the offense of distributing obscene material. After his trial in the Superior Court of Dough-erty County, the jury, having seen the film and heard testimony, returned a general verdict of guilty on March 23, 1972. Appellant was fined $750 and sentenced to 12 months’ probation. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which by a divided vote affirmed the judgment of conviction on July 2, 1973. That court stated that the definition of obscenity contained in the Georgia statute was “considerably more restrictive” than the new test set forth in the recent case of Miller v. California, supra, and that the First Amendment does not protect the commercial exhibition of “hard core” pornography. The dissenting Justices, in addition to other disagreements with the court, thought that “Carnal Knowledge” was entitled to the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellant then appealed to this Court and we noted probable jurisdiction, 414 U. S. 1090 (1973).
We agree with the Supreme Court of Georgia’s implicit ruling that the Constitution does not require that juries be instructed in state obscenity cases to, apply the standards of a hypothetical statewide community. Miller approved the use of such instructions; it did not mandate their use. What Miller makes clear is that state juries need not be instructed to apply “national standards.” We also agree with the Supreme Court of Georgia’s implicit approval of the trial court’s instructions directing jurors to apply “community standards” without specifying what “community.” Miller held that it was constitutionally permissible to permit juries to rely on the understanding of the community from which they came as to contemporary community standards, and the States have considerable latitude in framing statutes under this element of the Miller decision. A State may choose to define an obscenity offense in terms of “contemporary community standards” as defined in Miller without further specification, as was done here, or it may choose to define the standards in more precise geographic terms, as was done by California in Miller.
We now turn to the question of whether appellant’s exhibition of the film was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a question which appellee asserts is not properly before us because appellant did not raise it on his state appeal. But whether or not appellant argued this constitutional issue below, it is clear that the Supreme Court of Georgia reached and decided it. That is sufficient under our practice. Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 436 (1959). We also note that the trial court instructed the jury on charges other than the distribution charge. However, the jury returned a general verdict and appellee does not suggest that appellant’s conviction can be sustained on these alternative grounds. Cf. Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 367-368 (1931).
There is little to be found in the record about the film “Carnal Knowledge” other than the film itself. However, appellant has supplied a variety of information and critical commentary, the authenticity of which appellee does not dispute. The film appeared on many “Ten Best” lists for 1971, the year in which it was released. Many but not all of the reviews were favorable. We believe that the following passage from a review which appeared in the Saturday Review is a reasonably accurate description of the film:
“[It is basically a story] of two young college men, roommates and lifelong friends forever preoccupied with their sex lives. Both are first met as virgins. Nicholson is the more knowledgeable and attractive of the two; speaking colloquially, he is a burgeoning bastard. Art Garfunkel is his friend, the nice but troubled guy straight out of those early Feiffer cartoons, but real. He falls in love with the lovely Susan (Candice Bergen) and unknowingly shares her with his college buddy. As the 'safer’ one of the two, he is selected by Susan for marriage.
“The time changes. Both men are in their thirties, pursuing successful careers in New York. Nicholson has been running through an average of . a dozen women a year but has never managed to meet the right one, the one with the full bosom, the good legs, the properly rounded bottom. More than that, each and every one is a threat to his malehood and peace of mind, until at last, in a bar, he finds Ann-Margret, an aging bachelor girl with striking cleavage and, quite obviously, something of a past. ‘Why don’t we shack up?’ she suggests. They do and a horrendous relationship ensues, complicated mainly by her paranoidal desire to marry. Meanwhile, what of Garfunkel? The sparks have gone out of his marriage, the sex has lost its savor, and Garfunkel tries once more. And later, even more foolishly, again.”
Appellee contends essentially that under Miller the obscenity vel non of the film “Carnal Knowledge” was a question for the jury, and that the jury having resolved the question against appellant, and there being some evidence to support its findings, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. We turn to the language of Miller to evaluate appellee’s contention.
Miller states that the questions of what appeals to the “prurient interest” and what is “patently offensive” under the obscenity test which it formulates are “essentially questions of fact.” 413 U. S., at 30. “When triers of fact are asked to decide whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would consider certain materials ‘prurient’ it would be unrealistic to require that the answer be based on some abstract formulation .... To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national ‘community standard’ would be an exercise in futility.” Ibid. We held in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49 (1973), decided on the same day, that expert testimony as to obscenity is not necessary when the films at issue are themselves placed in evidence. Id., at 56.
But all of this does not lead us to agree with the Supreme Court of Georgia’s apparent conclusion that the jury’s verdict against appellant virtually precluded all further appellate review of appellant’s assertion that his exhibition of the film was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Even though questions of appeal to the “prurient interest” or of patent offensiveness are “essentially questions of fact,” it would be a serious misreading of Miller to conclude that juries have unbridled discretion in determining what is “patently offensive.” Not only did we there say that “the First Amendment values applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary,” 413 U. S., at 25, but we made it plain that under that holding “no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive 'hard core’ sexual conduct . . . .” Id., at 27.
We also took pains in Miller to “give a few plain examples of what a state statute could define for regulation under part (b) of the standard announced,” that is, the requirement of patent offensiveness. Id., at 25. These examples included “representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated,” and “representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.” Ibid. While this did not purport to be an exhaustive catalog of what juries might find patently offensive, it was certainly intended to fix substantive constitutional limitations, deriving from the First Amendment, on the type of material subject to such a determination. It would be wholly at odds with this aspect of Miller to uphold an obscenity conviction based upon a defendant’s depiction of a woman with a bare midriff, even though a properly charged jury unanimously agreed on a verdict of guilty.
Our own viewing of the film satisfies us that “Carnal Knowledge” could not be found under the Miller standards to depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way. Nothing in the movie falls within either of the two examples given in Miller of material which may constitutionally be found to meet the “patently offensive” element of those standards, nor is there anything sufficiently similar to such material to justify similar treatment. While the subject matter of the picture is, in a broader sense, sex, and there are scenes in which sexual conduct including “ultimate sexual acts” is to be understood to be taking place, the camera does not focus on the bodies of the actors at such times. There is no exhibition whatever of the actors’ genitals, lewd or otherwise, during these scenes. There are occasional scenes of nudity, but nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene under the Miller standards.
Appellant’s showing of the film “Carnal Knowledge” is simply not the “public portrayal of hard core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain” which we said was punishable in Miller. Id., at 35. We hold that the film could not, as a matter of constitutional law, be found to depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and that it is therefore not outside the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is obscene. No other basis appearing in the record upon which the judgment of conviction can be sustained, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas,
being of the view that any ban on obscenity is prohibited by the First Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth, concurs in the reversal of this conviction. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70-73 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
Section 26-2101 is entitled “Distributing obscene materials.” Subsection (a) of §26-2101 provides in relevant part: “A person commits the offense of distributing obscene materials when he . . . exhibits or otherwise disseminates to any person any obscene material of any description, knowing the obscene nature thereof ...” Subsection (c) of §26-2101 provides that “[material], not otherwise obscene, may be obscene under this section if the distribution thereof ... is a commercial exploitation of erotica solely for the sake of their prurient appeal.” Subsection (d) provides that a first offense under the section shall be punished as a misdemeanor and that any subsequent offense shall be punished by one to five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine not to exceed $5,000.
The accusation, App. 8, charged appellant “with the offense of Distributing Obscene Material” for knowingly exhibiting a motion picture to the general public which contained conduct showing “(a) an act of sexual intercourse, (b) a lewd exposure of the sexual organs, (c) a lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity, (d) a lewd caress or indecent fondling of another person” contrary to the laws of Georgia. The latter-quoted language appears in Ga. Code Ann. § 26-2011, entitled “Public indecency,” which makes performance of any of the listed acts in a public place a misdemeanor. Under Ga. Code Ann. §26-2105, it is a crime to exhibit a motion picture portraying acts which would constitute “public indecency” under § 26-2011 if performed in a public place. Appellant’s arrest warrant specified § 26-2105 as the statute he was charged with violating. In view of our holding today, we need not reach appellant’s contention that he was denied due process because the warrant specified only § 26-2105, while the jury was allowed to convict under § 26-2101. However, we note that appellant’s demurrer to the accusation demonstrates his awareness that he was being charged with the § 26-2101 offense, App. 9, and that he requested numerous instructions on obscenity, id., at 47-49.
Appellant’s trial jury was alternatively instructed under subsections (a) and (c) of §26-2101 (pandering), see n. 1, supra, and under § 26-2105, see n. 2, supra.
See n. 3, supra.
Appellant testified that the film was “critically acclaimed as one of the ten best pictures of 1971 and Ann Margret has received an Academy Award nomination for her performance in the picture.” He further testified that “Carnal Knowledge” had played in 29 towns in Georgia and that it was booked in 50 or 60 more theaters for spring and summer showing. App. 24.
Review of “Carnal Knowledge” by Hollis Alpert, Saturday Review, July 3, 1971, p. 18.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this action the United States District Court at Montgomery, Alabama, ordered the local Montgomery County Board of Education to bring about a racial desegregation of the faculty and the staff of the local county school system. 289 F. Supp. 647 (1968). Dissatisfied with the District Court’s order, the board appealed. A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order but, by a two-to-one vote, modified it in part, 400 F. 2d 1 (1968). A petition for rehearing en banc was denied by an evenly divided court, six to six, thereby leaving standing the modifications in the District Court’s order made by the panel. On petitions of the United States as intervenor below in No. 798, and the individual plaintiffs in No. 997, we granted certiorari. 393 U. S. 1116 (1969).
Fifteen years ago, on May 17, 1954, we decided that segregation of the races in the public schools is unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (Brown I). In that case we left undecided the manner in which the transition from segregated to unitary school systems would be achieved, and set the case down for another hearing, inviting the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorneys General of the States providing for racial segregation in the public schools to present their views on the best ways to implement and enforce our judgment. We devoted four days to the argument on this single problem, and all the affected parties were given the opportunity to present their views at length. After careful consideration of the many viewpoints so fully aired by the parties, we announced our decision in Brown II, 349 U. S. 294 (1955). We held that the primary responsibility for abolishing the system of segregated schools would rest with the local school authorities. In some of the States that argued before us, the laws permitted but did not require racial segregation, and we noted that in some of these States “substantial steps to eliminate racial discrimination in public schools have already been taken ... Id., at 299. Many other States had for many years maintained a completely separate system of schools for whites and nonwhites, and the laws of these States, both civil and criminal, had been written to keep this segregated system of schools inviolate. The practices, habits, and customs had for generations made this segregated school system a fixed part of the daily life and expectations of the people. Recognizing these indisputable facts, we neither expected nor ordered that a complete abandonment of the old and adoption of a new system be accomplished overnight. The changes were to be made “at the earliest practicable date” and with “all deliberate speed.” Id., at 300, 301. We were not content, however, to leave this task in the unsupervised hands of local school authorities, trained as most would be under the old laws and practices, with loyalties to the system of separate white and Negro schools. As we stressed then, “[I]t should go without saying that the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them.” Id., at 300. The problem of delays by local school authorities during the transition period was therefore to be the responsibility of courts, local courts so far as practicable, those courts to be guided by traditional equitable flexibility to shape remedies in order to adjust and reconcile public and private needs. These courts were charged in our Brown II opinion, id., at 300, with a duty to:
“require that the defendants [local school authorities] make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date.”
The record shows that neither Montgomery County nor any other area in Alabama voluntarily took any effective steps to integrate the public schools for about 10 years after our Brown I opinion. In fact the record makes clear that the state government and its school officials attempted in every way possible to continue the dual system of racially segregated schools in defiance of our repeated unanimous holdings that such a system violated the United States Constitution.
There the matter stood in Alabama in May 1964 when the present action was brought by Negro children and their parents, with participation by the United States as amicus curiae. Apparently up to that time Montgomery County, and indeed all other schools in the State, had operated, so far as actual racial integration was concerned, as though our Brown cases had never been decided. Obviously voluntary integration by the local school officials in Montgomery had not proved to be even partially successful. Consequently, if Negro children of school age were to receive their constitutional rights as we had declared them to exist, the coercive assistance of courts was imperatively called for. So, after preliminary procedural matters were disposed of, answers filed, and issues joined, a trial took place. On July 31, 1964, District Judge Johnson handed down an opinion and entered an order. 232 F. Supp. 705. The judge found that at the time:
“There is only one school district for Montgomery County, Alabama, with the County Board of Education and the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery County, Alabama, exercising complete control over the entire system. In this school system for the school year 1963-64, there were in attendance approximately 15,000 Negro children and approximately 25,000 white children. In this system the Montgomery County Board of Education owns and operates approximately 77 schools.
“From the evidence in this case, this Court further specifically finds that, through policy, custom and practice, the Montgomery County Board of Education, functioning at the present time through the named individual defendants, operates a dual school system based upon race and color; that is to say, that, through this policy, practice and custom, these officials operate one set of schools to be attended exclusively by Negro students and one set of schools to be attended exclusively by white students. The evidence further reflects that the teachers are assigned according to race; Negro teachers are assigned only to schools attended by Negro students and white teachers are assigned only to schools attended by white students.” 232 F. Supp., at 707.
Based on his findings, Judge Johnson ordered that integration of certain grades begin in September 1964, but in this first order did not require efforts to desegregate the faculty. The school board, acting under- the State’s school placement law, finally admitted eight Negro students out of the 29 who had sought transfers to white schools under the judge’s July 31 order. The judge refused to order admission of the 21 Negro students whose transfer applications had been rejected by the school officials.
The 1964 initial order of Judge Johnson was followed by yearly proceedings, opinions, and orders by him. Hearings, preceding these additional orders, followed the filing each year under the judge’s direction of a report of the school board’s plans for proceeding with desegregation. These annual reports and orders, together with transcripts of the discussions at the hearings, seem to reveal a growing recognition on the part of the school board of its responsibility to achieve integration as rapidly as practicable. The record, however, also reveals that in some areas the board was not moving as rapidly as it could to fulfill this duty, and the record shows a constant effort by the judge to expedite the process of moving as rapidly as practical toward the goal of a wholly unitary system of schools, not divided by race as to either students or faculty. During these years of what turned out to be an exchange of ideas between judge and school board officials, the judge, from time to time, found it possible to compliment the board on its cooperation with him in trying to bring about a fully integrated school system. Some of these complimentary remarks are set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals modifying the judge’s decree. 400 F. 2d, at 3, n. 3. On the other hand the board did not see eye to eye with Judge Johnson on the speed with which segregation should be wiped out “root and branch” as we have held it must be done. Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430, 438 (1968). The school board, having to face the “complexities arising from the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 299, was constantly sparring for time; the judge, upon whom was thrust the difficult task of insuring the achievement of complete integration at the earliest practicable date, was constantly urging that no unnecessary delay could be allowed in reaching complete compliance with our mandate that racially segregated public schools be made nothing but a matter of past history. In this context of clashing objectives it is not surprising that the judge’s most recent 1968 order should have failed fully to satisfy either side. It is gratifying, however, that the differences are so minor as they appear to us to be.
In his 1968 order Judge Johnson provided for safeguards to assure that construction of new schools or additions to existing schools would not follow a pattern tending to perpetuate segregation. The order also provided for the adoption of nondiscriminatory bus routes and for other safeguards to insure that the board’s transportation policy would not tend to perpetuate segregation. The order provided for detailed steps to eliminate the impression existing in the school district that the new Jefferson Davis High School and two new elementary schools were to be used primarily by white students. The order also included a requirement that the board file in the near future further specific reports detailing the steps taken to comply with each point of the order. Nearly all of these aspects of the order were accepted by the school board and not challenged in its appeal to the Court of Appeals. Of the provisions so far mentioned, only one aspect of the provision relating to Jefferson Davis High School was challenged in the Court of Appeals, and after the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Johnson’s order on this point, the school board accepted its decision and did not seek review on the question here.
The dispute in this action thus centers only on that part of the 1968 order which deals with faculty and staff desegregation, a goal that we have recognized to be an important aspect of the basic task of achieving a public school system wholly free from racial discrimination. See, e. g., Bradley v. School Board, 382 U. S. 103 (1965); Rogers v. Paul, 382 U. S. 198 (1965). Judge Johnson noted that in 1966 he had ordered the board to begin the process of faculty desegregation in the 1966-1967 school year but that the board had not made adequate progress toward this goal. He also found:
“The evidence does not reflect any real administrative problems involved in immediately desegregating the substitute teachers, the student teachers, the night school faculties, and in the evolvement of a really legally adequate program for the substantial desegregation of the faculties of all schools in the system commencing with the school year of 1968-69.” 289 F. Supp., at 650.
He therefore concluded that a more specific order would be appropriate under all the circumstances to establish the minimum amount of progress that would be required for the future. To this end his order provided that the board must move toward a goal under which “in each school the ratio of white to Negro faculty members is substantially the same as it is throughout the system.” Id., at 654. In addition, the order set forth a specific schedule. The ratio of Negro to white teachers in the assignment of substitute, student, and night school teachers in each school was to be almost immediately made substantially the same as the ratio of Negro to white teachers in each of these groups for the system as a whole. With respect to full-time teachers, a more gradual schedule was set forth. At the time the ratio of white to Negro full-time teachers in the system as a whole was three to two. For the 1968-1969 school year, each school with fewer than 12 teachers was required to have at least two full-time teachers whose race was different from the race of the majority of the faculty at that school, and in schools with 12 or more teachers, the race of at least one out of every six faculty and staff members was required to be different from the race of the majority of the faculty and staff members at that school. The goals to be required for future years were not specified but were reserved for later decision. About a week later Judge Johnson amended part of the original order by providing that in the 1968-1969 term schools with less than 12 teachers would be required to have only one full-time teacher of the minority race rather than two, as he had originally required.
It was the part of the District Court’s order containing this ratio pattern that prompted the modification of the order by the Court of Appeals. Agreeing that the District Court had properly found from “extensive hearings .. . that desegregation of faculties in the Montgomery County school system was lagging and that appellants [the school board] had failed to comply with earlier orders of the court requiring full faculty desegregation,” and noting that the testimony of school officials themselves indicated the need for more specific guidelines, the Court of Appeals nevertheless struck down parts of the order which it viewed as requiring “fixed mathematical” ratios. It held that the part of the order setting a specific goal for the 1968-1969 school year should be modified to require only “substantially or approximately” the 5-1 ratio required by Judge Johnson’s order. With respect to the ultimate objective for the future, it held that the numerical ratio should be eliminated and that compliance should not be tested solely by the achievement of specified ratios. In so holding, the Court of Appeals made many arguments against rigid or inflexible orders in this kind of case. These arguments might possibly be more troublesome if we read the District Court’s order as being absolutely rigid and inflexible, as did the Court of Appeals. But after a careful consideration of the whole record we cannot believe that Judge Johnson had any such intention. During the four or five years that he held hearings and considered the problem before him, new orders, as previously shown, were issued annually and sometimes more often. On at least one occasion Judge Johnson, on his own motion, amended his outstanding order because a less stringent order for another district had been approved by the Court of Appeals. This was done in order not to inflict any possible injustice on the Montgomery County school system. Indeed the record is filled with statements by Judge Johnson showing his full understanding of the fact that, as this Court also has recognized, in this field the way must always be left open for experimentation.
Judge Johnson’s order now before us was adopted in the spirit of this Court’s opinion in Green v. County School Board, supra, at 439, in that his plan “promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.” The modifications ordered by the panel of the Court of Appeals, while of course not intended to do so, would, we think, take from the order some of its capacity to expedite, by means of specific commands, the day when a completely unified, unitary, nondiscriminatory school system becomes a reality instead of a hope. We believe it best to leave Judge Johnson’s order as written rather than as modified by the 2-1 panel, particularly in view of the fact that the Court of Appeals as a whole was evenly divided on this subject. We also believe that under all the circumstances of this case we follow the original plan outlined in Brown II, as brought up to date by this Court’s opinions in Green v. County School Board, supra, and Griffin v. School Board, 377 U. S. 218, 233-234 (1964), by accepting the more specific and expeditious order of Judge Johnson, whose patience and wisdom are written for all to see and read on the pages of the five-year record before us.
It is good to be able to decide a case with the feelings we have about this one. The differences between the parties are exceedingly narrow. Respondents, members of the Montgomery County school board, state clearly in their brief, “These respondents recognize their affirmative responsibility to provide a desegregated, unitary and nonracial school system. These respondents recognize their responsibility to assign teachers without regard to race so that schools throughout the system are not racially identifiable by their faculties . . . .” Brief for Respondents 11-12. Petitioners, on the other hand, do not argue for precisely equal ratios in every single school under all circumstances. As the United States, petitioner in No. 798, recognizes in its brief, the District Court’s order “is designed as a remedy for past racial assignment .... We do not, in other words, argue here that racially balanced faculties are constitutionally or legally required.” Brief for the United States 13. In short, the Montgomery County school board, and its counsel, assert their purpose to bring about a racially integrated school system as early as practicable in good-faith obedience to this Court’s decisions. Both the District Judge and the Court of Appeals have accorded to the parties and their counsel courteous and patient consideration; there is no sign of lack of interest in the cause of either justice or education in the views maintained by any of the parties or in the orders entered by either of the courts below. Despite the fact that the individual petitioners in this litigation have with some reason argued that Judge Johnson should have gone farther to protect their rights than he did, we approve his order as he wrote it. This, we believe, is the best course we can take in the interest of the petitioners and the public school system of Alabama. We hope and believe that this order and the approval that we now give it will carry Alabama a long distance on its way toward obedience to the law of the land as we have declared it in the two Brown cases and those that have followed them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the District Court.
It is so ordered.
The dissent from the original panel opinion is reported at 402 F. 2d 782.
The dissents from the denial en banc of the petition for rehearing are reported at 402 F. 2d, at 784, 787.
A substantial part of the history of the continued support by Alabama’s governor and other state officials for its dual system of schools, completely separating white and nonwhite students, faculty, and staff, can be found in the opinion of the three-judge court for the Middle District of Alabama in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458 (1967), affirmed by this Court under the title of Wallace v. United States, 389 U. S. 215 (1967).
These orders were reported as follows: May 18, 1965, 10 Race Rel. L. Rep. 582; March 22, 1966, 253 F. Supp. 306; August 18, 1966, 11 Race Rel. L. Rep. 1716; June 1, 1967, 12 Race Rel. L. Rep. 1200.
The Court of Appeals quoted the following excerpt from the testimony of Associate Superintendent W. S. Garrett:
“Q. Well, under your plan, when do you estimate that faculty desegregation will be finally accomplished in terms of the objective of the court order removing—
“A. Well, now, that is something I don’t know, because I don’t know w'hat the objectives of the court order are. That has never been laid down in any percentage fashion that I know of. It says that you will have reasonable desegregation of faculty and that you will strive toward having each faculty not recognizable as being staffed for a particular race. That is what I get out of it.
“Q. Well, let—
“A. So I— I can’t— this court order is in fairly general terms; I can’t answer that question.
“Q. Well, you made the statement about having schools staffed so that they will not be recognizable as for a particular race; when do you expect that that will be accomplished ?
“A. Well, that would depend on what the Board’s definition of that is, the court’s definition of that.
“Q. Do you have a definition of that?
“A. Not at this point; we have discussed that many times, and I do not have a definition of— of what that would mean.
“Q. No one has told you, given you a definition in terms of mechanics, in terms of numbers, none of your superiors?
“A. No, as far as I know, no other school personnel man in America has. I have talked to many of them. What we are striving to do is to make progress and keep going and hope that somewhere along the line we will have achieved the— what the court has in mind. But if you will look at that court order, you will see it doesn’t lay down the precise terms exactly what that means; it is a broad definition.”
As we stated in Green v. County School Board, supra, at 439: “There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the options available in each instance. It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue in this case is the constitutionality under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of a state statute that generally bars picketing of residences or dwellings, but exempts from its prohibition “the peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute.”
I
On September 6, 1977, several of the appellees, all of whom are members of a civil rights organization entitled the Committee Against Racism, participated in a peaceful demonstration on the public sidewalk in front of the home of Michael Bilandic, then Mayor of Chicago, protesting his alleged failure to support the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial integration. They were arrested and charged with unlawful residential picketing in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 21.1-2 (1977), which provides:
“It is unlawful to picket before or about the residence or dwelling of any person, except when the residence or dwelling is used as a place of business. However, this Article does not apply to a person peacefully picketing his own residence or dwelling and does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute or the place of holding a meeting or assembly on premises commonly used to discuss subjects of general public interest.”
Appellees pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to periods of supervision ranging from six months to a year.
In April 1978, appellees commenced this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Illinois residential picketing statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and an injunction prohibiting defendants — various state, county, and city officials — -from enforcing the statute. Appellees did not attempt to attack collaterally their earlier state-court convictions, but requested only prospective relief. Alleging that they wished to renew their picketing in residential neighborhoods but were inhibited from doing so by the threat of criminal prosecution under the residential picketing statute, appellees challenged the Act under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as an overbroad, vague, and, in light of the exception for labor picketing, impermissible content-based restriction on protected expression. The District Court, ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, denied all relief. Brown v. Scott, 462 F. Supp. 518 (1978).
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. Brown v. Scott, 602 F. 2d 791 (1979). Discerning “no principled basis” for distinguishing the Illinois statute from a similar picketing prohibition invalidated in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972), the court concluded that the Act’s differential treatment of labor and nonlabor picketing could not be justified either by the important state interest in protecting the peace and privacy of the home or by the special character of a residence that is also used as a “place of employment.” Accordingly, the court held that the statute, both on its face and as applied to appellees, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We noted probable jurisdiction. 444 U. S. 1011 (1980). We affirm.
II
As the Court of Appeals observed, this is not the first instance in which this Court has had occasion to consider the constitutionality of an enactment selectively proscribing peaceful picketing on the basis of the placard’s message. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, supra, arose out of a challenge to a Chicago ordinance that prohibited picketing in front of any school other than one “involved in a labor dispute.” We held that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause because it impermissibly distinguished between labor picketing and all other peaceful picketing without any showing that the latter was “clearly more disruptive” than the former. 408 U. S., at 100. Like the Court of Appeals, we find the Illinois residential picketing statute at issue in the present case constitutionally indistinguishable from the ordinance invalidated in Mosley.
There can be no doubt that in prohibiting peaceful picketing on the public streets and sidewalks in residential neighborhoods, the Illinois statute regulates expressive conduct that falls within the First Amendment’s preserve. See, e. g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111, 112 (1969); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 152 (1969). “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939) (opinion of Roberts, J.). “‘[SJtreets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely.’” Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507, 515 (1976) (quoting Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U. S. 308, 315 (1968)).
Nor can it be seriously disputed that in exempting from its general prohibition only the “peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute,” the Illinois statute discriminates between lawful and unlawful conduct based upon the content of the demonstrator’s communication. On its face, the Act accords preferential treatment to the expression of views on one particular subject; information about labor disputes may be freely disseminated, but discussion of all other issues is restricted. The permissibility of residential picketing under the Illinois statute is thus dependent solely on the nature of the message being conveyed.
In these critical respects, then, the Illinois statute is identical to the ordinance in Mosley, and it suffers from the same constitutional infirmities. When government regulation discriminates among speech-related activities in a public forum, the Equal Protection Clause mandates that the legislation be finely tailored to serve substantial state interests, and the justifications offered for any distinctions it draws must be carefully scrutinized. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S., at 98-99, 101; see United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376-377 (1968); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 30-31 (1968); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 342-343 (1972); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 34, n. 75 (1973). As we explained in Mosley: “Chicago may not vindicate its interest in preventing disruption by the wholesale exclusion of picketing on all but one preferred subject. Given what Chicago tolerates from labor picketing, the excesses of some nonlabor picketing may not be controlled by a broad ordinance prohibiting both peaceful and violent picketing. Such excesses 'can be controlled by narrowly drawn statutes/ Saia v. New York, 334 U. S., at 562, focusing on the abuses and dealing evenhandedly with picketing regardless of subject matter.” 408 U. S., at 101-102. Yet here, under the guise of preserving residential privacy, Illinois has flatly prohibited all nonlabor picketing even though it permits labor picketing that is equally likely to intrude on the tranquility of the home.
Moreover, it is the content of the speech that determines whether it is within or without the statute’s blunt prohibition. What we said in Mosley has equal force in the present case:
“The central problem with Chicago’s ordinance is that it describes permissible picketing in terms of its subject matter. Peaceful picketing on the subject of a school’s labor-management dispute is permitted, but all other peaceful picketing is prohibited. The operative distinction is the message on a picket sign. . . . Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, [376 U. S. 254], 270.
“Necessarily, then, under the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. And it may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in public facilities. There is an ‘equality of status in the field of ideas,’ and government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone.” Id., at 95-96 (citations and footnote omitted)
III
Appellant nonetheless contends that this case is distinguishable from Mosley. He argues that the state interests here are especially compelling and particularly well served by a statute that accords differential treatment to labor and non-labor picketing. We explore in turn each of these interests, and the manner in which they are said to be furthered by this statute.
A
Appellant explains that whereas the Chicago ordinance sought to prevent disruption of the schools, concededly a “substantial” and “legitimate” governmental concern, see id., at 99, 100, the Illinois statute was enacted to ensure privacy in the home, a right which ■ appellant views as paramount in our constitutional scheme. For this reason, he contends that the same content-based distinctions held invalid in the Mosley context may be upheld in the present case.
We find it unnecessary, however, to consider whether the State’s interest in residential privacy outranks its interest in quiet schools in the hierarchy of societal values. For even the most legitimate goal may not be advanced in a constitutionally impermissible manner. And though we might agree that certain state interests may be so compelling that where no adequate alternatives exist a content-based distinction— if narrowly drawn — would be a permissible way of furthering those objectives, cf. Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47 (1919), this is not such a case.
First, the generalized classification which the statute draws suggests that Illinois itself has determined that residential privacy is not a transcendent objective: While broadly permitting all peaceful labor picketing notwithstanding the disturbances it would undoubtedly engender, the statute makes no attempt to distinguish among various sorts of nonlabor picketing on the basis of the harms they would inflict on the privacy interest) The apparent overinclusiveness and under-inclusiveness of the statute’s restriction would seem largely to undermine appellant’s claim that the prohibition of all non-labor picketing can be justified by reference to the State’s interest in maintaining domestic tranquility.
More fundamentally, the exclusion for labor picketing cannot be upheld as a means of protecting residential privacy for the simple reason that nothing in the content-based labor-nonlabor distinction has any bearing whatsoever on privacy. Appellant can point to nothing inherent in the nature of peaceful labor picketing that would make it any less disruptive of residential privacy than peaceful picketing on issues of broader social concern. Standing alone, then, the State’s asserted interest in promoting the privacy of the home is not sufficient to save the statute.
B
The second important objective advanced by appellant in support of the statute is the State’s interest in providing special protection for labor protests. He maintains that federal and state law has long exhibited an unusual concern for such activities, and he contends that this solicitude may be furthered by a narrowly drawn exemption for labor picketing.
The central difficulty with this argument is that it forthrightly presupposes that labor picketing is more deserving of First Amendment protection than are public protests over other issues, particularly the important economic, social, and political subjects about which these appellees wish to demonstrate. We reject that proposition. Cf. T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 444-449' (1970) (suggesting that nonlabor picketing is more akin to pine expression than labor picketing and thus should be subject to fewer restrictions). Public-issue picketing, “an exercise of . . . basic constitutional rights in their most pristine and classic form,” Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235 (1963), has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values: “The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.” Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931). See generally A. Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (1948). While the State’s motivation in protecting the First Amendment rights of employees involved in labor disputes is commendable, that factor, without more, cannot justify the labor picketing exemption.
C
Appellant’s final contention is that the statute can be justified by some combination of the preceding objectives. This argument is fashioned on two different levels. In its elemental formulation, it posits simply that a distinction between labor and nonlabor picketing is uniquely suited to furthering the legislative judgment that residential privacy should be preserved to the greatest extent possible without also compromising the special protection owing to labor picketing. In short, the statute is viewed as a reasonable attempt to accommodate the competing rights of the homeowner to enjoy his privacy and the employee to demonstrate over labor disputes. But this attempt to justify the statute hinges on the validity of both of these goals, and we have already concluded that the latter — the desire to favor one form of speech over all others — is illegitimate.
The second and more complex formulation of appellant’s position characterizes the statute as a carefully drafted attempt to prohibit that picketing which would impinge on residential privacy while permitting that picketing which would not. In essence, appellant asserts that the exception for labor picketing does not contravene the State’s interest in preserving residential tranquility because of the unique character of a residence that is a “place of employment.” By “inviting” a worker into his home and converting that dwelling into a place of employment, the argument goes, the resident has diluted his entitlement to total privacy. In other words, he has “waived” his right to be free from picketing with respect to disputes arising out of the employment relationship, thereby justifying the statute’s narrow labor exception at those locations.
The flaw in this argument is that it proves too little. Numerous types of peaceful picketing other than labor picketing would have but a negligible impact on privacy interests, and numerous other actions of a homeowner might constitute “nonresidential” uses of his property and would thus serve to vitiate the right to residential privacy. For example, the resident who prominently decorates his windows and front yard with posters promoting the qualifications of one candidate for political office might be said to “invite” a counter-demonstration from supporters of an opposing candidate. Similarly, a county chairman who uses his home to meet with his district captains and to discuss some controversial issue might well expect that those who are deeply concerned about the decision the chairman will ultimately reach would want to make their views known by demonstrating outside his home during the meeting. And, with particular regard to the facts of the instant case, it borders on the frivolous to suggest that a resident who invites a repairman into his home to fix his television set has “waived” his right to privacy with respect to a dispute between the repairman and the local union, but that the official who has voluntarily chosen to enter the public arena has not likewise “waived” his right to privacy with respect to a challenge to his views on significant issues of social and economic policy.
IV
We therefore conclude that appellant has not successfully distinguished Mosley. We are not to be understood to imply, however, that residential picketing is beyond the reach of uniform and nondiscriminatory regulation. For the right to communicate is not limitless. E. g., Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 554-555 (1965); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 563-564 (1965). Even peaceful picketing may be prohibited when it interferes with the operation of vital governmental facilities, see, e. g., ibid, (picketing or parading prohibited near courthouses); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966) (demonstrations prohibited on jailhouse grounds), or when it is directed toward an illegal purpose, see, e. g., Teamsters v. Vogt, Inc., 354 U. S. 284 (1957) (prohibition of picketing directed toward achieving “union shop” in violation of state law).
Moreover, we have often declared that “[a] state or municipality may protect individual privacy by enacting reasonable time, place, and manner regulations applicable to all speech irrespective of content.” Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 209 (1975) (emphasis supplied). See, e. g., Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395 (1953); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S., at 554; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 (1972). In sum, “no mandate in our Constitution leaves States and governmental units powerless to pass laws to protect the public from the kind of boisterous and threatening conduct that disturbs the tranquility of spots selected by the people either for homes, wherein they can escape the hurly-burly of the outside business and political world, or for public and other buildings that require peace and quiet to carry out their functions, such as courts, libraries, schools, and hospitals.” Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111, 118 (1969) (Black, J., concurring).
Preserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value. Our decisions reflect no lack of solicitude for the right of an individual “to be let alone” in the privacy of the home, “sometimes the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick.” Id., at 125 (Black, J., concurring). See generally Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969); Rowan v. United States Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728 (1970); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978); Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980). The State’s interest in protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society. “ ‘The crucial question, however, is whether [the Illinois’ statute] advances that objective in a manner consistent with the command of the Equal Protection Clause.’ Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. [71], 76 [(1971)].” Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S., at 99’. And because the statute discriminates among pickets based on the subject matter of their expression, the answer must be “No.”
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed
A violation of § 21.1-2 is a “Class B” misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 and imprisonment for not more than six months. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, §§ 21.1-3, 1005-8-3, 1005-9-1 (1977).
At least four other States have enacted antiresidential picketing laws similar in form to this statute. See Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-2966 to 41-2968 (1977); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-120 (1979); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 379A-1 (1976); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 580A (1976). Connecticut’s law has been construed to permit all picketing in a residential area except for labor picketing that is not conducted at the situs of a labor dispute. State v. Anonymous, 6 Conn. Cir. 372, 274 A. 2d 897 (App. Div. 1970); DeGregory v. Giesing, 427 F. Supp. 910 (Conn. 1977) (three-judge court). The Maryland statute was declared unconstitutional by the Maryland Court of Appeals in State v. Schuller, 280 Md. 305, 372 A. 2d 1076 (1977). See also People Acting Through Community Effort v. Doorley, 468 F. 2d 1143 (CA1 1972) (invalidating municipal ordinance virtually identical to the Illinois residential picketing statute); but see Wauwatosa v. King, 49 Wis. 2d 398, 182 N. W. 2d 530 (1971) (upholding validity of similar ordinance).
Because the Court of Appeals concluded that the labor dispute exception was not severable from the remainder of the statute, it invalidated the enactment in its entirety. Cf. State v. Schuller, supra, at 318-321, 372 A. 2d, at 1083-1084. The court therefore found it unnecessary to consider the constitutionality under the First Amendment of a statute that prohibited all residential picketing. Brown v. Scott, 602 F. 2d 791, 795, n. 6 (1979). Because we find the present statute defective on equal protection principles, we likewise do not consider whether a statute barring all residential picketing regardless of its subject matter would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Chicago Municipal Code, ch. 193-1 (i) (1968), provided:
“A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
“(i) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any primary or secondary school building while the school is in session and one-half hour before the school is in session and one-half hour after the school session has been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute. . . (Emphasis supplied.)
The Illinois residential picketing statute apparently has not been construed by the state courts. Throughout this litigation, however, all parties and the courts below have interpreted the statutory exception for “peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute” as embodying the additional requirement that the subject of the picketing be related to the ongoing labor dispute. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 TJ. S. 92 (1972), was premised upon an identical construction. See id., at 94, n. 2 (statutory exemption for “the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute” applies only to labor picketing of a school involved in such a dispute).
The District Court read the labor exception in this statute as creating two separate classifications: one between “places of employment” and all other “residences,” and a second between “places of employment involved in a labor dispute” and “places of employment not involved in a labor dispute.” The court held that the first classification was a permissible content-neutral regulation of the location of picketing. And although recognizing that the second distinction may well be based on the subject matter of the demonstration, see n. 4, supra, the court held that appellees lacked standing to challenge it because they were not seeking to picket “a place of employment,” and thus would not have benefitted from a determination that the second classification was unconstitutional. Brown v. Scott, 462 F. Supp. 518, 534-535 (1978).
The Court of Appeals, in reversing the District Court, refused to adopt the lower court’s interpretation of the statute. Rather, it read the “place of employment” exception to divide “residences and dwellings” into but two categories — those at which picketing is lawful (i. e., all places of employment involved in labor disputes) and those at which it is unlawful (*. e., all other residences and dwellings). Brown v. Scott, 602 F. 2d, at 793-794. We accept the construction of the Court of Appeals. Appellees sought to picket at a residence and were denied permission to do so. They clearly have standing to attack the statutory classification on which that denial was premised. Indeed, appellant does not challenge the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the statute, Tr. of Oral Arg. 13, and he concedes that this restriction is content-based, id., at 21.
It is, of course, no answer to assert that the Illinois statute does not discriminate on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint, but only on the basis of the subject matter of his message. “The First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, post, at 537.
Mosley was neither the Court’s first nor its last pronouncement that the First and Fourteenth Amendments forbid discrimination in the regulation of expression on the basis of the content of that expression. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 581 (1965) (Black, J., concurring):
“Standing, patrolling, or marching back and forth on streets is conduct, not speech, and as conduct can be regulated or prohibited. But by specifically permitting picketing for the publication of labor union views, Louisiana is attempting to pick and choose among the views it is willing to have discussed on its streets. It thus is trying to prescribe by law what matters of public interest people whom it allows to assemble on its streets may and may not discuss. This seems to me to be censorship in a most odious form, unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. And to deny this appellant and his group use of the streets because of their views against racial discrimination, while allowing other groups to use the streets to voice opinions on other subjects, also amounts, I think, to an invidious discrimination forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
See also Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 209, 215 (1975); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507, 520 (1976); Madison Joint School District No. 8 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 429 U. S. 167, 175-176 (1976); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 784-785 (1978); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, post, at 536-538.
The importance which the State attaches to the interest in maintaining residential privacy is reflected in the Illinois Legislature’s finding accompanying the residential picketing statute:
“The Legislature finds and declares that men in a free society have the right to quiet enjoyment of their homes; that the stability of community and family life cannot be maintained unless the right to privacy and a sense of security and peace in the home are respected and encouraged; that residential picketing, however just the cause inspiring it, disrupts home, family and communal life; that residential picketing is inappropriate in our society, where the jealously guarded rights of free speech and assembly have always been associated with respect for the rights of others. For these reasons the Legislature finds and declares this Article to be necessary.” IE. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, §21.1-1 (1977).
Cf. Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 29 (quoted in Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 67, n. 27 (1976) (opinion of Stevens, J.)): “If some groups are exempted from a prohibition on parades and pickets, the rationale for regulation is fatally impeached.” See also Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S., at 100; Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620, 638-639 (1980).
See generally 29 U. S. C. § 141 et seq,; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); AFL v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321 (1941). Appellant does not go so far as to suggest that the National Labor Relations Act preempts the State from enacting a law prohibiting the picketing of residences involved in labor disputes. Such an argument has dubious merit. See Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132, 136, and n. 2 (1976).
See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, § 2a (1977), which provides:
“No restraining order or injunction shall be granted by any court of this State ... in any case involving or growing out of a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment, enjoining or restraining any person or persons, either singly or in concert, . . . from peaceably and without threats or intimidation being upon any public street, or thoroughfare or highway for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, or to peaceably and without threats or intimidation persuade any person or persons to work or to abstain from working, or to employ or to peaceably and without threats or intimidation cease to employ any party to a labor dispute, or to recommend, advise, or persuade others so to do.”
We note that the statute’s labor dispute exemption is overbroad in this respect, for it not only protects the rights of the employee to picket the residence of his employer, but it also permits third parties to picket both the employer and his employee, even when there is no dispute between those individuals. As appellant’s counsel explained at oral argument: “[T]he labor dispute could exist even if the employee wasn’t part of the dispute. For example, if you have a condominium that employs non-union janitors and the non-union janitor is perfectly happy to be there, conceivably union janitors could engage in picketing, very much like a traditional labor law cane.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 14.
An alternative justification for the statute — one not pressed by appellant — is that it is intended to protect privacy in the home, but only insofar as that objective can be accomplished without prohibiting those forms of speech that are peculiarly appropriate to residential neighborhoods and cannot effectively be exercised elsewhere. Since labor picketing arising out of disputes occurring in residential neighborhoods can only be carried out in those neighborhoods, the argument would continue, it is permitted under the statute while other forms of picketing, for which suitable alternative forums will generally exist, are barred.
Even assuming that a content-based distinction might in some cases be permissible on these grounds, but see Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 163 (1939) (“one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place”), this is not such a case because the Illinois statute is seriously underinclusive in this respect. It singles out for special protection only one of the many sorts of picketing which must be carried out in residential neighborhoods or not at all. Protests arising out of landlord-tenant relationships, zoning disputes, and historic preservation issues are just some of the many demonstrations that bear a direct relation to residential neighborhoods. See generally Comment, Picketers at the Doorstep, 9 Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 95, 101-102, 106 (1974). Indeed, appellees themselves assert that they want to engage in residential picketing because it is the only effective means they have of communicating their concern about the issue of busing to the desired neighborhood audience. Yet the Illinois statute bars all of these groups from picketing in residential areas while those wishing to picket at the site of a labor dispute are permitted to do so.
See supra, at 461-462.
See n. 12, supra.
Cf. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974).
Mr. Justice Goldberg’s opinion for the Court in the first Cox case stated: “The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time. The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy.” 379 U. S., at 554.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Almost 50 years ago, this Court declared that citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment. Rather, the First Amendment protection of a public employee's speech depends on a careful balance "between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). In Pickering, the Court struck the balance in favor of the public employee, extending First Amendment protection to a teacher who was fired after writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper criticizing the school board that employed him. Today, we consider whether the First Amendment similarly protects a public employee who provided truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the course of his ordinary job responsibilities. We hold that it does.
I
In 2006, Central Alabama Community College (CACC) hired petitioner Edward Lane to be the Director of Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY), a statewide program for underprivileged youth. CACC hired Lane on a probationary basis. In his capacity as Director, Lane was responsible for overseeing CITY's day-to-day operations, hiring and firing employees, and making decisions with respect to the program's finances.
At the time of Lane's appointment, CITY faced significant financial difficulties. That prompted Lane to conduct a comprehensive audit of the program's expenses. The audit revealed that Suzanne Schmitz, an Alabama State Representative on CITY's payroll, had not been reporting to her CITY office. After unfruitful discussions with Schmitz, Lane shared his finding with CACC's president and its attorney. They warned him that firing Schmitz could have negative repercussions for him and CACC.
Lane nonetheless contacted Schmitz again and instructed her to show up to the Huntsville office to serve as a counselor. Schmitz refused; she responded that she wished to " 'continue to serve the CITY program in the same manner as [she had] in the past.' " Lane v. Central Ala. Community College, 523 Fed.Appx. 709, 710 (C.A.11 2013) ( per curiam ). Lane fired her shortly thereafter. Schmitz told another CITY employee, Charles Foley, that she intended to " 'get [Lane] back' " for firing her. 2012 WL 5289412, *1 (N.D.Ala., Oct. 18, 2012). She also said that if Lane ever requested money from the state legislature for the program, she would tell him, " '[y]ou're fired.' " Ibid.
Schmitz' termination drew the attention of many, including agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which initiated an investigation into Schmitz' employment with CITY. In November 2006, Lane testified before a federal grand jury about his reasons for firing Schmitz. In January 2008, the grand jury indicted Schmitz on four counts of mail fraud and four counts of theft concerning a program receiving federal funds. See United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247, 1256-1257 (C.A.11 2011). The indictment alleged that Schmitz had collected $177,251.82 in federal funds even though she performed " 'virtually no services,' " " 'generated virtually no work product,' " and " 'rarely even appeared for work at the CITY Program offices.' " Id., at 1260. It further alleged that Schmitz had submitted false statements concerning the hours she worked and the nature of the services she performed. Id., at 1257.
Schmitz' trial, which garnered extensive press coverage,1 commenced in August 2008. Lane testified, under subpoena, regarding the events that led to his terminating Schmitz. The jury failed to reach a verdict. Roughly six months later, federal prosecutors retried Schmitz, and Lane testified once again. This time, the jury convicted Schmitz on three counts of mail fraud and four counts of theft concerning a program receiving federal funds. The District Court sentenced her to 30 months in prison and ordered her to pay $177,251.82 in restitution and forfeiture.
Meanwhile, CITY continued to experience considerable budget shortfalls. In November 2008, Lane began reporting to respondent Steve Franks, who had become president of CACC in January 2008. Lane recommended that Franks consider layoffs to address the financial difficulties. In January 2009, Franks decided to terminate 29 probationary CITY employees, including Lane. Shortly thereafter, however, Franks rescinded all but 2 of the 29 terminations-those of Lane and one other employee-because of an "ambiguity in [those other employees'] probationary service." Brief for Respondent Franks 11. Franks claims that he "did not rescind Lane's termination ... because he believed that Lane was in a fundamentally different category than the other employees: he was the director of the entire CITY program, and not simply an employee." Ibid. In September 2009, CACC eliminated the CITY program and terminated the program's remaining employees. Franks later retired, and respondent Susan Burrow, the current Acting President of CACC, replaced him while this case was pending before the Eleventh Circuit.
In January 2011, Lane sued Franks in his individual and official capacities under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Franks had violated the First Amendment by firing him in retaliation for his testimony against Schmitz.2 Lane sought damages from Franks in his individual capacity and sought equitable relief, including reinstatement, from Franks in his official capacity.3
The District Court granted Franks' motion for summary judgment. Although the court concluded that the record raised "genuine issues of material fact ... concerning [Franks'] true motivation for terminating [Lane's] employment," 2012 WL 5289412, *6, it held that Franks was entitled to qualified immunity as to the damages claims because "a reasonable government official in [Franks'] position would not have had reason to believe that the Constitution protected [Lane's] testimony," id., *12. The District Court relied on Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), which held that " 'when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes.' " 2012 WL 5289412, *10 (quoting Garcetti, 547 U.S., at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951). The court found no violation of clearly established law because Lane had "learned of the information that he testified about while working as Director at [CITY]," such that his "speech [could] still be considered as part of his official job duties and not made as a citizen on a matter of public concern." 2012 WL 5289412, *10.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 523 Fed.Appx., at 710. Like the District Court, it relied extensively on Garcetti. It reasoned that, "[e]ven if an employee was not required to make the speech as part of his official duties, he enjoys no First Amendment protection if his speech 'owes its existence to [the] employee's professional responsibilities' and is 'a product that the "employer himself has commissioned or created." ' " Id., at 711 (quoting Abdur-Rahman v. Walker, 567 F.3d 1278, 1283 (C.A.11 2009)). The court concluded that Lane spoke as an employee and not as a citizen because he was acting pursuant to his official duties when he investigated Schmitz' employment, spoke with Schmitz and CACC officials regarding the issue, and terminated Schmitz. 523 Fed.Appx., at 712. "That Lane testified about his official activities pursuant to a subpoena and in the litigation context," the court continued, "does not bring Lane's speech within the protection of the First Amendment." Ibid. The Eleventh Circuit also concluded that, "even if ... a constitutional violation of Lane's First Amendment rights occurred in these circumstances, Franks would be entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity" because the right at issue had not been clearly established. Id., at 711, n. 2.
We granted certiorari, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 999, 187 L.Ed.2d 848 (2014), to resolve discord among the Courts of Appeals as to whether public employees may be fired-or suffer other adverse employment consequences-for providing truthful subpoenaed testimony outside the course of their ordinary job responsibilities. Compare 523 Fed.Appx., at 712 (case below), with, e.g.,Reilly v. Atlantic City, 532 F.3d 216, 231 (C.A.3 2008).
II
Speech by citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the First Amendment, which "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people," Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957). This remains true when speech concerns information related to or learned through public employment. After all, public employees do not renounce their citizenship when they accept employment, and this Court has cautioned time and again that public employers may not condition employment on the relinquishment of constitutional rights. See, e.g.,Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U.S. 589, 605, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967); Pickering, 391 U.S., at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731;Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). There is considerable value, moreover, in encouraging, rather than inhibiting, speech by public employees. For "[g]overnment employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work." Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 674, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) (plurality opinion). "The interest at stake is as much the public's interest in receiving informed opinion as it is the employee's own right to disseminate it." San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 82, 125 S.Ct. 521, 160 L.Ed.2d 410 (2004) ( per curiam ).
Our precedents have also acknowledged the government's countervailing interest in controlling the operation of its workplaces. See, e.g., Pickering, 391 U.S., at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. "Government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees' words and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services." Garcetti, 547 U.S., at 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951.
Pickering provides the framework for analyzing whether the employee's interest or the government's interest should prevail in cases where the government seeks to curtail the speech of its employees. It requires "balanc[ing] ... the interests of the [public employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." 391 U.S., at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. In Pickering, the Court held that a teacher's letter to the editor of a local newspaper concerning a school budget constituted speech on a matter of public concern. Id., at 571, 88 S.Ct. 1731. And in balancing the employee's interest in such speech against the government's efficiency interest, the Court held that the publication of the letter did not "imped[e] the teacher's proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom" or "interfer[e] with the regular operation of the schools generally." Id., at 572-573, 88 S.Ct. 1731. The Court therefore held that the teacher's speech could not serve as the basis for his dismissal. Id., at 574, 88 S.Ct. 1731.
In Garcetti, we described a two-step inquiry into whether a public employee's speech is entitled to protection:
"The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer's reaction to the speech. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." 547 U.S., at 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (citations omitted).
In describing the first step in this inquiry, Garcetti distinguished between employee speech and citizen speech. Whereas speech as a citizen may trigger protection, the Court held that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." Id., at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951. Applying that rule to the facts before it, the Court found that an internal memorandum prepared by a prosecutor in the course of his ordinary job responsibilities constituted unprotected employee speech. Id., at 424, 126 S.Ct. 1951.
III
Against this backdrop, we turn to the question presented: whether the First Amendment protects a public employee who provides truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities.4 We hold that it does.
A
The first inquiry is whether the speech in question-Lane's testimony at Schmitz' trials-is speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern. It clearly is.
1
Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. That is so even when the testimony relates to his public employment or concerns information learned during that employment.
In rejecting Lane's argument that his testimony was speech as a citizen, the Eleventh Circuit gave short shrift to the nature of sworn judicial statements and ignored the obligation borne by all witnesses testifying under oath. See 523 Fed.Appx., at 712 (finding immaterial the fact that Lane spoke "pursuant to a subpoena and in the litigation context"). Sworn testimony in judicial proceedings is a quintessential example of speech as a citizen for a simple reason: Anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to tell the truth. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (criminalizing false statements under oath in judicial proceedings); United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576, 96 S.Ct. 1768, 48 L.Ed.2d 212 (1976) (plurality opinion) ("Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concept of judicial proceedings"). When the person testifying is a public employee, he may bear separate obligations to his employer-for example, an obligation not to show up to court dressed in an unprofessional manner. But any such obligations as an employee are distinct and independent from the obligation, as a citizen, to speak the truth. That independent obligation renders sworn testimony speech as a citizen and sets it apart from speech made purely in the capacity of an employee.
In holding that Lane did not speak as a citizen when he testified, the Eleventh Circuit read Garcetti far too broadly. It reasoned that, because Lane learned of the subject matter of his testimony in the course of his employment with CITY, Garcetti requires that his testimony be treated as the speech of an employee rather than that of a citizen. See 523 Fed.Appx., at 712. It does not.
The sworn testimony in this case is far removed from the speech at issue in Garcetti-an internal memorandum prepared by a deputy district attorney for his supervisors recommending dismissal of a particular prosecution. The Garcetti Court held that such speech was made pursuant to the employee's "official responsibilities" because "[w]hen [the employee] went to work and performed the tasks he was paid to perform, [he] acted as a government employee. The fact that his duties sometimes required him to speak or write does not mean that his supervisors were prohibited from evaluating his performance." 547 U.S., at 422, 424, 126 S.Ct. 1951.
But Garcetti said nothing about speech that simply relates to public employment or concerns information learned in the course of public employment. The Garcetti Court made explicit that its holding did not turn on the fact that the memo at issue "concerned the subject matter of [the prosecutor's] employment," because "[t]he First Amendment protects some expressions related to the speaker's job." Id., at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951. In other words, the mere fact that a citizen's speech concerns information acquired by virtue of his public employment does not transform that speech into employee-rather than citizen-speech. The critical question under Garcetti is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee's duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties.
It bears emphasis that our precedents dating back to Pickering have recognized that speech by public employees on subject matter related to their employment holds special value precisely because those employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment. In Pickering, for example, the Court observed that "[t]eachers are ... the members of a community most likely to have informed and definite opinions as to how funds allotted to the operation of the schools should be spent. Accordingly, it is essential that they be able to speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal." 391 U.S., at 572, 88 S.Ct. 1731; see also Garcetti, 547 U.S., at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (recognizing that "[t]he same is true of many other categories of public employees"). Most recently, in San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S., at 80, 125 S.Ct. 521, the Court again observed that public employees "are uniquely qualified to comment" on "matters concerning government policies that are of interest to the public at large."
The importance of public employee speech is especially evident in the context of this case: a public corruption scandal. The United States, for example, represents that because "[t]he more than 1000 prosecutions for federal corruption offenses that are brought in a typical year ... often depend on evidence about activities that government officials undertook while in office," those prosecutions often "require testimony from other government employees." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20. It would be antithetical to our jurisprudence to conclude that the very kind of speech necessary to prosecute corruption by public officials-speech by public employees regarding information learned through their employment-may never form the basis for a First Amendment retaliation claim. Such a rule would place public employees who witness corruption in an impossible position, torn between the obligation to testify truthfully and the desire to avoid retaliation and keep their jobs.
Applying these principles, it is clear that Lane's sworn testimony is speech as a citizen.
2
Lane's testimony is also speech on a matter of public concern. Speech involves matters of public concern "when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,' or when it 'is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.' " Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 1216, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011) (citation omitted). The inquiry turns on the "content, form, and context" of the speech. Connick, 461 U.S., at 147-148, 103 S.Ct. 1684.
The content of Lane's testimony-corruption in a public program and misuse of state funds-obviously involves a matter of significant public concern. See, e.g., Garcetti, 547 U.S., at 425, 126 S.Ct. 1951 ("Exposing governmental inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance"). And the form and context of the speech-sworn testimony in a judicial proceeding-fortify that conclusion. "Unlike speech in other contexts, testimony under oath has the formality and gravity necessary to remind the witness that his or her statements will be the basis for official governmental action, action that often affects the rights and liberties of others." United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 2537, 2546, 183 L.Ed.2d 574 (2012) (plurality opinion).
* * *
We hold, then, that Lane's truthful sworn testimony at Schmitz' criminal trials is speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern.
B
This does not settle the matter, however. A public employee's sworn testimony is not categorically entitled to First Amendment protection simply because it is speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Under Pickering, if an employee speaks as a citizen on a matter of public concern, the next question is whether the government had "an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the public" based on the government's needs as an employer. Garcetti, 547 U.S., at 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951.
As discussed previously, we have recognized that government employers often have legitimate "interest[s] in the effective and efficient fulfillment of [their] responsibilities to the public," including " 'promot[ing] efficiency and integrity in the discharge of official duties,' " and " 'maintain[ing] proper discipline in public service.' " Connick, 461 U.S., at 150-151, 103 S.Ct. 1684. We have also cautioned, however, that "a stronger showing [of government interests] may be necessary if the employee's speech more substantially involve[s] matters of public concern." Id., at 152, 103 S.Ct. 1684.
Here, the employer's side of the Pickering scale is entirely empty: Respondents do not assert, and cannot demonstrate, any government interest that tips the balance in their favor. There is no evidence, for example, that Lane's testimony at Schmitz' trials was false or erroneous or that Lane unnecessarily disclosed any sensitive, confidential, or privileged information while testifying.5 In these circumstances, we conclude that Lane's speech is entitled to protection under the First Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit erred in holding otherwise and dismissing Lane's claim of retaliation on that basis.
IV
Respondent Franks argues that even if Lane's testimony is protected under the First Amendment, the claims against him in his individual capacity should be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. We agree.
Qualified immunity "gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2085, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011). Under this doctrine, courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless "the official violated a statutory or constitutional right," and "the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." Id., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2080.
The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is this: Could Franks reasonably have believed, at the time he fired Lane, that a government employer could fire an employee on account of testimony the employee gave, under oath and outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities? Eleventh Circuit precedent did not preclude Franks from reasonably holding that belief. And no decision of this Court was sufficiently clear to cast doubt on the controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent.
In dismissing Lane's claim, the Eleventh Circuit relied on its 1998 decision in Morris v. Crow, 142 F.3d 1379 ( per curiam ). There, a deputy sheriff sued the sheriff and two other officials, alleging that he had been fired in retaliation for statements he made in an accident report and later giving deposition testimony about his investigation of a fatal car crash between another officer and a citizen. Id., at 1381. In his accident report, the plaintiff noted that the officer was driving more than 130 mph in a 50 mph zone, without using his emergency blue warning light. See ibid. The plaintiff later testified to these facts at a deposition in a wrongful death suit against the sheriff's office. Ibid. His superiors later fired him. Ibid.
The Eleventh Circuit, in a pre-Garcetti decision, concluded that the plaintiff's deposition testimony was unprotected. It held that a public employee's speech is protected only when it is " 'made primarily in the employee's role as citizen,' " rather than " 'primarily in the role of employee.' " Morris, 142 F.3d, at 1382. And it found the plaintiff's deposition testimony to be speech as an employee because it "reiterated the conclusions regarding his observations of the accident" that he "generated in the normal course of [his] duties." Ibid. Critically, the court acknowledged-and was unmoved by-the fact that although the plaintiff had investigated the accident and prepared the report pursuant to his official duties, there was no "evidence that [he] gave deposition testimony for any reason other than in compliance with a subpoena to testify truthfully in the civil suit regarding the ... accident." Ibid. The court further reasoned that the speech could not "be characterized as an attempt to make public comment on sheriff's office policies and procedures, the internal workings of the department, the quality of its employees or upon any issue at all." Ibid.
Lane argues that two other Eleventh Circuit precedents put Franks on notice that his conduct violated the First Amendment: Martinez v. Opa-Locka, 971 F.2d 708 (1992) ( per curiam ), and Tindal v. Montgomery Cty. Comm'n, 32 F.3d 1535 (1994). Martinez involved a public employee's subpoenaed testimony before the Opa-Locka City Commission regarding her employer's procurement practices. 971 F.2d, at 710. The Eleventh Circuit held that her speech was protected, reasoning that it addressed a matter of public concern and that her interest in speaking freely was not outweighed by her employer's interest in providing government services. Id., at 712. It held, further, that the relevant constitutional rules were so clearly established at the time that qualified immunity did not apply. Id., at 713.Tindal, decided two years after Martinez, involved a public employee's subpoenaed testimony in her co-worker's sexual harassment lawsuit. 32 F.3d, at 1537-1538. The court again ruled in favor of the employee. It held that the employee's speech touched upon a public concern and that her employer had not offered any evidence that the speech hindered operations. Id., at 1539-1540.
Morris,Martinez, and Tindal represent the landscape of Eleventh Circuit precedent the parties rely on for qualified immunity purposes. If Martinez and Tindal were controlling in the Eleventh Circuit in 2009, we would agree with Lane that Franks could not reasonably have believed that it was lawful to fire Lane in retaliation for his testimony. But both cases must be read together with Morris, which reasoned-in declining to afford First Amendment protection-that the plaintiff's decision to testify was motivated solely by his desire to comply with a subpoena. The same could be said of Lane's decision to testify. Franks was thus entitled to rely on Morris when he fired Lane.6
Lane argues that Morris is inapplicable because it distinguished Martinez, suggesting that Martinez survived Morris. See Morris, 142 F.3d, at 1382-1383. But this debate over whether Martinez or Morris applies to Lane's claim only highlights the dispositive point: At the time of Lane's termination, Eleventh Circuit precedent did not provide clear notice that subpoenaed testimony concerning information acquired through public employment is speech of a citizen entitled to First Amendment protection. At best, Lane can demonstrate only a discrepancy in Eleventh Circuit precedent, which is insufficient to defeat the defense of qualified immunity.
Finally, Lane argues that decisions of the Third and Seventh Circuits put Franks on notice that his firing of Lane was unconstitutional. See Reilly, 532 F.3d, at 231 (C.A.3) (truthful testimony in court is citizen speech protected by the First Amendment); Morales v. Jones, 494 F.3d 590, 598 (C.A.7 2007) (similar). But, as the court below acknowledged, those precedents were in direct conflict with Eleventh Circuit precedent. See 523 Fed.Appx., at 712, n. 3.
There is no doubt that the Eleventh Circuit incorrectly concluded that Lane's testimony was not entitled to First Amendment protection. But because the question was not "beyond debate" at the time Franks acted, al-Kidd, 563 U.S., at ----, 131 S.Ct., at 2083, Franks is entitled to qualified immunity.
V
Lane's speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, but because respondent Franks is entitled to qualified immunity, we affirm the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit as to the claims against Franks in his individual capacity. Our decision does not resolve, however, the claims against Burrow-initially brought against Franks when he served as President of CACC-in her official capacity. Although the District Court dismissed those claims for prospective relief as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the Eleventh Circuit declined to consider that question on appeal, see 523 Fed.Appx., at 711 ("Because Lane has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, we do not decide about Franks' defense of sovereign immunity"), and the parties have not asked us to consider it now. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit as to those claims and remand for further proceedings.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice SCALIA and Justice ALITO join, concurring.
This case presents the discrete question whether a public employee speaks "as a citizen on a matter of public concern," Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), when the employee gives "[t]ruthful testimony under oath ... outside the scope of his ordinary job duties," ante, at 2378. Answering that question requires little more than a straightforward application of Garcetti. There, we held that when a public employee speaks "pursuant to" his official duties, he is not speaking "as a citizen," and First Amendment protection is unavailable. 547 U.S., at 421-422, 126 S.Ct. 1951. The petitioner in this case did not speak "pursuant to" his ordinary job duties because his responsibilities did not include testifying in court proceedings, see ante, at 2378, n. 4, and no party has suggested that he was subpoenaed as a representative of his employer, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 30(b)(6) (requiring subpoenaed organizations to designate witnesses to testify on their behalf). Because petitioner did not testify to "fulfil[l] a [work] responsibility," Garcetti,supra, at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, he spoke "as a citizen," not as an employee.
We accordingly have no occasion to address the quite different question whether a public employee speaks "as a citizen" when he testifies in the course of his ordinary job responsibilities. See ante, at 2378, n. 4. For some public employees-such as police officers, crime scene technicians, and laboratory analysts-testifying is a routine and critical part of their employment duties. Others may be called to testify in the context of particular litigation as the designated representatives of their employers. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 30(b)(6). The Court properly leaves the constitutional questions raised by these scenarios for another day.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
See, e.g., Lawmaker Faces Fraud Charge in June, Montgomery Advertiser, May 6, 2008, p. 1B; Johnson, State Lawmaker's Fraud Trial Starts Today, Montgomery Advertiser, Aug. 18, 2008, p. 1B; Faulk, Schmitz Testifies in Her Defense: Says State Job was Legitimate, Birmingham News, Feb. 20, 2009, p. 1A; Faulk, Schmitz Convicted, Loses her State Seat, Birmingham News, Feb. 25, 2009, p. 1A.
Lane also brought claims against CACC, as well as claims under a state whistleblower statute, Ala.Code § 36-26A-3 (2013), and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Those claims are not at issue here.
Because Burrow replaced Franks as President of CACC during the pendency of this lawsuit, the claims originally filed against Franks in his official capacity are now against Burrow.
It is undisputed that Lane's ordinary job responsibilities did not include testifying in court proceedings. See Lane v. Central Ala. Community College, 523 Fed.Appx. 709, 712 (C.A.11 2013). For that reason, Lane asked the Court to decide only whether truthful sworn testimony that is not a part of an employee's ordinary job responsibilities is citizen speech on a matter of public concern. Pet. for Cert. i. We accordingly need not address in this case whether truthful sworn testimony would constitute citizen speech under Garcetti when given as part of a public employee's ordinary job duties, and express no opinion on the matter today.
Of course, quite apart from Pickering balancing, wrongdoing that an employee admits to while testifying may be a valid basis for termination or other discipline.
There is another reason Morris undermines Martinez and Tindal. In Martinez and Tindal, the Eleventh Circuit asked only whether the speech at issue addressed a matter of public concern. Morris, which appeared to anticipate Garcetti, asked both whether the speech at issue was speech of an employee (and not a citizen) and whether it touched upon a matter of public concern. In this respect, one could read Morris as cabining Martinez and Tindal.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 general question presented by these two cases is whether it is within the scope of the reviewing authority of a Court of Appeals to postpone the operation of a valid cease and desist order of the Federal Trade Commission against a single firm until similar orders have been entered against that firm’s competitors. In proceedings arising out of alleged violations of the price discrimination provisions of the Clayton Act, § 2, 38 Stat. 730, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. § 13, two Courts of Appeals reached opposed results on this underlying issue. In order to resolve the conflict we granted certiorari, 353 U. S. 908, 982.
In No. 77, petitioner (Moog Industries, Inc.) was found by the Commission to have violated the Act and was ordered to cease and desist from further violation. 51 F. T. C. 931. Petitioner sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Upon affirmance of the order, 238 F. 2d 43, petitioner moved the court to hold the entry of judgment in abeyance on the ground that petitioner would suffer serious financial loss if prohibited from engaging in pricing practices open to its competitors. The court denied the requested relief.
In No. 110, respondent (C. E. Niehoff & Co.) requested the Commission to hold in abeyance the cease and desist order that had been recommended by the hearing examiner, on the ground that respondent would have to go out of business if compelled to sell at a uniform price while its competitors were not under similar restraint. The Commission found that respondent had violated the Act and, in issuing its order, denied respondent’s request. 51 F. T. C. 1114, 1153. On review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Commission’s determination of statutory violation was affirmed; however, the court (one judge dissenting) directed that the cease and desist order should take effect “at such time in the future as the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit may direct, sua sponte or upon motion of the Federal Trade Commission.” 241 F. 2d 37, 43.
In view of the scope of administrative discretion that Congress has given the Federal Trade Commission, it is ordinarily not for courts to modify ancillary features of a valid Commission order. This is but recognition of the fact that in the shaping of its remedies within the framework of regulatory legislation, an agency is called upon to exercise its specialized, experienced judgment. Thus, the decision as to whether or not an order against one firm to cease and desist from engaging in illegal price discrimination should go into effect before others are similarly prohibited depends on a variety of factors peculiarly within the expert understanding of the Commission. Only the Commission, for example, is competent to make an initial determination as to whether and to what extent there is a relevant “industry” within which the particular respondent competes and whether or not the nature of that competition is such as to indicate identical treatment of the entire industry by an enforcement agency. Moreover, although an allegedly illegal practice may appear to be operative throughout an industry, whether such appearances reflect fact and whether all firms in the industry should be dealt with in a single proceeding or should receive individualized treatment are questions that call for discretionary determination by the administrative agency. It is clearly within the special competence of the Commission to appraise the adverse effect on competition that might result from postponing a particular order prohibiting continued violations of the law. Furthermore, the Commission alone is .empowered to develop that enforcement policy best calculated to achieve the ends contemplated by Congress and to allocate its available funds and personnel in such a way as to execute its policy efficiently and economically.
The question, then, of whether orders such as those before us should be held in abeyance until the respondents’ competitors are proceeded against is for the Commission to decide. If the question has not been raised before the Commission, as was the situation in No. 77, a reviewing court should not in any event entertain it. If the Commission has decided the question, its discretionary determination should not be overturned in the absence of a patent abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the judgment in No. 77 is affirmed, and the judgment in No. 110 is vacated and the cause remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to affirm the order of the Commission in its entirety.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
I
Respondent Frederick Lashley brutally beat and stabbed to death his 55-year-old, physically impaired cousin and foster mother, Janie Tracy, in the course of robbing her. An adult in the eyes of Missouri law at age 17, Lashley was convicted of capital murder, Mo. Rev. Stat. §565.001 (1978) (repealed Oct. 1, 1984), and sentenced to death. At a conference preceding the penalty phase of the trial, one of Lashley’s attorneys asked the judge to instruct the jury on the mitigating circumstance that “[t]he defendant ha[d] no significant history of prior criminal activity,” Mo. Rev. Stat. §565.012.3(1) (1978) (current version Mo. Rev. Stat. §565.032.3(1) (Supp. 1991)). App. to Pet. for Cert. A-86 to A-87. Defense counsel sought this instruction even though she repeatedly asserted that she would not try to show that Lashley lacked a criminal past. Id., at A-84, A-86. At the same time, she moved for an order prohibiting the State from cross-examining defense witnesses as to Lashley’s juvenile record. Id,, at A-83, A-84. Such questioning may not have been permissible under Missouri law. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §211.271 (1986). In any event, the judge did not expressly rule on the latter motion. See Lashley v. Armontrout, 957 F. 2d 1495, 1501, n. 1 (1992) (“[T]he trial court was not called upon to rule in respect to the admissibility of defendant’s juvenile record”). The judge did indicate, however, that Lashley would not be entitled to the requested instruction without supporting evidence. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-84, A-87.
Perhaps Lashley’s attorneys chose not to make the necessary proffer because they feared that the prosecutor would be permitted to respond with evidence that Lashley had engaged in criminal activity as a juvenile. One of the attorneys so testified in a state collateral proceeding. Tr. 29 (Apr. 10,1985). Or perhaps defense counsel sought to avoid opening the door to evidence that Lashley had committed other crimes as an adult. As the Missouri Supreme Court observed, the record indicates that, following his arrest, Lashley confessed to committing several other crimes after attaining adult status. State v. Lashley, 667 S. W. 2d 712, 716 (Mo.), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 873 (1984); see also 667 S. W. 2d, at 717 (Blackmar, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Whatever their reasons, Lashley’s lawyers presented no proof that he lacked a significant criminal history. Nor did the prosecutor submit any evidence that would support the mitigating circumstance. The trial judge refused to give the jury the “no significant history of prior criminal activity” instruction. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. It reasoned that Missouri law requires mitigating circumstance instructions to be supported by some evidence, see, e. g., State v. Battle, 661 S. W. 2d 487, 492 (Mo. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U. S. 993 (1984); see also State v. Williams, 652 S. W. 2d 102, 114 (Mo. 1983), and none was offered here. State v. Lashley, supra, at 715-716.
Lashley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He alleged that the trial judge’s failure to give the requested instruction violated due process. The District Court dismissed the claim. Lashley v. Armontrout, No. 87-897C(2) (ED Mo., June 9, 1988). A divided panel of the. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, granted relief. Lashley v. Armontrout, 957 F. 2d 1495 (1992). The Court of Appeals thought that the trial judge’s ruling violated the Eighth Amendment under Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978). In the majority’s view, “Lockett requires the State — which is in a peculiarly advantageous position to show a significant prior criminal history, if indeed Lashley has such a history — to come forward with evidence, or else the court must tell the jury it may consider the requested mitigating circumstance.” 957 F. 2d, at 1502. The court held that “the lack of any evidence whatever of Lashley’s prior criminal activity entitled [him] to the requested instruction.” Ibid.
As Judge Fagg explained in dissent, see id., at 1502-1504, the majority plainly misread our precedents. We have held that the sentencer must be allowed to consider in mitigation “any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Lockett, supra, at 604 (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). Accord, Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 317 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 110 (1982); see also Penry, supra, at 327 (“[S]o long as the class of murderers subject to capital punishment is narrowed, there is no constitutional infirmity in a procedure that allows a jury to recommend mercy based on the mitigating evidence introduced by a defendant” (emphasis added)). But we never have suggested that the Constitution requires a state trial court to instruct the jury on mitigating circumstances in the absence of any supporting evidence.
On the contrary, we have said that to comply with due process state courts need give jury instructions in capital cases only if the evidence so warrants. See Hopper v. Evans, 456 U. S. 605, 611 (1982). And, answering a question expressly reserved in Lockett, we recently made clear that a State may require the defendant “ ‘to bear the risk of non-persuasion as to the existence of mitigating circumstances.’” Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, 650 (1990) (plurality opinion) (quoting Lockett, supra, at 609, n. 16); see also 497 U. S., at 669-673 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (rejecting Lockett). In Walton we rejected a challenge to a state statute, that imposed on capital defendants the burden of establishing the existence of mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence — a higher evidentiary standard, we note, than Missouri has adopted. Discerning no “constitutional imperative . . . that would require the [sentencer] to consider the mitigating circumstances claimed by a defendant unless the State negated them,” 497 U. S., at 650, we concluded that “[s]o long as a State’s method of allocating the burdens of proof does not lessen the State’s burden ... to prove the existence of aggravating circumstances, a defendant’s constitutional rights are not violated by placing on him the burden of proving mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency,” ibid.
Even prior to Walton, other lower courts rejected arguments similar to Lashley’s. For example, in State v. Fullwood, 323 N. C. 371, 373 S. E. 2d 518 (1988), vacated arid remanded on other grounds, 494 U. S. 1022 (1990), the court held that the trial judge did not err by refusing to submit to the jury a “no significant history of prior criminal activity” instruction where neither the defendant nor the State introduced evidence to support it. 323 N. C., at 394, 373 S. E. 2d, at 532; see also Hutchins v. Garrison, 724 F. 2d 1425, 1436-1437 (CA4 1983) (where defendant did not request a criminal history mitigating instruction and the record did not support it, any error resulting from failure to give the instruction was an error of state law only), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1065 (1984). In DeLuna v. Lynaugh, 890 F. 2d 720 (1989), the Fifth Circuit held that a capital defendant was not entitled to a mitigating instruction under Penry because he had made a “tactical decision” not to introduce supporting evidence that would have “opened the door to the introduction in evidence of a prior criminal record.” 890 F. 2d, at 722. Accord, May v. Collins, 904 F. 2d 228, 232 (CA5 1990), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 1055 (1991).
In short, until the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case, it appears that lower courts consistently applied the principles established by Lockett and its progeny. Today we make explicit the clear implication of our precedents: Nothing in the Constitution obligates state courts to give mitigating circumstance instructions when no evidence is offered to support them. Because the jury heard no evidence concerning Lashley’s prior criminal history, the trial judge did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction.
We are not persuaded by the Court of Appeals’ assertion that the State was uniquely situated to prove whether or not Lashley had a significant prior criminal history. As an initial matter, Missouri law does not demand proof that a mitigating circumstance exists; it requires only some supporting evidence. Lashley acknowledged in his federal habeas petition that his attorneys could have put forward some evidence that he lacked a significant prior criminal history; indeed, he contended that they were constitutionally ineffective for failing to do so. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-71. There is no reason to suppose, as the dissent suggests, post, at 288, that Lashley would be required to testify in order to receive the mitigating instruction. Before the state trial court, the prosecution submitted that testimony by Lashley’s acquaintances would suffice. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-83. On these facts, we cannot say that the State unfairly required Lashley to prove a negative.
Nor are we convinced that, as a general rule, States are better positioned than criminal defendants to adduce evidence of the defendants’ own criminal history. While the prosecution may have ready access to records of crimes committed within its own jurisdiction, the same may not be true when the defendant has committed crimes in other jurisdictions, perhaps over a period of many years. And any pre-
sentence report that is created is available to both the government and the defense. In this case, Lashley has not suggested that he was unable to offer his presentence report as evidence that his prior criminal record was insignificant. Moreover, the statutory mitigating circumstance refers not to arrests or convictions, but more broadly to “criminal activity.” To the extent that this includes criminal conduct that has not resulted in formal charges, no one is better able than the defendant to make the required proffer.
b-i I — <
The dissent contends that this case is not about the requirements of Lockett at all, but about the “presumption of innocence.” Post, at 281. The question the dissent raises is indeed “novel,” ibid.; it apparently was not raised in either the District Court or the Court of Appeals, and it was not presented to this Court. Nor does the dissent’s argument compel a different result. To be sure, we have said that “[t]he presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.” Estelle v. Williams, 425 U. S. 501, 503 (1976). The presumption operates at the guilt phase of a trial to remind the jury that the State has the burden of establishing every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U. S. 478, 484, n. 12 (1978). But even at the guilt phase, the defendant is not entitled automatically to an instruction that he is presumed innocent of the charged offense. Kentucky v. Wharton, 441 U. S. 786, 789 (1979) (per curiam). An instruction is constitutionally required only when, in light of the totality of the circumstances, there is a “ ‘genuine danger’ ” that the jury will convict based on something other than the State’s lawful evidence, proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Ibid. (quoting Taylor, supra, at 488).
Once the defendant has been convicted fairly in the guilt phase of the trial, the presumption of innocence disappears. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 399 (1993); id., at 443 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). We have not considered previously whether a presumption that the defendant is innocent of other crimes attaches at the sentencing phase. But even assuming that such a presumption does attach, Lashley was not entitled to a “presumption of innocence” instruction. Under our precedents, the instruction would have been constitutionally required only if the circumstances created a genuine risk that the jury would conclude, from factors other than the State’s evidence, that the defendant had committed other crimes. See, e. g., Whorton, supra, at 788-789. Lashley does not contend that any such circumstances existed in this case. As the dissent acknowledges, post, at 281, the record before the jury was completely silent on the question whether Lashley had committed prior offenses. The jury was specifically instructed that the State had the burden of proving the existence of any aggravating circumstances “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instructions Nos. 20-21, Record 77, 79 (Jan. 29, 1982). Nothing disturbed the presumption that Lashley was a first offender.
The “circumstances” on which the dissent relies, post, at 284-285, had no bearing on the jurors’ perceptions. Lashley’s age and the sentence to which he was subject were irrelevant to the question whether the jury might conclude improperly that he was a repeat offender. The dissent assigns special weight to the fact that defense counsel may have decided not to introduce evidence concerning Lashley’s prior criminal history for fear that the State would introduce Lashley’s juvenile record. We note that, had the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Lashley’s juvenile record, defense counsel could have objected and preserved the issue for appeal. In any event, the only impact that defense counsel’s decision not to make the necessary proffer could have had on the jury was to deprive it of possible testimony that Lashley lacked a criminal history. Without such testimony, the record before the jury was still silent on the question of Lashley’s criminal past. Thus, assuming, arguendo, that a presumption of innocence did attach at Lashley’s sentencing, under Whorton he was not constitutionally entitled to a “presumption of innocence” instruction.
Lashley’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter joins only Part I of this opinion.
At the guilt phase of the trial, defense counsel moved to exclude “some confessions regarding 7 other crimes,” including burglary, robbery, and stealing. Tr. 425 (Jan. 27, 1982). The motion was made not on the ground that the crimes were connected to the charged offense, cf. post, at 280, n. 1, or that they were committed while Lashley was a juvenile, but because they were “extremely prejudicial” and “[irjrelevant” to Lashley’s guilt or innocence of the murder. Motion in Limine, Record 143 (Jan. 21, 1982). In a pretrial conference, defense counsel specifically stated that at least one of the crimes had been committed “a week or two” before the murder — that is, when Lashley was already an adult. Tr. 425 (Jan. 27, 1982). The presentence report contains additional evidence. Under the heading “Adult Arrest Record,” the report indicates that Lashley was arrested for three offenses (robbery, burglary, and stealing) the day after his arrest for the present crime. Missouri Dept, of Social Services, Div. of Probation and Parole 2 (Mar. 23, 1982).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the citizenship, for purposes of federal-court diversity jurisdiction, of national banks, i. e., corporate entities chartered not by any State, but by the Comptroller of the Currency of the U. S. Treasury. Congress empowered federal district courts to adjudicate civil actions between “citizens of different States” where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a)(1). A business organized as a corporation, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, is “deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated” and, since 1958, also “of the State where it has its principal place of business.” § 1332(c)(1). State banks, usually chartered as corporate bodies by a particular State, ordinarily fit comfortably within this prescription. Federally chartered national banks do not, for they are not incorporated by “any State.” For diversity jurisdiction purposes, therefore, Congress has discretely provided that national banks “shall ... be deémed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.” § 1348.
The question presented turns on the meaning, in § 1348’s context, of the word “located.” Does it signal, as the petitioning national bank and the United States, as amicus curiae, urge, that the bank’s citizenship is determined by the place designated in the bank’s articles of association as the location of its main office? Or does it mean, in addition, as respondents urge and the Court of Appeals held, that a national bank is a citizen of every State in which it maintains a branch?
Recognizing that “located” is not a word of “enduring rigidity,” Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas, 434 U. S. 35, 44 (1977), but one that gains its precise meaning from context, we hold that a national bank, for § 1348 purposes, is a citizen of the State in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located. Were we to hold, as the Court of Appeals did, that a national bank is additionally a citizen of every State in which it has established a branch, the access of a federally chartered bank to a federal forum would be drastically curtailed in comparison to the access afforded state banks and other state-incorporated entities. Congress, we are satisfied, created no such anomaly.
I
Petitioner Wachovia Bank, National Association (Wacho-via), is a national banking association with its designated main office in Charlotte, North Carolina. Wachovia operates branch offices in many States, including South Carolina.
The litigation before us commenced when plaintiff-respondent Daniel G. Schmidt III and others, citizens of South Carolina, sued Wachovia in a South Carolina state court for fraudulently inducing them to participate in an illegitimate tax shelter. Shortly thereafter, Wachovia filed a petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking to compel arbitration of the dispute. As the sole basis for federal-court jurisdiction, Wachovia alleged the parties’ diverse citizenship. See 28 U. S. C. § 1332. The District Court denied Wachovia’s petition on the merits; neither the parties nor the court questioned the existence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit panel determined that the District Court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the action; it therefore vacated the judgment and instructed the District Court to dismiss the case.
The Court of Appeals’ majority observed that Wachovia’s citizenship for diversity purposes is controlled by §1348, which provides that “national banking associations” are “deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.” As the panel majority read §1348, Wachovia is “located” in, and is therefore a “citizen” of, every State in which it maintains a branch office. Thus Wachovia’s branch operations in South Carolina, in the majority’s view, rendered the bank a citizen of South Carolina. Given the South Carolina citizenship of the opposing parties, the majority concluded that the matter could not be adjudicated in federal court. 388 F. 3d 414, 432 (CA4 2004).
Circuit Judge King dissented. He read § 1348 and its statutory precursors to provide national banks with “the same access to federal courts as that accorded other banks and corporations.” Id., at 434. On his reading, Wachovia is a citizen only of North Carolina, the State in which its main office is located, not of every State in which it maintains a branch office; accordingly, he concluded, Wachovia’s petition qualified for federal-court adjudication.
We granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement among Courts of Appeals on the meaning of § 1348. 545 U. S. 1113 (2005). Compare Horton v. Bank One, N. A., 387 F. 3d 426, 429, 431 (CA5 2004) (for § 1348 purposes, “a national bank is not ‘located’ in, and thus [is] not a citizen of, every state in which it has a branch”; rather, the provision retains “jurisdictional parity for national banks vis-a-vis state banks and corporations”), and Firstar Bank, N. A. v. Faul, 253 F. 3d 982, 993-994 (C A7 2001) (same), with 388 F. 3d, at 432 (§ 1348 renders national bank a citizen, not only of the State in which its main office is located, but also of every State in which it has branch operations), and World Trade Center Properties, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 345 F. 3d 154, 161 (CA2 2003) (dictum) (same).
II
When Congress first authorized national banks in 1863, it specified that any “suits, actions, and proceedings by and against [them could] be had” in federal court. See Act of Feb. 25, 1863, § 59,12 Stat. 681. National banks thus could “sue and be sued in the federal district and circuit courts solely because they were national banks, without regard to diversity, amount in controversy or the existence of a federal question in the usual sense.” Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555, 565-566 (1963). State banks, however, like other state-incorporated entities, could initiate actions in federal court only on the basis of diversity of citizenship or the existence of a federal question. See Petri v. Commercial Nat. Bank of Chicago, 142 U. S. 644, 648-649 (1892).
Congress ended national banks’ automatic qualification for federal jurisdiction in 1882. An enactment that year provided in relevant part:
“[T]he jurisdiction for suits hereafter brought by or against any association established under any law providing for national-banking associations ... shall be the same as, and not other than, the jurisdiction for suits by or against banks not organized under any law of the United States which do or might do banking business where such national-banking associations may be doing business when such suits may be begun[.]” Act of July 12, 1882, §4, 22 Stat. 163.
Under this measure, national banks could no longer invoke federal-court jurisdiction solely “on the ground of their Federal origin,” Petri, 142 U. S., at 649; instead, for federal jurisdictional purposes, Congress placed national banks “on the same footing as the banks of the state where they were located,” Leather Manufacturers’ Bank v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 778, 780 (1887).
In 1887 revisions to prescriptions on federal jurisdiction, Congress replaced the 1882 provision on jurisdiction over national banks and first used the “located” language today contained in § 1348. The 1887 provision stated in relevant part:
“[A]ll national banking associations established under the laws of the. United States shall, for the purposes of all actions by or against them, real, personal or mixed, and all suits in equity, be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located; and in such cases the circuit and district courts shall not have jurisdiction other than such as they would have in cases between individual citizens of the same State.” Act of Mar. 3, 1887, §4, 24 Stat. 554-555 (emphasis added).
Like its 1882 predecessor, the 1887 Act “sought to limit. . . the access of national banks to, and their suability in, the federal courts to the same. extent to which non-national banks [were] so limited.” Langdeau, 371 U. S., at 565-566.
In the Judicial Code of 1911, Congress combined two formerly discrete provisions on proceedings involving national banks, but retained without alteration the clause deeming national banks to be “citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.” Act of Mar. 3, 1911, §24 (Sixteenth), 36 Stat. 1091-1093. Finally, as part of the 1948 Judicial Code revision, Congress enacted § 1348 in its current form. Act of June 25,1948,62 Stat. 933. The provision now reads:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by the United States, or by direction of any officer thereof, against any national banking association, any civil action to wind up the affairs of any such association, and any action by a banking association established in the district for which the court is held, under chapter 2 of Title 12, to enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency, or any receiver acting under his direction, as provided by such chapter.
“All national banking associations shall, for the purposes of all other actions by or against them, be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.” 28 U.S.C. §1348.
Ill
The Fourth Circuit panel majority advanced three principal reasons for deciding that Wachovia is “located” in, and therefore a “citizen” of, every State in which it maintains a branch office. First, consulting dictionaries, the Court of Appeals observed that “[i]n ordinary parlance” the term “located” refers to “physical presence in a place.” 388 F. 3d, at 416-417 (internal quotation marks omitted). Banks have a physical presence, the Fourth Circuit stated, wherever they operate branches. Id., at 417. Next, the court noted, “Section 1348 uses two distinct terms to refer to the presence of a banking association: ‘established’ and ‘located.’” Id., at 419. “To give independent meaning” to each word, the court said, “it is most reasonable to understand the place where a national bank is ‘established’ torrefer to a bank’s charter location, and to understand the place where it is ‘located’ to refer to the place or places where it has a physical presence.” Ibid. Finally, the Court of Appeals stressed that in Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas, 434 U. S. 35 (1977), this Court interpreted the term “located” in the former venue statute for national banks, see 12 U. S. C. § 94 (1976 ed.), as encompassing any county in which a bank maintains a branch office. 388 F. 3d, at 419-420. Reasoning that “the jurisdiction and venue statutes pertain to the same subject matter, namely the amenability of national banking associations to suit in federal court,” the panel majority concluded that, “under the in pari materia canon[,] the two statutes should be interpreted” consistently. Id., at 422.
IV
None of the Court of Appeals’ rationales persuade us to read § 1348 to attribute to a national bank, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, the citizenship of each State in which the bank has established branch operations. First, the term “located,” as it appears in the National Bank Act, has no fixed, plain meaning. In some provisions, the word unquestionably refers to a single place: the site of the banking association’s designated main office. See, e. g., 12 U. S. C. § 52 (national bank’s capital stock certificates must state “the name and location of the association”); § 55 (requiring notice of sale of capital stock “in a newspaper of the city or town in which the bank is located”); §75 (bank’s regular annual shareholders’ meeting shall be rescheduled when it “falls on a legal holiday in the State in which the bank is located”); § 182 (requiring publication of a notice of dissolution “in the city or town in which the association is located”). In other provisions, “located” apparently refers to or includes branch offices. See, e.g., §36(j) (defining “branch” to include “any branch place of business located in any State”); §85 (limiting interest rate charged by national bank to “rate allowed by the laws of the State, Territory, or District where the bank is located”) (construed in OCC Interpretive Letter No. 822 (Feb. 17,1998), [1997-1998 Transfer Binder] CCH Fed. Banking L. Rep. ¶ 81-265, pp. 90, 256-90, 257); 12 U. S. C. §92 (permitting national bank to act as insurance agent in certain circumstances when bank is “located and doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants”) (construed in 12 CFR §7.1001 (2005)) Recognizing the controlling significance of context, we stated in Bougas, regarding a venue provision for national banks: “There is no enduring rigidity about the word ‘located.’” 434 U. S., at 44.
Second, Congress may well have comprehended the words “located” and “established,” as used in §1348, not as contrasting, but as synonymous or alternative terms. When Congress enacted §1348’s statutory predecessors and then §1348 itself, a national bank was almost always “located” only in the State in which it was “established,” under any of the proffered definitions of the two words, for, with rare exceptions, a national bank could not operate a branch outside its home State. Not until 1994 did Congress provide broad authorization for national banks to establish branches across state lines. See supra, at 307-308, n. 2. Congress’ use of the two terms may be best explained as a coincidence of statutory codification. Deriving from separate provisions enacted in different years, the word “established” appearing in the first paragraph of § 1348 and the word “located” appearing in the second paragraph were placed in the same section in the 1911 revision of the Judicial Code. See supra, at 311-312, n. 6. The codifying Act explicitly stated that “so far as [its provisions were] substantially the same as existing statutes,” they should “be construed as continuations thereof, and not as new enactments.” Act of Mar. 3, 1911, §294, 36 Stat. 1167; see Federal Intermediate Credit Bank of Columbia v. Mitchell, 277 U. S. 213, 216 (1928) (1911 Act “was in substance a reenactment of the earlier provisions in respect of . . . jurisdiction”). In this light, it is unsurprising that, in 1947, this Court, referring to a national bank’s citizenship under the 1911 Act, used the terms “located” and “established” as alternatives. See Cope v. Anderson, 331 U. S. 461, 467 (“For jurisdictional purposes, a national bank is a ‘citizen’ of the state in which it is established or located[.]”).
Finally, Bougas does not control the meaning of §1348. In that case, we construed a now-repealed venue provision, which stated that actions against national banking associations could be filed “in any State, county, or municipal court in the county or city in which said association [was] located.” 434 U. S., at 35-36 (quoting 12 U. S. C. §94 (1976 ed.)). We held that, for purposes of this provision, a national bank was located, and venue was therefore proper, in any county or city where the bank maintained a branch office. 434 U. S., at 44-45. True, under the in pari materia canon of statutory construction, statutes addressing the same subject matter generally should be read “ ‘as if they were one law.’ ” Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U. S. 239, 243 (1972) (quoting United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556, 564 (1845)). But venue and subject-matter jurisdiction are not concepts of the same order. Venue is largely a matter of litigational convenience; accordingly, it is waived if not timely raised. See, e. g., Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602, 638, n. 26 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(1). Subject-matter jurisdiction, on the other hand, concerns a court’s competence to adjudicate a particular category of cases; a matter far weightier than venue, subject-matter jurisdiction must be considered by the court on its own motion, even if no party raises an objection. See, e.g., Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3).
Cognizant that venue “is primarily a matter of choosing a convenient forum,” Leroy v. Great Western United Corp., 443 U. S. 173, 180 (1979), the Court in Bougas stressed that its “interpretation of [the former] § 94 [would] not inconvenience the bank or unfairly burden it with distant litigation,” 434 U. S., at 44, n. 10. Subject-matter jurisdiction, however, does not entail an assessment of convenience. It poses a “whether,” not a “where” question: Has the Legislature empowered the court to hear cases of a certain genre? See Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U. S. 165, 168 (1939) (“This basic difference between the court’s power and the litigant’s convenience is historic in the federal courts.”). Thus, the considerations that account for our decision in Bougas are inapplicable to §1348, a prescription governing subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting § 1348 in pari materia with the former § 94.
Significantly, this Court’s reading of the venue provision in Bougas effectively aligned the treatment of national banks for venue purposes with the treatment of state banks and corporations. For venue in suits against state banks and other state-created corporations typically lies wherever those entities have business establishments. See 19 C. J. S., Corporations § 717(d), p. 374, n. 30 (1990) (under typical state venue statutes, “[v]enue in action against domestic corporation can be laid in any county where corporation maintains branch office”). By contrast, the Court of Appeals’ decision in the instant case severely constricts national banks’ access to diversity jurisdiction as compared to the access available to corporations generally. For purposes of diversity, a corporation surely is not deemed a citizen of every State in which it maintains a business establishment. See Pennsylvania R. Co. v, St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290, 295-296 (1886). Rather, under 28 U. S. C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is “deemed to be a citizen” only of “any State by which it has been incorporated” and “of the State where it has its principal place of business.” Accordingly, while corporations ordinarily rank as citizens of at most 2 States, Wachovia, under the Court of Appeals’ novel citizenship rule, would be a citizen of 16 States. See FDIC Institution Directory, available at http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main.asp. Bougas does not call for this anomalous result.
V
To summarize, “located,” as its appearances in the banking laws reveal, see supra, at 313-314, is a chameleon word; its meaning depends on the context in and purpose for which it is used.
In the context of venue, “located” may refer to multiple places, for a venue prescription, e. g., the current and former 12 U. S. C. § 94, presupposes subject-matter jurisdiction and simply delineates where within a given judicial system a case may be maintained. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1391(c) (for venue purposes, “a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced”).
In contrast, in § 1348, “located” appears in a prescription governing not venue but federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. Concerning access to the federal court system, § 1348 deems national banks “citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.” There is no reason to suppose Congress used those words to effect a radical departure from the norm. An individual who resides in more than one State is regarded, for purposes of federal subject-matter (diversity) jurisdiction, as a citizen of but one State. See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826, 828 (1989) (an individual is deemed a citizen of the State of her domicil); Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U. S. 619, 625 (1914) (domicil is the “technically preeminent headquarters” of a person; “[i]n its nature it is one”). Similarly, a corporation’s citizenship derives, for diversity jurisdiction purposes, from its State of incorporation and principal place of business. § 1332(c)(1). It is not deemed a citizen of every State in which it conducts business or is otherwise amenable to personal jurisdiction. Reading § 1348 in this context, one would sensibly “locate” a national bank for the very same purpose, i. e., qualification for diversity jurisdiction, in the State designated in its articles of association as its main office.
Treating venue and subject-matter jurisdiction prescriptions as in pari materia, 388 F. 3d, at 422-423, the Court of Appeals majority overlooked the discrete offices of those concepts. See supra, at 315-316; cf. Cook, “Substance” and “Procedure” in the Conflict of Laws, 42 Yale L. J. 333, 337 (1933) (“The tendency to assume that a word which appears in two or more legal rules, and so in connection with more than one purpose, has and should have precisely the same scope in all of them, runs all through legal discussions. It has all the tenacity of original sin and must constantly be guarded against.”). The resulting Fourth Circuit decision rendered national banks singularly disfavored corporate bodies with regard to their access to federal courts. The language of § 1348 does not mandate that incongruous outcome, nor does this Court’s precedent.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
A national bank, on formation, must designate, in its organization certificate and articles of association, the “place where its operations of discount and deposit are to be carried on.” 12 U. S. C. §22 (Second); see §21; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Instructions— Articles of Association, Specific Requirements ¶ 12, available at http:// www.occ.treas.gov/corpbook/forms/articles-conv.doc. (All Internet materials as visited Jan. 13, 2006, and included in Clerk of Court’s case file.) The place so designated serves as the bank’s “main office.” Changes in the location of that office are effected by amendment to the bank’s articles of association. See 12 U. S. C. §§ 21a, 30(b); 12 CFR § 5.40(d)(2)(ii) (2005). The State in which the main office is located qualifies as the bank’s “home State” under the banking laws. 12 U. S. C. § 36(g)(3)(B).
National banks originally lacked authority to operate branch offices. Act of Feb. 25, 1863, §11, 12 Stat. 668. In 1865, Congress enacted an exception permitting a state bank that converted to a national bank to retain its pre-existing branches. Act of Mar. 3, 1865, § 7, 13 Stat. 484. Congress authorized limited branch operations in the bank’s home State in 1927 and 1933. McFadden Act (Branch Banks), 1927, §7(c), 44 Stat. 1228; Glass-Steagall Act, 1933, § 23,48 Stat. 189-190. These Acts, like the 1865 enactment, allowed interstate branching only under narrow “grandfather” provisions. McFadden Act, §7(a)-(b), 44 Stat. 1228; see Girard Bank v. Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve System, 748 F. 2d 838, 840 (CA3 1984) (observing that only two national banks had “grandfathered” interstate branches). Not until 1994 did Congress grant national banks broad authority to establish branch offices across state lines. See Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, § 101, 108 Stat. 2339. See generally J. Macey, G. Miller, & R. Carnell, Banking Law and Regulation 18 — 19, 23, 32-33 (3d ed. 2001).
Wachovia unsuccessfully moved for rehearing en banc. Six judges voted to grant the rehearing petition, three voted to deny it, and four recused themselves. Thus the petition failed to gamer the required majority of the Circuit’s 13 active judges. No. 03-2061 (CA4, Jan. 28, 2005), App. to Pet. for Cert. 57a-58a
The term “established under” did appear in the 1882 and 1887 formulations, in both texts as synonymous with the term “organized under.” In neither measure is the word used in a locational sense.
Earlier, in 1888, Congress had revised the 1887 prescription by adding as a separate paragraph this caveat: “The provisions of this section shall not be held to affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in cases commenced by the United States or by direction of any officer thereof, or cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank.” Act of Aug. 13, 1888, §4, 25 Stat. 436.
In full, the 1911 text stated:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction . . . [o]f all cases commenced by the United States, or by direction of any officer thereof, against any national banking association, and cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank; and of all suits brought by any banking association established in the district for which the court is held, under the provisions of title ‘National Banks,’ Revised Statutes, to enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency, or any receiver acting under his direction, as provided by said title. And all national banking associations established under the laws of the United States shall, for the purposes of all other actions by or against them, real, personal, or mixed, and all suits in equity, be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.” 36 Stat. 1091-1093.
The first sentence of this formulation merged the 1888 caveat with text, including the word “established,” originally contained in the Act of Dec. 1, 1873, § 629 (Tenth to Eleventh), 18 Stat. 111. The second sentence, including the word “located,” derives from the 1887 formulation.
The Court of Appeals did not overlook these nonuniform uses of the word “located” in various provisions of the National Bank Act. See 388 F. 3d 414, 425 (CA4 2004). Nevertheless, it declared that, in § 1348, “located” unambiguously means “physically present.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). The court did not say what facilities other than branch offices, for example, storage sites or even automated teller machines, would suffice to establish a bank’s physical presence. Cf Tr. of Oral Arg. 36-37 (counsel for respondents stated that an ATM, although an arguable question, probably would suffice to locate a bank in a State for § 1348 purposes).
Context also matters in assigning meaning to the word “established.” See, e. g., Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital Gains, S. Treaty Doc. No. 107-19, Art. 5, pp. 8-9 (2002) (“For the purposes of this Convention, the term “permanent establishment’ means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on ....”). Given the character of the proceedings covered by the first paragraph of § 1348, see supra, at 312, one might read “established” as referring to the bank’s main office as set forth in its articles of association. Other readings mentioned in Court of Appeals opinions are the bank’s principal place of business and the place listed in the bank’s organization certificate. See Horton v. Bank One, N. A., 387 F. 3d 426, 434 (CA5 2004); Firstar Bank, N. A. v. Faul, 253 F. 3d 982, 992 (CA7 2001). Because this issue is not presented by the parties or necessary to today’s decision, we express no opinion on it. Cf. ibid.
To achieve complete parity with state banks and other state-incorporated entities, a national banking association would have to be deemed a citizen of both the State of its main office and the State of its principal place of business. See Horton, 387 F. 3d, at 431, and n. 26; Firstar Bank, N. A, 253 F 3d, at 993-994. Congress has prescribed that a corporation “shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U. S. C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). The counterpart provision for national banking associations, § 1348, however, does not refer to “principal place of business”; it simply deems such associations “citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.” The absence of a “principal place of business” reference in § 1348 may be of scant practical significance for, in almost every case, as in this one, the location of a national bank’s main office and of its principal place of business coincide.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The leading Framers of our Constitution viewed the principle of separation of powers as the central guarantee of a just government. James Madison put it this way: “No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). In this litigation, we must decide whether the authority that Congress has granted the Chief Judge of the United States Tax Court to appoint special trial judges transgresses our structure of separated powers. We answer that inquiry in the negative.
r — i
By the Tax Reform Act of 1969, § 951, 83 Stat. 730, 26 U. S. C. § 7441, Congress “established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court.” It also empowered the Tax Court to appoint commissioners to assist its judges. § 958, 83 Stat. 734. By the Tax Reform Act of 1984, § 464(a), 98 Stat. 824, the title “commissioner” was changed to “special trial judge.” By § 463(a) of that Act, 98 Stat. 824, and by § 1556(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 2754, Congress authorized the Chief Judge of the Tax Court to appoint and assign these special trial judges to hear certain specifically described proceedings and “any other proceeding which the chief judge may designate.” 26 U. S. C. §§ 7443A(a) and (b). The Tax Court presently consists of 19 judges appointed to 15-year terms by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. §§ 7443(a), (b), and (e).
H
This complex litigation began with determinations of federal income tax deficiencies against the several petitioners, who had deducted on their returns approximately $1.5 billion in losses allegedly realized in a tax shelter scheme. When petitioners sought review in the Tax Court in March 1982, their cases were assigned to Tax Court Judge Richard C. Wilbur. Trial began in 1984. Judge Wilbur became ill in November 1985, and the Chief Judge of the Tax Court assigned Special Trial Judge Carleton D. Powell to preside over the trial as evidentiary referee, with the proceedings videotaped. App. 2. When Judge Wilbur’s illness forced his retirement and assumption of senior status effective April 1, 1986, the cases were reassigned, with petitioners’ specified consent, Brief for Petitioners 8; Tr. of Oral Arg. 10, to Judge Powell for preparation of written findings and an opinion. App. 8, 12-14. The judge concluded that petitioners’ tax shelter scheme consisted of sham transactions and that peti-
HH tioners owed additional taxes. The Chief Judge adopted Judge Powell’s opinion as that of the Tax Court. 89 T. C. 849 (1987).
Petitioners took an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. It affirmed. 904 F. 2d 1011 (1990). Petitioners did not argue to the Court of Appeals, nor do they argue here, that the Tax Court is not a legitimate body. Rather, they contended that the assignment of cases as complex as theirs to a special trial judge was not authorized by § 7443A, and that this violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The Court of Appeals ruled that because the question of the Special Trial Judge’s authority was “in essence, an attack upon the subject matter jurisdiction of the special trial judge, it may be raised for the first time on appeal.” 904 F. 2d, at 1015 (footnote omitted). The court then went on to reject petitioners’ claims on the merits. It concluded that the Code authorized the Chief Judge of the Tax Court to assign a special trial judge to hear petitioners’ cases and that petitioners had waived any constitutional challenge to this appointment by consenting to a trial before Judge Powell. Id., at 1015, n. 9.
We granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 1066 (1991), to resolve the important questions the litigation raises about the Constitution’s structural separation of powers.
h — l ► — (
Section 7443A(b) of the Internal Revenue Code specifically authorizes the Chief Judge of the Tax Court to assign four categories of cases to special trial judges: “(1) any declaratory judgment proceeding,” “(2) any proceeding under section 7463,” “(3) any proceeding” in which the deficiency or claimed overpayment does not exceed $10,000, and “(4) any other proceeding which the chief judge may designate.” In the first three categories, the Chief Judge may assign the special trial judge not only to hear and report on a case but also to decide it. §7443A(c). In the fourth category, the Chief Judge may authorize the special trial judge only to hear the case and prepare proposed findings and an opinion. The actual decision then is rendered by a regular judge of the Tax Court.
Petitioners argue that adjudication by the Special Trial Judge in this litigation exceeded the bounds of the statutory authority that Congress has conferred upon the Tax Court. Despite what they concede to be the “sweeping language” of subsection (b)(4), Brief for Petitioners 6, petitioners claim that Congress intended special trial judges to preside over only the comparatively narrow and minor matters covered by subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3).
The plain language of § 7443A(b)(4) surely authorizes the Chief Judge’s assignment of petitioners’ cases to a special trial judge. When we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry should be complete except in rare and exceptional circumstances. Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U. S. 184, 190 (1991). Subsection (b)(4) could not be more clear. It states that the Chief Judge may assign “any other proceeding” to a special trial judge for duties short of “mak[ing] the decision.” The subsection’s text contains no limiting term that restricts its reach to cases that are minor, simple, or narrow, as petitioners urge. We have stated that courts “are not at liberty to create an exception where Congress has declined to do so.” Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U. S. 20, 27 (1989).
Nothing in the legislative history contradicts the broad sweep of subsection (b)(4)’s language. In proposing to authorize the Chief Judge to assign “any other proceeding” to the special trial judges, the Committee on Ways and Means stated that it intended “to clarify” that any other proceeding could be assigned to special trial judges “so long as a Tax Court judge must enter the decision.” H. R. Rep. No. 98-432, pt. 2, p. 1568 (1984). The Report goes on to explain:
“A technical change is made to allow the Chief Judge of the Tax Court to assign any proceeding to a special trial judge for hearing and to writé proposed opinions, subject to review and final decision by a Tax Court judge, regardless of the amount in issue. However, special trial judges will not be authorized to enter decisions in this latter category of cases.” Ibid.
The Conference Report “follows the House Bill,” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 98-861, p. 1127 (1984), and, like the House Report, indicates that Congress knowingly removed the jurisdictional requirement of a maximum amount in dispute in order to expand the authority of special trial judges to hear, but not to decide, cases covered by subsection (b)(4).
Petitioners appear not to appreciate the distinction between the special trial judges’ authority to hear cases and prepare proposed findings and opinions under subsection (b)(4) and their lack of authority actually to decide those cases, which is reserved exclusively for judges of the Tax Court. Because they do not distinguish between hearing a case and deciding it, petitioners advance two arguments that, it seems to us, miss the mark.
Petitioners first argue that the legislative history notes that the amendment to what is now § 7443A was merely a “technical” change and cannot be read to transfer dispositive power to special trial judges. Petitioners are correct that the 1984 amendment neither transferred decisional power nor altered the substantive duties of the special trial judges. Congress has limited the authority of special trial judges to enter decisions to the narrow category of cases set forth in subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3). The scope of the special trial judges’ authority to hear and decide cases, however, has little, if any, relevance to the category of cases that the special trial judges may hear but not decide.
Since the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1943, § 503, 58 Stat. 72, the Tax Court has possessed authority to appoint commissioners to assist it in particular cases. Special trial judges and their predecessors, the commissioners, have been authorized for almost a half century to hear any case before the Tax Court in the discretion of its Chief Judge. In practice, before 1984, special trial judges often heard and reported on large and complex cases. Accordingly, when Congress adopted subsection (b)(4), it codified the Chief Judge’s discretion to assign cases like petitioners’ to a special trial judge for hearing and preparation of a report. The 1984 amendment was “technical” in light of the historical development of the special trial judges’ role; the technical nature of the amendment, however, does not alter the wide-ranging effect of the statutory text’s grant of authority to the Chief Judge to assign “any other proceeding” within the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to a special trial judge.
Petitioners also argue that the phrase “any other proceeding” is a general grant of authority to fill unintended gaps left by subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3). Reading subsection (b)(4) as a catchall provision, petitioners argue that its meaning must be limited to cases involving a small amount of money because any other interpretation would render the limitations imposed by subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3) a nullity. In support of this argument, petitioners rely on this Court’s decision in Gomez v. United States, 490 U. S. 858 (1989).
We held in Gomez that the Federal Magistrates Act’s general grant of authority allowing magistrates to “be assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States,” 28 U. S. C. § 636(b)(3), did not permit a magistrate to supervise juror voir dire in a felony trial over a defendant’s objection. In so holding, we explained:
“When a statute creates an office to which it assigns specific duties, those duties outline the attributes of the office. Any additional duties performed pursuant to a general authorization in the statute reasonably should bear some relation to the specified duties.” 490 U. S., at 864.
In the Magistrates Act, the list of specifically enumerated duties followed the general grant of authority and provided the outlines for the scope of the general grant. Unlike the Magistrates Act, §7443A explicitly distinguishes between the categories of cases enumerated in subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3), which are declaratory judgment proceedings and cases involving $10,000 or less, and the category of “any other proceeding” found in subsection (b)(4).
The lesser authority exercised by special trial judges in proceedings under subsection (b)(4) also prevents that subsection from serving as a grant of general authority to fill any gaps left in the three preceding subsections. Special trial judges may hear and decide declaratory judgment proceedings and the limited-amount cases. A special trial judge, however, cannot render the final decision of the Tax Court in a case assigned under subsection (b)(4). If the cases that special trial judges may hear, but not decide, under subsection (b)(4) are limited to the same kind of cases they could hear and decide under the three preceding subsections, then subsection (b)(4) would be superfluous. Our cases consistently have expressed “a deep reluctance to interpret a statutory provision so as to render superfluous other provisions in the same enactment.” Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 562 (1990). See also Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U. S. 187, 201 (1991). The scope of subsection (b)(4) must be greater than that of subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3).
We conclude that subsection (b)(4) permits the Chief Judge to assign any Tax Court proceeding, regardless of complexity or amount, to a special trial judge for hearing and the preparation of proposed findings and written opinion. The statute’s language, structure, and history permit no other conclusion.
IV
This construction of § 7443A raises a constitutional issue to which we now must turn. Petitioners submit that if subsection (b)(4) permits a special trial judge to preside over the trial of any Tax Court case, then the statute violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §2, cl. 2. According to petitioners, a special trial judge is an “Office[r]” of the United States who must be appointed in compliance with the Clause. The Clause reads:
“He [the President]... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
Thus, the Constitution limits congressional discretion to vest power to appoint “inferior Officers” to three sources: “the President alone,” “the Heads of Departments,” and “the Courts of Law.” Petitioners argue that a special trial judge is an “inferior Office[r],” and also contend that the Chief Judge of the Tax Court does not fall within any of the Constitution’s three repositories of the appointment power.
A
We first address the Commissioner’s argument that petitioners have waived their right to challenge the constitutional propriety of § 7443A. The Commissioner contends that petitioners waived this right not only by failing to raise a timely objection to the assignment of their cases to a special trial judge, but also by consenting to the assignment.
The roots of the separation-of-powers concept embedded in the Appointments Clause are structural and political. Our separation-of-powers jurisprudence generally focuses on the danger of one branch’s aggrandizing its power at the expense of another branch. See Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 382 (1989). The Appointments Clause not only guards against this encroachment but also preserves another aspect of the Constitution’s structural integrity by preventing the diffusion of the appointment power.
The Commissioner correctly notes that petitioners gave their consent to trial before the Special Trial Judge. This Court in the past, however, has exercised its discretion to consider nonjurisdictional claims that had not been raised below. See Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62, 71-72 (1968); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, 535-536 (1962); Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552, 556-560 (1941). Glidden expressly included Appointments Clause objections to judicial officers in the category of nonjurisdictional structural constitutional objections that could be considered on appeal whether or not they were ruled upon below:
"And in Lamar v. United States, 241 U. S. 103, 117-118, the claim that an intercircuit assignment... usurped the presidential appointing power under Art. II, § 2, was heard here and determined upon its merits, despite the fact that it had not been raised in the District Court or in the Court of Appeals or even in this Court until the filing of a supplemental brief upon a second request for review.” Glidden, 370 U. S., at 536 (Harlan, J., announcing the judgment of the Court).
Like the Court in Glidden, we are faced with a constitutional challenge that is neither frivolous nor disingenuous. The alleged defect in the appointment of the Special Trial Judge goes to the validity of the Tax Court proceeding that is the basis for this litigation. It is true that, as a general matter, a litigant must raise all issues and objections at trial. But the disruption to sound appellate process entailed by entertaining objections not raised below does not always overcome what Justice Harlan called “the strong interest of the federal judiciary in maintaining the constitutional plan of separation of powers.” Ibid. We conclude that this is one of those rare cases in which we should exercise our discretion to hear petitioners’ challenge to the constitutional authority of the Special Trial Judge.
In reaching this conclusion, we note that we are not persuaded by the Commissioner’s request that this Court defer to the Executive Branch’s decision that there has been no legislative encroachment on Presidential prerogatives under the Appointments Clause in connection with §7443A. According to the Commissioner, the structural interests implicated in this litigation are those of the Executive Branch, which can be expected to look out for itself. It is claimed, accordingly, that there is no need for this Court to be concerned about protecting the separation-of-powers interests at stake here.
We are not persuaded by this approach. The Commissioner, we believe, is in error when he assumes that the interest at stake is the Executive’s own appointment power. The structural principles embodied in the Appointments Clause do not speak only, or even primarily, of Executive prerogatives simply because they are located in Article II. The Appointments Clause prevents Congress from dispensing power too freely; it limits the universe of eligible recipients of the power to appoint. Because it articulates a limiting principle, the Appointments Clause does not always serve the Executive’s interests. For example, the Clause forbids Congress to grant the appointment power to inappropriate members of the Executive Branch. Neither Congress nor the Executive can agree to waive this structural protection. “The assent of the Executive to a bill which contains a provision contrary to the Constitution does not shield it from judicial review.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 942, n. 13 (1983). The structural interests protected by the Appointments Clause are not those of any one branch of Government but of the entire Republic.
B
We turn to another preliminary issue in petitioners’ Appointments Clause challenge. Petitioners argue that a special trial judge is an “inferior Office[r]” of the United States. If we disagree, and conclude that a special trial judge is only an employee, petitioners’ challenge fails, for such “lesser functionaries” need not be selected in compliance with the strict requirements of Article II. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 126, n. 162 (1976).
The Commissioner, in contrast to petitioners, argues that a special trial judge assigned under § 7443A(b)(4) acts only as an aide to the Tax Court judge responsible for deciding the case. The special trial judge, as the Commissioner characterizes his work, does no more than assist the Tax Court judge in taking the evidence and preparing the proposed findings and opinion. Thus, the Commissioner concludes, special trial judges acting pursuant to § 7443A(b)(4) are employees rather than “Officers of the United States.”
“[A]ny appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an ‘Officer of the United States/ and must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by § 2, cl. 2, of [Article II].” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 126. The two courts that have addressed the issue have held that special trial judges are “inferior Officers.” The Tax Court so concluded in First Western Govt. Securities, Inc. v. Commissioner, 94 T. C. 549, 557-559 (1990), and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Samuels, Kramer & Co. v. Commissioner, 930 F. 2d 975, 985 (1991), agreed. Both courts considered the degree of authority exercised by the special trial judges to be so “significant” that it was inconsistent with the classifications of “lesser functionaries” or employees. Cf. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 352-353 (1931) (United States commissioners are inferior officers). We agree with the Tax Court and the Second Circuit that a special trial judge is an “inferior Office[r]” whose appointment must conform to the Appointments Clause.
The Commissioner reasons that special trial judges may be deemed employees in subsection (b)(4) cases because they lack authority to enter a final decision. But this argument ignores the significance of the duties and discretion that special trial judges possess. The office of special trial judge is “established by Law,” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and the duties, salary, and means of appointment for that office are specified by statute. See Burnap v. United States, 252 U. S. 512, 516-517 (1920); United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 511-512 (1879). These characteristics distinguish special trial judges from special masters, who are hired by Article III courts on a temporary, episodic basis, whose positions are not established by law, and whose duties and functions are not delineated in a statute. Furthermore, special trial judges perform more than ministerial tasks. They take testimony, conduct trials, rule on the admissibility of evidence, and have the power to enforce compliance with discovery orders. In the course of carrying out these important functions, the special trial judges exercise significant discretion.
Even if the duties of special trial judges under subsection (b)(4) were not as significant as we and the two courts have found them to be, our conclusion would be unchanged. Under §§7443A(b)(l), (2), and (3), and (c), the Chief Judge may assign special trial judges to render the decisions of the Tax Court in declaratory judgment proceedings and limited-amount tax cases. The Commissioner concedes that in cases governed by subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3), special trial judges act as inferior officers who exercise independent authority. But the Commissioner urges that petitioners may not rely on the extensive power wielded by the special trial judges in declaratory judgment proceedings and limited-amount tax cases because petitioners lack standing to assert the rights of taxpayers whose cases are assigned to special trial judges under subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3).
This standing argument seems to us to be beside the point. Special trial judges are not inferior officers for purposes of some of their duties under § 7443A, but mere employees with respect to other responsibilities. The fact that an inferior officer on occasion performs duties that may be performed by an employee not subject to the Appointments Clause does not transform his status under the Constitution. If a special trial judge is an inferior officer for purposes of subsections (b)(1), (2), and (3), he is an inferior officer within the meaning of the Appointments Clause and he must be properly appointed.
C
Having concluded that the special trial judges are “inferior Officers,” we consider the substantive aspect of petitioners’ Appointments Clause challenge. The principle of separation of powers is embedded in the Appointments Clause. Its relevant language bears repeating: “[T]he Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Congress clearly vested the Chief Judge of the Tax Court with the power to appoint special trial judges. An important fact about the appointment in this case should not be overlooked. This case does not involve an “interbranch” appointment. Cf. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 675-677 (1988). However one might classify the Chief Judge of the Tax Court, there surely is nothing incongruous about giving him the authority to appoint the clerk or an assistant judge for that court. See id., at 676. We do not consider here an appointment by some officer of inferior officers in, for example, the Department of Commerce or Department of State. The appointment in this case is so obviously appropriate that petitioners’ burden of persuading us that it violates the Appointments Clause is indeed heavy.
Although petitioners bear a heavy burden, their challenge is a serious one. Despite Congress’ authority to create offices and to provide for the method of appointment to those offices, “Congress’ power... is inevitably bounded by the express language of Article II, cl. 2, and unless the method it provides comports with the latter, the holders of those offices will not be ‘Officers of the United States.’” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 138-139 (discussing Congress’ power under the Necessary and Proper Clause).
The “manipulation of official appointments” had long been one of the American revolutionary generation’s greatest grievances against executive power, see G. Wood, The Creation of The American Republic 1776-1787, p. 79 (1969) (Wood), because “the power of appointment to offices” was deemed “the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth century despotism.” Id., at 143. Those who framed our Constitution addressed these concerns by carefully husbanding the appointment power to limit its diffusion. Although the debate on the Appointments Clause was brief, the sparse record indicates the Framers’ determination to limit the distribution of the power of appointment. The Constitutional Convention rejected Madison’s complaint that the Appointments Clause did “not go far enough if it be necessary at all”: Madison argued that “Superior Officers below Heads of Departments ought in some cases to have the appointment of the lesser offices.” 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 627-628 (M. Farrand rev. 1966). The Framers understood, however, that by limiting the appointment power, they could ensure that those who wielded it were accountable to political force and the will of the people. Thus, the Clause bespeaks a principle of limitation by dividing the power to appoint the principal federal officers — ambassadors, ministers, heads of departments, and judges — between the Executive and Legislative Branches. See Buckley, 424 U. S., at 129-131. Even with respect to “inferior Officers,” the Clause allows Congress only limited authority to devolve appointment power on the President, his heads of departments, and the courts of law.
With this concern in mind, we repeat petitioners’ central challenge: Can the Chief Judge of the Tax Court constitutionally be vested by Congress with the power to appoint? The Appointments Clause names the possible repositories for the appointment power. It is beyond question in this litigation that Congress did not intend to grant to the President the power to appoint special trial judges. We therefore are left with three other possibilities. First, as the Commissioner urges, the Tax Court could be treated as a department with the Chief Judge as its head. Second, as the amicus suggests, the Tax Court could be considered one of “the Courts of Law.” Third, we could agree with petitioners that the Tax Court is neither a “Departmen[t]” nor a “Cour[t] of Law.” Should we agree with petitioners, it would follow that the appointment power could not be vested in the Chief Judge of the Tax Court.
We first consider the Commissioner’s argument. According to the Commissioner, the Tax Court is a department because for 45 years before Congress designated that court as a “court of record” under Article I, see § 7441, the body was an independent agency (the predecessor Board of Tax Appeals) within the Executive Branch. Furthermore, the Commissioner argues that §7441 simply changed the status of the Tax Court within that branch. It did not remove the body to a different branch or change its substantive duties.
The Commissioner “readily” acknowledges that “the Tax Court’s fit within the Executive Branch may not be a perfect one.” Brief for Respondent 41. But he argues that the Tax Court must fall within one of the three branches and that the Executive Branch provides its best home. The reasoning of the Commissioner may be summarized as follows: (1) The Tax Court must fit into one of the three branches; (2) it does not fit into either the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch; (3) at one time it was an independent agency and therefore it must fit into the Executive Branch; and (4) every component of the Executive Branch is a department.
We cannot accept the Commissioner’s assumption that every part of the Executive Branch is a department, the head of which is eligible to receive the appointment power. The Appointments Clause prevents Congress from distributing power too widely by limiting the actors in whom Congress may vest the power to appoint. The Clause reflects our Framers’ conclusion that widely distributed appointment power subverts democratic government. Given the inexorable presence of the administrative state, a holding that every organ in the Executive Branch is a department would multiply indefinitely the number of actors eligible to appoint. The Framers recognized the dangers posed by an excessively diffuse appointment power and rejected efforts to expand that power. See Wood 79-80. So do we. For the Chief Judge of the Tax Court to qualify as a “Hea[d] of [a] Department],” the Commissioner must demonstrate not only that the Tax Court is a part of the Executive Branch but also that it is a department.
We are not so persuaded. This Court for more than a century has held that the term “Department” refers only to “ ‘a part or division of the executive government, as the Department of State, or of the Treasury,’ ” expressly “creat[ed]” and “giv[en]... the name of a department” by Congress. Germaine, 99 U. S., at 510-511. See also Burnap, 252 U. S., at 515 (“The term head of a Department means... the Secretary in charge of a great division of the executive branch of the Government, like the State, Treasury, and War, who is a member of the Cabinet”). Accordingly, the term “Heads of Departments” does not embrace “inferior commissioners and bureau officers.” Germaine, 99 U. S., at 511.
Confining the term “Heads of Departments” in the Appointments Clause to executive divisions like the Cabinet-level departments constrains the distribution of the appointment power just as the Commissioner’s interpretation, in contrast, would diffuse it. The Cabinet-level departments are limited in number and easily identified. Their heads are subject to the exercise of political oversight and share the President’s accountability to the people.
Such a limiting construction also ensures that we interpret that term in the Appointments Clause consistently with its interpretation in other constitutional provisions. In Ger-maine, see 99 U. S., at 511, this Court noted that the phrase “Heads of Departments” in the Appointments Clause must be read in conjunction with the Opinion Clause of Art. II, § 2, cl. 1. The Opinion Clause provides that the President “may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the Executive Departments,” and Germaine limited the meaning of “Executive Department” to the Cabinet members.
The phrase “executive departments” also appears in § 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which empowers the Vice President, together with a majority of the “principal officers of the executive departments,” to declare the President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” The Amendment was ratified February 10, 1967, and its language, of course, does not control our interpretation of a prior constitutional provision, such as the Appointments Clause. Nevertheless, it is instructive that the hearings on the Twenty-fifth Amendment confirm that the term “department” refers to. Cabinet-level entities:
“[O]nly officials of Cabinet rank should participate in the decision as to whether presidential inability exists.... The intent... is that the Presidential appointees who direct the 10 executive departments named in 5 U. S. C. 1 [now codified as § 101], or any executive department established in the future, generally considered to comprise the President’s Cabinet, would participate... in determining inability.” H. R. Rep. No. 203, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965).
Even if we were not persuaded that the Commissioner’s view threatened to diffuse the appointment power and was contrary to the meaning of “Department” in the Constitution, we still could not accept his treatment of the intent of Congress, which enacted legislation in 1969 with the express purpose of “making the Tax Court an Article I court rather than an executive agency.” S. Rep. No. 91-552, p. 303 (1969). Congress deemed it “anomalous to continue to classify” the Tax Court with executive agencies, id., at 302, and questioned whether it was “appropriate for one executive agency [the pre-1969 tribunal] to be sitting in judgment on the determinations of another executive agency [the IRS].” Ibid.
Treating the Tax Court as a “Department” and its Chief Judge as its “Hea[d]” would defy the purpose of the Appointments Clause, the meaning of the Constitution’s text, and the clear intent of Congress to transform the Tax Court into an Article I legislative court. The Tax Court is not a “Departmen[t].”
Having so concluded, we now must determine whether it is one of the “Courts of Law,” as amicus suggests. Petitioners and the Commissioner both take the position that the Tax Court cannot be a “Cour[t] of Law” within the meaning of the Appointments Clause because, they say, that term is limited to Article III courts.
The text of the Clause does not limit the “Courts of Law” to those courts established under Article III of the Constitution. The Appointments Clause does not provide that Congress can vest appointment power only in “one supreme Court” and other courts established under Article III, or only in tribunals that exercise broad common-law jurisdiction. Petitioners argue that Article IPs reference to the “Courts of Law” must be limited to Article III courts because Article III courts are the only courts mentioned in the Constitution. It of course is true that the Constitution “nowhere makes reference to ‘legislative courts.’” See Glidden, 370 U. S., at 543. But petitioners’ argument fails nevertheless. We agree with petitioners that the Constitution’s terms are illuminated by their cognate provisions. This analytic method contributed to our conclusion that the Tax Court could not be a department. Petitioners, however, underestimate the importance of this Court’s time-honored reading of the Constitution as giving Congress wide discretion to assign the task of adjudication in cases arising under federal law to legislative tribunals. See, e. g., American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 546 (1828) (the judicial power of the United States is not limited to the judicial power defined under Article III and may be exercised by legislative courts); Williams v. United States, 289 U. S. 553, 565-567 (1933) (same).
Our cases involving non-Article III tribunals have held that these courts exercise the judicial power of the United States. In both Canter
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
M
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the face of petitioner’s claim that the subject matter of this suit was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the denial by the trial court of a temporary injunction sought by respondents. 217 Ga. 512, 123 S. E. 2d 653. We granted certiorari to consider the jurisdiction of the Georgia court to authorize the entry of an injunction and requested the parties to brief also the question of our own jurisdiction to review the Georgia court’s judgment under 28 U. S. C. § 1257. 369 U. S. 883.
Respondents, partners in the contracting business, entered into a construction contract with the City of Atlanta requiring that wages paid by respondents “conform with those being paid on similar types of work in the Atlanta area.” Shortly after the beginning of construction, various unions in the Atlanta area visited respondents, whose practice it was to hire without regard to union membership and whose employees were not represented by a union. According to respondents the unions strongly urged the hiring of union labor, whereas the unions recalled only their request for respondents to raise their pay scales to those prevailing in the area. Some months later, following unsuccessful efforts by the unions to have the City of Atlanta persuade respondents to pay higher wages, petitioner placed a single picket at the construction site. Thereupon employees of other contractors not under respondents' supervision refused to work and respondents experienced difficulty in having materials and supplies delivered. Construction slowed, respondents laid off all but 37 of the 72 men working for them, and their ability to finish the job within the time provided in the contract was jeopardized.
Respondents then brought this action for an injunction in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, alleging that petitioner’s picketing was for the purpose of forcing respondents to hire only union labor, all in violation of the Georgia right-to-work statute. A hearing upon respondents’ request for a temporary injunction was held. According to the union its picketing was for the sole purpose of publicizing the facts about the wages being paid by respondents, and in any event its activities were claimed to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. It was stipulated that respondents had purchased more than $50,000 worth of goods and commodities from outside the State of Georgia. The temporary injunction was denied without opinion and respondents appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court found the picketing to be peaceful and the evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that respondents were not paying wages conforming with those paid on similar types of work in the Atlanta area. Relying upon and quoting from an earlier case, the court nevertheless concluded on the whole record that the picket was placed on the job for the purpose of forcing the employer “to employ only union labor, or be unable to comply with the terms of his contract . . . such picketing is for an unlawful purpose, and clearly a violation of the provisions of Code Ann. Supp. § 54-804 . ...” The judgment of the court was that “the trial judge erred in‘refusing the interlocutory injunction,” this judgment later being entered upon the minutes of the trial court and made the judgment of that court.
Upon such a record, we hold that this Court has appellate jurisdiction under § 1257 and we reverse the judgment below as beyond the power of the Georgia courts. The allegations of the complaint, as well as the findings of the Georgia Supreme Court, made out at least an arguable violation of § 8 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b). Consequently, the state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction or to adjudicate this controversy, which lay within the exclusive powers of the National Labor Relations Board. Plumbers Union v. Door County, 359 U. S. 354, 359; San Diego Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 244—245; Hotel Employees Union v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., 358 U. S. 270; Weber v. AnheuserBusch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 478, 481; Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 489-491. Nor is the jurisdiction of the Georgia courts sustainable, as respondents urge, by reason of the Georgia right-to-work law and by § 14 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 164 (b). This precise contention has been previously considered and rejected by this Court. Local Union 429 v. Farnsworth & Chambers Co., 353 U. S. 969, reversing 201 Tenn. 329, 299 S. W. 2d 8. The Georgia Supreme Court clearly exceeded its power in authorizing the issuance of a temporary injunction.
Respondents would nevertheless have us dismiss this case as beyond our appellate jurisdiction since 28 U. S. C. § 1257 limits our authority to the review of final judgments of state courts and since the Georgia Supreme Court authorized the issuance of only a temporary injunction, thus leaving a permanent order still to be issued after further hearings in the trial court. But we believe our power to review this case rests upon solid ground. The federal question raised by petitioner in the Georgia court, and here, is whether the Georgia courts had power to proceed with and determine this controversy. The issue ripe for review is not whether a Georgia court has erroneously decided a matter of federal' law in a case admittedly within its jurisdiction (compare Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448) nor is it the question of whether federal or state law governs a case properly before the Georgia courts. Compare Local 174 v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95. What we do have here is a judgment of the Georgia court finally and erroneously asserting its jurisdiction to deal with a controversy which is beyond its power and instead is within the exclusive domain of the National Labor Relations Board.
Whether or not the Georgia courts have power to issue an injunction is a matter wholly separate from and independent of the merits of respondents’ cause. The issue on the merits, namely the legality of the union’s picketing, is a matter entirely apart from the determination of whether the Georgia court or the National Labor Relations Board should conduct the trial of the issue.
The jurisdictional determination here is as final and reviewable as was the District Court’s decision in Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, exempting plaintiffs in a stockholder’s suit filed in a federal court from filing a bond pursuant to a state statute. That ruling was held a final judgment under 28 U. S. C. § 1291 even though the trial in the case was still to take place. The judgment before us now, like the judgment in Cohen, falls “in that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated. The Court has long given this provision of the statute this practical rather than a technical construction.” Id., at 546. And in Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, the authority of the Nebraska courts to award relief assertedly within the exclusive power of the Federal Communications Commission was held separable from the accounting which was still to take place in the state courts. “In effect, such a controversy is a multiple litigation allowing review of the adjudication which is concluded because it is independent of, and unaffected by, another litigation with which it happens to be entangled.” Id., at 126.
There is no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Georgia courts has been finally determined by the judgment below and is not subject to further review in the state courts. Lankford v. Milhollin, 201 Ga. 594, 599, 40 S. E. 2d 376, 379; Smoot v. Alexander, 192 Ga. 684, 686,16 S. E. 2d 544, 545; Dixon v. Federal Farm Mtg. Corp., 187 Ga. 660, 661, 1 S. E. 2d 732, 733; Blackivell v. Southland Butane Co., 95 Ga. App. 113, 115, 97 S. E. 2d 191, 192. Unless this judgment is reviewable now, petitioner will inevitably remain subject to the issuance of a temporary injunction at the request of the respondents and must face further proceedings in the state courts which the state courts have no power to conduct. If the permanent injunction issues, petitioner could then come here seeking the doubtful privilege of relitigating the entire matter before the National Labor Relations Board. The truth is that authorizing the issuance of a temporary injunction, as is frequently true of temporary injunctions in labor disputes, may effectively dispose of petitioner’s rights and render entirely illusory his right to review here as well as his right to a hearing before the Labor Board. The policy of 28 U. S. C. § 1257 against fragmenting and prolonging litigation and against piecemeal reviews of state court judgments does not prohibit our holding the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court to be a final judgment, particularly when postponing review would seriously erode the national labor policy requiring the subject matter of respondents’ cause to be heard by the National Labor Relations Board, not by the state courts.
There is another entirely adequate reason for sustaining our authority to review in this case. In Pope v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 345 U. S. 379, 382, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the order of a trial court sustaining a general demurrer to a suit to enjoin an employee from prosecuting a suit against his employer in the Alabama courts under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The demurrer had raised the provisions of the federal statute as a bar to the power of the Georgia courts to issue the injunction. The Georgia court’s denial of this federal claim was held reviewable here although ordinarily the overruling of a demurrer is not a final judgment. This Court looked to the whole record, as we are entitled to do in determining questions of finality, Department of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, 268; Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U. S. 543, 547; Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization, 329 U. S. 69, 72, and concluded that for all practical purposes the litigation in the Georgia courts was terminated, since the employee freely conceded he had no further defenses to offer in the state courts, relying upon Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization, 329 U. S. 69.
We have a quite similar situation here. The Georgia Supreme Court not only finally asserted its power to deal with the subject matter of this suit, but it also resolved the merits of the issues raised in the course of the hearing upon the temporary injunction. Petitioner’s conduct was adjudged to be in violation of the Georgia right-to-work law and an injunction was authorized. Petitioner conceded before this court that he had no further factual or legal issues to present to the Georgia trial court and respondent does not suggest that the matters adjudicated by the Georgia Supreme Court are not final and conclusive upon petitioner and the lower court. Since there was nothing more of substance to be decided in the trial court, the judgment below was final within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257 and within the scope of the Pope and Richfield cases. Cf. Clark v. Williard, 292 U. S. 112.
There remains the matter of Montgomery Building & Construction Trades Council v. Ledbetter Erection Co., Inc., 344 U. S. 178, where the Court applied the salutary and long-standing rule that decisions upon interlocutory injunctions are not final judgments. Ledbetter, of course, was decided before Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, and subsequent pre-emption cases in this Court, and at a time when the respective jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board and the state courts was a much mooted issue. Moreover, the Alabama court did not pass upon the merits of the injunction claim, the union there had withdrawn an answer which controverted important allegations of the complaint, and it was not at all clear that there was nothing left to be litigated in the Alabama trial court. This Court apparently preferred to avoid deciding this important matter of federal and state relationships where the decision below did not have all of the traditional badges of finality. Cf. Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U. S. 62. In any event, however, to the extent that Ledbetter may be said to prohibit our review of a final and erroneous assertion of jurisdiction by a state court to issue a temporary injunction in a labor dispute, when a substantial claim is made that the jurisdiction of the state court is pre-empted by federal law and by the exclusive power of the National Labor Relations Board, we decline to follow it.
The judgment is
Reversed.
The Georgia right-to-work law, Ga. Code, §54-804, provides: “Compelling persons to join, or refrain from joining, labor organization, or to strike or refrain from striking. — It shall be unlawful for any person, acting alone or in concert with one or more other persons to compel or attempt to compel any person to join or refrain from joining any labor organization, or to strike or refrain from striking against his will, by any threatened or actual interference with his person, immediate family, or physical property, or by any threatened or actual interference with the pursuit of lawful employment by such person, or by his immediate family.”
The Georgia Supreme Court also referred to Ga. Code, § 66-9906, which provides:
“Unlawfully preventing laborers, etc., from performing duties — Any person or persons, who, by threats, violence, intimidation, or other unlawful means, shall prevent or attempt to prevent any person or persons from engaging in, remaining in, or performing the business, labor, or duties of any lawful employment or occupation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Although respondents point out that there has been no judicial determination of effect on interstate commerce, we do not understand that they question the accuracy or validity of the stipulation or that their purchases from outside Georgia meet the direct inflow standards set by the NLRB for the exercise of its jurisdiction. See Twenty-Third Annual Report, National Labor Relations Board, p. 8 (G. P. O., 1958).
217 Ga., at 514, 123 S. E. 2d, at 655, quoting from Powers v. Courson, 213 Ga. 20, 96 S. E. 2d 577.
Sections 8(b)(1)(A), 8(b)(2), 8(b)(4)(B), and 8(b)(7)(C) provide, in pertinent part:
“(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 ;
“(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a) (3) or to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;
“ (4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is—
“(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring anjr other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9: Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed tQ make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing;
“(7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees:
“(C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under section 9 (c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from the commencement of such picketing: Provided, . . . That nothing in this subparagraph (C) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public (including consumers) that an employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization, unless an effect of such picketing is to induce any individual employed by any other person in the course of his employment, not to pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not to perform any services.
“Nothing in this paragraph (7) shall be construed to permit any act which would otherwise be an unfair labor practice under this section 8 (b).”
See also Meat Cutters Local 427 v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U. S. 20, 23; Radio Union v. Labor Board, 347 U. S. 17, 40-42, 52-53; Labor Board v. Local Union No. 55, 218 F. 2d 226, 232 (C. A. 10th Cir.).
The Court granted certiorari “because of the importance of the contention that the State court’s decision had invaded the domain of the Federal Communications Commission” and directed attention to the question of whether or not the judgment of the Nebraska court was a final one. 326 U. S., at 123.
This, of course, was consistent with and followed older cases recognizing a judgment as final even though an accounting was still to take place. Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; Carondelet Canal Co. v. Louisiana, 233 U. S. 362.
See cases cited in text, ante, p. 550.
According to respondents, they urgently desire to litigate at the hearing upon a permanent injunction the question of whether they violated their contract with the city, which in their view the Georgia Supreme Court did not squarely decide. But in view of the characterization of the picketing by the Georgia Supreme Court as being for the purpose of coercing the hiring of only union labor, it is still true that as far as petitioner is concerned, there is nothing more of substance to be litigated in the trial court.
E. g., San Diego Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, and cases cited in text, ante, p. 547.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, 38 U. S. C. § 2021 et seq., provides that any person who leaves a permanent job to enter the military, satisfactorily completes military service, and applies for re-employment within 90 days of being discharged from the military must be reinstated to the former job without loss of seniority. This case presents the question whether supplemental unemployment benefits provided pursuant to the steel industry collective-bargaining agreement are perquisites of seniority to which a returning veteran is entitled under the statute.
I
Petitioner Thomas Coffy was employed by respondent Republic Steel Corp. (Republic) from April 30, 1968, until September 17, 1968, and again from January 24, 1969, until September 9, 1969, when he entered military service. He served in the military until he was honorably discharged on August 16, 1971. He made timely application for reinstatement on September 14, 1971. Because Republic was then in the process of laying off employees and Coffy would already have been laid off if he had remained continuously employed during his period of military service, he was reinstated in layoff status. Coffy was recalled to work on July 1, 1972.
While Coffy was laid off, he received weekly payments under the supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB) plan created by the collective-bargaining agreement between the major steel companies, including Republic, and the United Steelworkers of America. (Steelworkers). Coffy received SUB payments for 25 weeks. If he had been employed by Republic during his period of military service, he would have been entitled to 52 weeks of SUB payments. Coffy, represented by the Department of Justice pursuant to 38 U. S. C. § 2022, filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that Republic violated his statutory re-employment rights by refusing to consider his military service time in computing the amount of SUB payments to which he was entitled.
The District Court, relying on Foster v. Dravo Corp., 420 U. S. 92 (1975), entered judgment for respondent. The court held that the plan was “a bona fide effort to relate qualification for weekly benefits ... to work actually performed,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24a, and therefore the benefits were not a perquisite of seniority. While the case was pending on petitioner’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, we held in Alabama Power Co. v. Davis, 431 U. S. 581 (1977), that pension benefits are perquisites of seniority protected under the statute. The Court of Appeals sua sponte vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Alabama Power.
On remand, the District Court adhered to its decision that SUB credits are not seniority rights entitled to statutory protection. 461 F. Supp. 344 (1978). The Court of Appeals affirmed on the opinion of the District Court. 590 F. 2d 334 (1978). We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 924 (1979), to resolve a conflict among the Circuits concerning this important question in the interpretation of the statute. We now reverse.
II
The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (Act), 38 U. S. C. § 2021 et seq., requires that returning veterans be reinstated to the jobs they left for military service “or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay.” § 2021 (a) (B) (i) , The Act further provides that the veteran be reinstated “without loss of seniority.” §2021 (b)(1). We interpreted the predecessor of § 2021 to mean that the returning veteran “does not step back on the seniority escalator at the point he stepped off. He steps back on at the precise point he would have occupied had he kept his position continuously during the war.” Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, 284-285 (1946). Congress incorporated this principle into the present statute by providing that any person reinstated under the Act should be given “such status in the person’s employment as the person would have enjoyed if such person had continued in such employment continuously” during the period of military service. § 2021 (b) (2). The statute is to be liberally construed for the benefit of the returning veteran. Fishgold v. Sullivan Dry-dock & Repair Corp-, supra, at 285.
We have several times had occasion to consider whether a particular type of benefit is a perquisite of seniority. Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 383 U. S. 225 (1966), involved a claim for severance pay. The amount of the payment depended on the employee’s length of “compensated service.” Id., at 228. We rejected the employer’s argument that the payment was not based on seniority, but on total service to the company. Rather, we held, the “real nature” of the payments was compensation for the loss of the job. Id., at 230. Because “the cost to an employee of losing his job is not measured by how much work he did in the past. . . but by the rights and benefits he forfeits by giving up his job” — rights and benefits that are largely determined by seniority — the severance payment was “just as much a perquisite of seniority as the more traditional benefits such as work preference and order of lay-off and recall.” Ibid.
We reached a different result in evaluating a claim for vacation benefits in Foster v. Dravo Corp., 420 U. S. 92 (1975). The real nature of that benefit, we observed, was reflected in “the common conception of a vacation as a reward for and respite from a lengthy period of labor,” id., at 101. The contractual provisions for additional vacation credits and higher benefits for overtime work and for pro rata vacations for employees laid off before achieving the necessary number of weeks worked supported that conception. Accordingly, we held that vacation pay was intended as a form of deferred short-term compensation for work actually performed and was not, therefore, a seniority right protected by the statute.
Most recently, in Alabama Power Co. v. Davis, 431 U. S. 581 (1977), we held that pension benefits were perquisites of seniority for purposes of the Act. Although the amount of the payment was directly dependent on the years of accredited service, the true nature of the benefits was “a reward for length of service,” id., at 593. The lengthy period required for vesting, the use of payment formulas based on earnings at the time of retirement, and “the function of pension plans in the employment system” — namely, to provide financial security to employees, assure a stable work force, and increase efficiency — all led to the conclusion that pension payments “are predominantly rewards for continuous employment with the same employer.” Id., at 594. In Alabama Power, we summarized the principles that have emerged from the cases and concluded that they establish a two-pronged test for determining whether a benefit is a perquisite of seniority under the Act. First, there must be a reasonable certainty that the benefit would have accrued if the employee had not gone into the military service. Id., at 589. Second, the nature of the benefit must be “a reward for length of service,” rather than a form of “short-term compensation for services rendered.” Ibid.
Our task, then, is to evaluate the SUB plan at issue in this case in light of these principles.
Ill
A
The first SUB plan for the steel industry was established through collective bargaining in 1956. The revised plan which is the subject of this action became effective January 1, 1969. The plan provides three types of benefits: a “weekly benefit,” a “short week benefit,” and a relocation allowance. Petitioner’s claim involves weekly benefits, which are provided to employees laid off from work as a supplement to unemployment compensation benefits provided under state law. The amount of an employee’s weekly SUB payment is determined by his hourly wage rate, the number of his dependents, the amount of state unemployment compensation he is receiving, and the level of funding remaining in the plan. The length of time during which the employee receives SUB payments is determined by the number of credit units he has accumulated before being laid off.
Section 2.0 of the plan provides that an employee accrues one-half credit for each week in which he worked any hours, or was paid for any hours not worked (such as for vacation or jury duty), or lost any hours because he was performing certain union duties or was on disability leave. A maximum of 52 credit units may be accrued by an employee at any one time. An employee is entitled to receive SUB payments only if he has completed two years of continuous service prior to being laid off. An employee who meets this threshold requirement may receive one week of supplemental unemployment benefits for each credit unit he has accumulated.
The plan also provides, in § 7.2:
“If an employee enters the armed services directly from the employment of the Company, he shall, while in service, be deemed for the purposes of the Plan to be on leave of absence and shall not be entitled to any Benefit. Only the credit units credited to him at the time of his entry into such service shall be credited to him upon his reinstatement as an employee of the Company with unbroken continuous service, except as may otherwise be required by law.”
Under this provision Republic declined to credit petitioner for his military service time in calculating the number of SUB payments to which he was entitled. We must determine whether the provision is in conflict with the Act.
B
The SUB plan satisfies the reasonable-certainty prong of the Alabama Power test, since if Coffy had remained continuously employed by Republic instead of entering the military, he would have accumulated credits from the date he was hired until the date he was laid off. We conclude that the plan also satisfies the second prong of the test, because supplemental unemployment benefits are not a form of deferred short-term compensation, but are a reward for length of service closely analogous to traditional forms of seniority.
The concept of supplemental unemployment benefits evolved from the demand by organized labor for a guaranteed annual wage. When it became evident that a guaranteed annual wage was impractical in their industries, unions such as the Steelworkers and the United Auto Workers transformed their guaranteed annual wage demands into proposals to supplement existing unemployment compensation programs. These proposals ultimately were adopted in several industries in the form of SUB plans. See J. Becker, Guaranteed Income for the Unemployed: The Story of SUB 9-20 (1968); A. Freedman, Security Bargains Reconsidered: SUB, Severance Pay, Guaranteed Work A-5 (The Conference Board 1978). From the beginning, then, the purpose of SUB plans was to provide employment security regardless of the hours worked rather than to afford additional compensation for work actually performed. From the employer’s standpoint SUB’s, like pension benefits, help to assure a stable work force through periods of short-term layoffs and, like severance payments, may increase management flexibility in implementing technological advances. See Becker, supra, at 55-57, 248.
The essential function of SUB plans is to provide economic security for regular employees in the event they are laid off. Protection against layoff is, of course, one of the traditional attributes of seniority. SUB payments provide a second-level protection against layoff. If an employee does not have sufficient seniority to avoid being laid off, he may still have achieved the minimum level of seniority necessary to receive SUB payments during his layoff. Unlike vacations, SUB’s cannot be compensation for work performed, a “reward for and respite from a lengthy period of labor,” Foster v. Dravo Corp., 420 U. S., at 101, for they are contingent on the employee’s being thrown out of work; unless the employee is laid off he will never receive SUB payments. In this sense, SUB’s are analogous to severance payments: they are “compensation for loss of jobs.” Accardi, 383 U. S., at 230. See Freedman, supra, at 2,
We turn now to the specific provisions of the steel industry SUB plan to determine whether they support or contradict our understanding of the general purpose of SUB programs. The District Court held that the availability of SUB payments was so closely related to hours actually worked as to demonstrate that the plan was a “ ‘bona fide effort to compensate for work actually performed.’ ” 461 F. Supp., at 346. That conclusion is at odds with the literal terms of the plan, which provide that SUB credits are earned for all weeks in which an employee has any hours in one of the three categories specified in § 2.0. This provision was the result of a 1962 modification of the original 1956 plan, which had directly correlated hours worked with credits earned by providing that Ho credit would be earned for every eight hours worked, up to a maximum of % unit per week. The District Court recognized that the present plan did not expressly relate entitlement to benefits to hours worked, but found this fact to be of no significance because “ ‘[circumstances existing in the steel industry, as revealed by the uncontradicted evidence in this case, demonstrate that, in practice, the minimum workweek is 32 hours.... The plan must be construed in light of actual conditions in the steel industry. The possibility of an employee working only one hour during any week does not exist.’ ” Id., at 347.
We of course accept the District Court’s factual findings concerning the practice in the industry. We do not agree, however, that a de facto 32-hour minimum workweek means that SUB’s are intended as deferred compensation for work performed. Credits are also earned for weeks in which the employee is paid for any hours not worked, as for jury duty, or in which any hours are lost because the employee is disabled or performing certain union duties. These hours, even if considered similar to hours worked because the employee receives “wage substitutes” for them, are not subject to the 32-hour industry custom.
We observe also that the normal workweek in the industry, as provided by Art. 6, § 1, of the collective-bargaining agreement, is 40 hours, not 32. The SUB plan makes no provision for accrual of additional credits for hours worked over 32 per week, or for overtime work. This omission is not suggestive of a desire to compensate work actually performed.
Further, a major reason that it is rare for an employee who works at all to work fewer than 32 hours in a week is the “short week benefit” provided under the SUB plan. Qualified employees who work some hours, but fewer than 32, receive benefits under the short-week provisions of the plan; those who do not work at all receive weekly benefits. The union’s success in effectively achieving a guaranteed 32-hour week through the mechanism of the short-week benefit does not logically alter the nature of the weekly benefit negotiated as part of the same plan.
Even if eligibility for SUB payments were closely related to hours worked, that fact would not, by itself, render them compensation rather than seniority rights. We emphasized in Alabama Power that it is the nature of the benefit, not the formula by which it is calculated, that is the crucial factor, for “[e]ven the most traditional kinds of seniority privileges could be as easily tied to a work requirement as to the more usual criterion of time as an employee.” 431 U. S., at 592. As we have explained, the specific provisions of the steel industry plan support, rather than contradict, our conclusion that SUB payments are in the nature of a reward for length of service.
The District Court concluded that SUB payments could not be perquisites of seniority for the further reason that the benefits are not proportionate to the length of service. Under the plan, an employee must have a minimum of two years’ seniority to be eligible for SUB payments, no employee may accumulate more than 52 units of SUB credits, and the amount of the benefit does not increase with the length of service as would a pension benefit. Thus an employee who has worked continuously for two years will have met the threshold requirement and will also have accumulated 52 units of credit; he is eligible for benefits for the same length of time, and computed according to the same formula, as an employee with 20 years’ seniority. According to the District Court, the facts that no benefits are available to employees whose seniority is less than two years and that after 52 credits have been accumulated additional seniority does not lead to increased benefits were evidence that the benefit is not a reward for longevity of service.
A benefit need not be meticulously proportioned to longevity of service to constitute a perquisite of seniority, however, as long as it performs a function akin to traditional forms of seniority. In fact, the very factors the District Court cited to show that SUB’s are not forms of seniority benefits are equally relevant to demonstrate that they are not compensation for services rendered. An employee receives no benefits if he has worked for fewer than two years when he is laid off or if he voluntarily terminates his employment. Such a threshold requirement is more characteristic of seniority provisions than of compensation; in fact, other seniority benefits of the collective-bargaining agreement between Republic and the Steelworkers are also available only to employees with two years’ seniority. Similarly, an employee cannot accumulate more than 52 credits at a time; any work performed after that ceiling is reached goes “uncompensated.” Moreover, the amount of the benefit payment is determined by four factors, none of which appears designed to compensate for hours actually worked: the wage rate at the time of layoff (not at the time the credits were earned); the number of dependents of the employee; the amount of state unemployment compensation received; and the financial position of the benefit fund.
IV
We conclude that the purpose and function of the steel industry SUB plan is to provide economic security during periods of layoff to employees who have been in the service of the employer for a significant period. Thus the benefits are in the nature of a reward for length of service, and do not represent deferred short-term compensation for services actually rendered. Accordingly, SUB payments are perquisites of seniority to which returning veterans are entitled under the Act. 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.
Republic erroneously credited Coffy with approximately nine SUB credits for his 1968 employment. The plan provides that accumulated SUB credits are canceled if an employee quits work voluntarily, as petitioner did after his layoff in 1968. The overpayment was recovered through deductions from petitioner’s paycheck after he returned to work.
The complaint alleged a violation of § 9 of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U. S. C. App. § 459 (1970 ed.). The provisions of that statute relating to veterans’ re-employment rights were re-enacted without substantive change in Title IV of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, 38 U. S. C. § 2021 et seq.
The Third and Seventh Circuits have held that SUB payments are perquisites of seniority to which a returning veteran is entitled under the Act. Hoffman v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 477 F. 2d 860 (CA3 1973); Akers v. General Motors Corp., 501 F. 2d 1042 (CA7 1974). Approximately 1,947,400 workers are covered by collective-bargaining agreements that provide supplemental unemployment benefits. See U. S. Dept, of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bull. No. 2065, Characteristics of Major Collective Bargaining Agreements 101 (1980).
Title 38 U. S. C. § 2021 provides in relevant part:
“(a) In the case of any person who is inducted into the Armed Forces of the United States . . . and who leaves a position (other than a temporary position) in the employ of any employer in order to perform such training and service, and (1) receives a certificate described in section 9 (a) of the Military Selective Service Act (relating to the satisfactory completion of military service), and (2) makes application for reemployment within ninety days after such person is relieved from such training and service ... —
“(B) if such position was in the employ of a . . . private employer, such person shall—
“(i) if still qualified to perform the duties of such position, be restored by such employer ... to such position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay[,]
“unless the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so. . . .
“(b)(1) Any person who is restored to or employed in a position in accordance with the provisions of . . . this section shall be considered as having been on furlough or leave of absence during such person’s period of training and service in the Armed Forces, shall be so restored or reemployed without loss of seniority, shall be entitled to participate in insurance or other benefits offered by the employer pursuant to established rules and practices relating to employees on furlough or leave of absence in effect with the employer at the time such person was inducted into such forces, and shall not be discharged from such position without cause within one year after such restoration or reemployment.
“ (2) It is hereby declared to be the sense of the Congress that any person who is restored to or employed in a position in accordance with . . . this section should be so restored or reemployed in such manner as to give such person such status in the person’s employment as the person would have enjoyed if such person had continued in such employment continuously from the time of such person’s entering the Armed Forces until the time of such person’s restoration to such employment, or reemployment.”
The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, ch. 720, § 8 (b), 54 Stat. 890, later re-enacted as the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U. S. C. App. § 459 (1970 ed.), and subsequently re-enacted as 38 U. S. C. § 2021 et seq. See n. 2, supra.
An employee having two years of continuous service is eligible for a “short week benefit” for any week in which some, but fewer than 32, hours are worked.
Certain categories of employees accrue and exhaust credits at a slightly different rate, see §§ 2.1 and 4.10 of the plan, App. 20, 27, but that distinction is not significant for purposes of this analysis.
Coffy received credit for his time in the military in computing his period of continuous service to determine his eligibility to receive benefits. We find no inconsistency in the company’s action in counting his military service time toward eligibility to receive benefits, but not toward the number of credits he had accumulated. The plain intent of § 7.2 is that during their period of military service, employees shall neither receive benefits nor accrue credits, but that military service shall not be considered a break in continuous service.
The District Court’s view that the benefits were intended to be correlated to work actually performed is supported by the testimony of James Carney, an attorney for United States Steel Corp. He stated that the reason for the 1962 change was that there was no need to keep track of the actual hours worked since it was rare for anyone to work fewer than 32 hours a week. This testimony was contradicted, to some extent, by that of Joseph Senturia, a consultant to the Steelworkers. He testified that the change was adopted to liberalize the accrual of credit units and as part of a general simplification of SUB plans in use in the steel industry. In fact, by 1962 SUB plans in all industries provided for accumulation of credit in any week in which any work was performed or any pay received. See J. Becker, Guaranteed Income for the Unemployed: The Story of SUB 125 (1968).
Employees having two years of continuous service are eligible for a “short week benefit" for any week in which they work some, but fewer than 32, hours. Roughly speaking, the employee is paid at his regular hourly rate for the difference between 32 hours and the number of hours worked. The amount of the benefit is computed by taking the amount by which 32 hours exceeds the sum of the hours worked, paid, not worked for reasons other than lack of work, lost because of labor problems involving the company or transportation or utility companies, or not worked because the employee quit or was suspended or discharged, and multiplying that number by the •'employee's regular hourly wage rate. One-half credit unit is canceled for every week in which the employee receives short-week benefits. Since the employee also receives one-half credit because he worked some hours in the week, the net effect is that his accumulated credits remain the same.
The other reasons for the 32-hour custom which were cited in the testimony included the nature of steel manufacturing operations, which must be conducted on a 24-hour basis; Art. 6, § 6, of the collective-bargaining agreement, which provides that any employee who reports for work must be given at least 4 hours’ work; and Art. 10, § 7, of the agreement, which requires management to consult with the union on the distribution of work if a decrease in the amount of work available results in an average workweek of 32 hours or fewer.
The 2-year continuous service requirement and the 52-credit maximum accumulation are not coextensive. For example, an employee who is laid off before he has been with the company for two years continues to compute his period of continuous service from his original hire date, but does not accumulate credit units during the time he is laid off. Similarly, § 2.4 of the plan permits the employer to cancel the credit units of an employee who willfully falsifies or withholds information on which his weekly benefit is based; such cancellation would not affect the length of the employee's continuous service.
Of course, since a more senior employee’s wage rate is likely to reflect ’ his longer service with the company, a senior employee often will receive a higher SUB payment than will a junior employee.
Modifications to the steel industry SUB program adopted in 1977 have increased the differentiation between less senior employees and those with greater seniority. Benefit payments for employees with 20 or more years of service will no longer be reduced because of the financial position of the fund, and the maximum number of credits that may be accumulated has been doubled, to 104. See A. Freedman, Security Bargains Reconsidered: SUB, Severance Pay, Guaranteed Work 22 (The Conference Board 1978).
Respondent argues that in fact the SUB plan provides benefits in an inverse relationship to seniority. Respondent observes that, because seniority protects against layoff, the most senior employees are the least likely to receive SUB’s, and by the time very senior employees are laid off their benefit payments may be reduced in amount pursuant to § 1.5 of the plan because the fund has been depleted by prior payments to less senior employees. This argument ignores that particular components of a seniority program need not invariably provide greater benefits to more senior workers. “Bumping” provisions, for example, may seldom be used by very senior employees, and yet they are unquestionably rights of seniority. In any event, the record contains no evidence of the funding history of the •steel industry SUB program that would permit us to draw any conclusion as to the probability of benefit payments being reduced pursuant to § 1.5.
For example, an employee with two years’ seniority who is laid off may exercise “bumping” rights over less senior employees in the seniority pool, or may transfer to another plant with priority over other applicants, including recently hired employees of the other plant.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These cases are here on appeal from a judgment of a three-judge District Court holding that the defendants had violated § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 50 Stat. 693, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2, and granting an injunction and other relief. 66 F. Supp. 323; 70 F. Supp. 53.
The suit was instituted by the United States under § 4 of the Sherman Act to prevent and restrain violations of it. The defendants fall into three groups: (1) Paramount Pictures, Inc., Loew’s, Incorporated, Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation, Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, which produce motion pictures, and their respective subsidiaries or affiliates which distribute and exhibit films. These are known as the five major defendants or exhibitor-defendants. (2) Columbia Pictures Corporation and Universal Corporation, which produce motion pictures, and their subsidiaries which distribute films. (3) United Artists Corporation, which is engaged only in the distribution of motion pictures. The five majors, through their subsidiaries or affiliates, own or control theatres; the other defendants do not.
The complaint charged that the producer defendants had attempted to monopolize and had monopolized the production of motion pictures. The District Court found to the contrary and that finding is not challenged here. The complaint charged that all the defendants, as distributors, had conspired to restrain and monopolize and had restrained and monopolized interstate trade in the distribution and exhibition of films by specific practices which we will shortly relate. It also charged that the five major defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize, and had restrained and monopolized, interstate trade in the exhibition of motion pictures in most of the larger cities of the country. It charged that the vertical combination of producing, distributing, and exhibiting motion pictures by each of the five major defendants violated § 1 and § 2 of the Act. It charged that each distributor-defendant had entered into various contracts with exhibitors which unreasonably restrained trade. Issue was joined; and a trial was had.
First. Restraint of Trade — (1) Price Fixing.
No film is sold to an exhibitor in the distribution of motion pictures. The right to exhibit under copyright is licensed. The District Court found that the defendants in the licenses they issued fixed minimum admission prices which the exhibitors agreed to charge, whether the rental of the film was a flat amount or a percentage of the receipts. It found that substantially uniform minimum prices had been established in the licenses of all defendants. Minimum prices were established in master agreements or franchises which were made between various defendants as distributors and various defendants as exhibitors and in joint operating agreements made by the five majors with each other and with independent theatre owners covering the operation of certain theatres. By these later contracts minimum admission prices were often fixed for dozens of theatres owned by a particular defendant in a given area of the United States. Minimum prices were fixed in licenses of each of the five major defendants. The other three defendants made the same requirement in licenses granted to the exhibitor-defendants. We do not stop to elaborate on these findings. They are adequately detailed by the District Court in its opinion. See 66 F. Supp. 33^339.
The District Court found that two price-fixing conspiracies existed — a horizontal one between all the defendants ; a vertical one between each distributor-defendant and its licensees. The latter was based on express agreements and was plainly established. The former was inferred from the pattern of price-fixing disclosed in the record. We think there was adequate foundation for it too. It is not necessary to find an express agreement in order to find a conspiracy. It is enough that a concert of action is contemplated and that the defendants conformed to the arrangement. Interstate Circuit v. United States, 306 U. S. 208, 226-227; United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U. S. 265, 275. That was shown here.
On this phase of the case the main attack is on the decree which enjoins the defendants and their affiliates from granting any license, except to their own theatres, in which minimum prices for admission to a theatre are fixed in any manner or by any means. The argument runs as follows: United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U. S. 476, held that an owner of a patent could, without violating the Sherman Act, grant a license to manufacture and vend, and could fix the price at which the licensee could sell the patented article. It is pointed out that defendants do not sell the films to exhibitors, but only license them and that the Copyright Act (35 Stat. 1075, 1088, 17 U. S. C. § 1), like the patent statutes, grants the owner exclusive rights. And it is argued that if the patentee can fix the price at which his licensee may sell the patented article, the owner of the copyright should be allowed the same privilege. It is maintained that such a privilege is essential to protect the value of the copyrighted films.
We start, of course, from the premise that so far as the Sherman Act is concerned, a price-fixing combination is illegal per se. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150; United States v. Masonite Corporation, supra. We recently held in United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 400, that even patentees could not regiment an entire industry by licenses containing price-fixing agreements. What was said there is adequate to bar defendants, through their horizontal conspiracy, from fixing prices for the exhibition of films in the movie industry. Certainly the rights of the copyright owner are no greater than those of the patentee.
Nor can the result be different when we come to the vertical conspiracy between each distributor-defendant and his licensees. The District Court stated in its findings:
“In agreeing to maintain a stipulated minimum admission price, each exhibitor thereby consents to the minimum price level at which it will compete against other licensees of the same distributor whether they exhibit on the same run or not. The total effect is that through the separate contracts between the distributor and its licensees a price structure is erected which regulates the licensees’ ability to compete against one another in admission prices.”
That consequence seems to us to be incontestable. We stated in United States v. Gypsum Co., supra, p. 401, that “The rewards which flow to the patentee and his licensees from the suppression of competition through the regulation of an industry are not reasonably and normally adapted to secure pecuniary reward for the patentee’s monopoly.” The same is true of the rewards of the copyright owners and their licensees in the present case. For here too the licenses are but a part of the general plan to suppress competition. The case where a distributor fixes admission prices to be charged by a single independent exhibitor, no other licensees or exhibitors being in contemplation, seems to be wholly academic, as the District Court pointed out. It is, therefore, plain that United States v. General Electric Co., supra, as applied in the patent cases, affords no haven to the defendants in this case. For a copyright may no more be used than a patent to deter competition between rivals in the exploitation of their licenses. See Interstate Circuit v. United States, supra, p. 230.
(2) Clearances and Runs.
Clearances are designed to protect a particular run of a film against a subsequent run. The District Court found that all of the distributor-defendants used clearance provisions and that they were stated in several different ways or in combinations: in terms of a given period between designated runs; in terms of admission prices charged by competing theatres; in terms of a given period of clearance over specifically named theatres; in terms of so many days’ clearance over specified areas or towns; or in terms of clearances as fixed by other distributors.
The Department of Justice maintained below that clearances are unlawful per se under the Sherman Act. But that is a question we need not consider, for the District Court ruled otherwise and that conclusion is not challenged here. In its view their justification was found in the assurance they give the exhibitor that the distributor will not license a competitor to show the film either at the same time or so soon thereafter that the exhibitor’s expected income from the run will be greatly diminished. A clearance when used to protect that interest of the exhibitor was reasonable, in the view of the court, when not unduly extended as to area or duration. Thus the court concluded that although clearances might indirectly affect admission prices, they do not fix them and that they may be reasonable restraints of trade under the Sherman Act.
The District Court held that in determining whether a clearance is unreasonable, the following factors are relevant:
(1) The admission prices of the theatres involved, as set by the exhibitors;
(2) The character and location of the theatres involved, including size, type of entertainment, appointments, transit facilities, etc.;
(3) The policy of operation of the theatres involved, such as the showing of double features, gift nights, give-aways, premiums, cut-rate tickets, lotteries, etc.;
(4) The rental terms and license fees paid by the theatres involved and the revenues derived by the distributor-defendant from such theatres;
(5) The extent to which the theatres involved compete with each other for patronage;
(6) The fact that a theatre involved is affiliated with a defendant-distributor or with an independent circuit of theatres should be disregarded; and
(7) There should be no clearance between theatres not in substantial competition.
It reviewed the evidence in light of these standards and concluded that many of the clearances granted by the defendants were unreasonable. We do not stop to retrace those steps. The evidence is ample to show, as the District Court plainly demonstrated, see 66 F. Supp. pp. 343-346, that many clearances had no relation to the competitive factors which alone could justify them. The clearances which were in vogue had, indeed, acquired a fixed and uniform character and were made applicable to situations without regard to the special circumstances which are necessary to sustain them as reasonable restraints of trade. The evidence is ample to support the finding of the District Court that the defendants either participated in evolving this uniform system of clearances or acquiesced in it and so furthered its existence. That evidence, like the evidence on the price-fixing phase of the case, is therefore adequate to support the finding of a conspiracy to restrain trade by imposing unreasonable clearances.
The District Court enjoined defendants and their affiliates from agreeing with each other or with any exhibitors or distributors to maintain a system of clearances, or from granting any clearance between theatres not in substantial competition, or from granting or enforcing any clearance against theatres in substantial competition with the the-atre receiving the license for exhibition in excess of what is reasonably necessary to protect the licensee in the run granted. In view of the findings this relief was plainly warranted.
Some of the defendants ask that this provision be construed (or, if necessary, modified) to allow licensors in granting clearances to take into consideration what is reasonably necessary for a fair return to the licensor. We reject that suggestion. If that were allowed, then the exhibitor-defendants would have an easy method of keeping alive at least some of the consequences of the effective conspiracy which they launched. For they could then justify clearances granted by other distributors in favor of their theatres in terms of the competitive requirements of those theatres, and at the same time justify the restrictions they impose upon independents in terms of the necessity of protecting their film rental as licensor. That is too potent a weapon to leave in the hands of those whose proclivity to unlawful conduct has been so marked. It plainly should not be allowed so long as the exhibitor-defendants own theatres. For in its baldest terms it is in the hands of the defendants no less than a power to restrict the competition of others in the way deemed most desirable by them. In the setting of this case the only measure of reasonableness of a clearance by Sherman Act standards is the special needs of the licensee for the competitive advantages it affords.
Whether the same restrictions would be applicable to a producer who had not been a party to such a conspiracy is a question we do not reach.
Objection is made to a further provision of this part of the decree stating that “Whenever any clearance provision is attacked as not legal under the provisions of this decree, the burden shall be upon the distributor to sustain the legality thereof.” We think that provision was justified. Clearances have been used along with price fixing to suppress competition with the theatres of the exhibitor-defendants and with other favored exhibitors. The District Court could therefore have eliminated clearances completely for a substantial period of time, even though, as it thought, they were not illegal per se. For equity has the power to uproot all parts of an illegal scheme — the valid as well as the invalid — in order to rid the trade or commerce of all taint of the conspiracy. United States v. Bausch & Lomb Co., 321 U. S. 707, 724. The court certainly then could take the lesser step of making them prima jade invalid. But we do not rest on that alone. As we have said, the only justification for clearances in the setting of this case is in terms of the special needs of the licensee for the competitive advantages they afford. To place on the distributor the burden of showing their reasonableness is to place it on the one party in the best position to evaluate their competitive effects. Those who have shown such a marked proclivity for unlawful conduct are in no position to complain that they carry the burden of showing that their future clearances come within the law. Cf. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 188.
(3) Pooling Agreements; Joint Ownership.
The District Court found the exhibitor-defendants had agreements with each other and their affiliates by which theatres of two or more of them, normally competitive, were operated as a unit, or managed by a joint committee or by one of the exhibitors, the profits being shared according to prearranged percentages. Some of these agreements provided that the parties might not acquire other competitive theatres without first offering them for inclusion in the pool. The court concluded that the result of these agreements was to eliminate competition pro tanto both in exhibition and in distribution of features, since the parties would naturally direct the films to the theatres in whose earnings they were interested.
The District Court also found that the exhibitor-defendants had like agreements with certain independent exhibitors. Those alliances had, in its view, the effect of nullifying competition between the allied theatres and of making more effective the competition of the group against theatres not members of the pool. The court found that in some cases the operating agreements were achieved through leases of theatres, the rentals being measured by a percentage of profits earned by the theatres in the pool. The District Court required the dissolution of existing pooling agreements and enjoined any future arrangement of that character.
These provisions of the decree will stand. The practices were bald efforts to substitute monopoly for competition and to strengthen the hold of the exhibitor-defendants on the industry by alignment of competitors on their side. Clearer restraints of trade are difficult to imagine.
There was another type of business arrangement that the District Court found to have the same effect as the pooling agreements just mentioned. Many theatres are owned jointly by two or more exhibitor-defendants or by an exhibitor-defendant and an independent. The result is, according to the District Court, that the theatres are operated “collectively, rather than competitively.” And where the joint owners are an exhibitor-defendant and an independent the effect is, according to the District Court, the elimination by the exhibitor-defendant of “putative competition between itself and the other joint owner, who otherwise would be in a position to operate theatres independently.” The District Court found these joint ownerships of theatres to be unreasonable restraints of trade within the meaning of the Sherman Act.
The District Court ordered the exhibitor-defendants to disaffiliate by terminating their joint ownership of the-atres; and it enjoined future acquisitions of such interests. One is authorized to buy out the other if it shows to the satisfaction of the District Court and that court first finds that such acquisition “will not unduly restrain competition in the exhibition of feature motion pictures.” This dissolution and prohibition of joint ownership as between exhibitor-defendants was plainly warranted. To the extent that they have joint interests in the outlets for their films each in practical effect grants the other a priority for the exhibition of its films. For in this situation, as in the case where theatres are jointly managed, the natural gravitation of films is to the theatres in whose earnings the distributors have an interest. Joint ownership between exhibitor-defendants then becomes a device for strengthening their competitive position as exhibitors by forming an alliance as distributors. An express agreement to grant each other the preference would be a most effective weapon to stifle competition. A working arrangement or business device that has that necessary consequence gathers no immunity because of its subtlety. Each is a restraint of trade condemned by the Sherman Act.
The District Court also ordered disaffiliation in those instances where theatres were jointly owned by an exhibitor-defendant and an independent, and where the interest of the exhibitor-defendant was “greater than five per cent unless such interest shall be ninety-five per cent or more,” an independent being defined for this part of the decree as “any former, present or putative motion picture theatre operator which is not owned or controlled by the defendant holding the interest in question.” The exhibitor-defendants are authorized to acquire existing interests of the independents in these theatres if they establish, and if the District Court first finds, that the acquisition “will not unduly restrain competition in the exhibition of feature motion pictures.” All other acquisitions of such joint interests were enjoined.
This phase of the decree is strenuously attacked. We are asked to eliminate it for lack of findings to support it. The argument is that the findings show no more than the existence of joint ownership of theatres by exhibitor-defendants and independents. The statement by the District Court that the joint ownership eliminates “putative competition” is said to be a mere conclusion without evidentiary support. For it is said that the facts of the record show that many of the instances of joint ownership with an independent interest are cases wholly devoid of any history of or relationship to restraints of trade or monopolistic practices. Some are said to be rather fortuitous results of bankruptcies; others are said to be the results of investments by outside interests who have no desire or capacity to operate theatres, and so on.
It is conceded that the District Court made no inquiry into the circumstances under which a particular interest had been acquired. It treated all relationships alike, insofar as the disaffiliation provision of the decree is concerned. In this we think it erred.
We have gone into the record far enough to be confident that at least some of these acquisitions by the exhibitor-defendants were the products of the unlawful practices which the defendants have inflicted on the industry. To the extent that these acquisitions were the fruits of monopolistic practices or restraints of trade, they should be divested. And no permission to buy out the other owner should be given a defendant. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., supra, p. 189; Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. v. United States, ante, p. 110. Moreover, even if lawfully acquired, they may have been utilized as part of the conspiracy to eliminate or suppress competition in furtherance of the ends of the conspiracy. In that event divestiture would likewise be justified. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., supra, pp. 189-190. In that situation permission to acquire the interest of the independent would have the unlawful effect of permitting the defendants to complete their plan to eliminate him.
Furthermore, if the joint ownership is an alliance with one who is or would be an operator but for the joint ownership, divorce should be decreed even though the affiliation was innocently acquired. For that joint ownership would afford opportunity to perpetuate the effects of the restraints of trade which the exhibitor-defendants have inflicted on the industry.
It seems, however, that some of the cases of joint ownership do not fall into any of the categories we have listed. Some apparently involve no more than innocent investments by those who are not actual or potential operators. If in such cases the acquisition was not improperly used in furtherance of the conspiracy, its retention by defendants would be justified absent a finding that no monopoly resulted. And in those instances permission might be given the defendants to acquire the interests of the independents on a showing by them and a finding by the court that neither monopoly nor unreasonable restraint of trade in the exhibition of films would result. In short, we see no reason to place a ban on this type of ownership, at least so long as theatre ownership by the five majors is not prohibited. The results of inquiry along the lines we have indicated must await further findings of the District Court on remand of the cause.
(4) Formula Deals, Master Agreements, and Franchises.
A formula deal is a licensing agreement with a circuit of theatres in which the license fee of a given feature is measured, for the theatres covered by the agreement, by a specified percentage of the feature’s national gross. The District Court found that Paramount and RKO had made formula deals with independent and affiliated circuits. The circuit was allowed to allocate playing time and film rentals among the various theatres as it saw fit. The inclusion of theatres of a circuit into a single agreement gives no opportunity for other theatre owners to bid for the feature in their respective areas and, in the view of the District Court, is therefore an unreasonable restraint of trade. The District Court found some master agreements open to the same objection. Those are the master agreements that cover exhibition in two or more theatres in a particular circuit and allow the exhibitor to allocate the film rental paid among the theatres as it sees fit and to exhibit the features upon such playing time as it deems best, and leaves other terms to the discretion of the circuit. The District Court enjoined the making or further performance of any formula deal of the type described above. It also enjoined the making or further performance of any master agreement covering the exhibition of features in a number of theatres.
The findings of the District Court in these respects are supported by facts, its conclusion that the formula deals and master agreements constitute restraint of trade is valid, and the relief is proper. The formula deals and master agreements are unlawful restraints of trade in two respects. In the first place, they eliminate the possibility of bidding for films theatre by theatre. In that way they eliminate the opportunity for the small competitor to obtain the choice first runs, and put a premium on the size of the circuit. They are, therefore, devices for stifling competition and diverting the cream of the business to the large operators. In the second place, the pooling of the purchasing power of an entire circuit in bidding for films is a misuse of monopoly power insofar as it combines the theatres in closed towns with competitive situations. The reasons have been stated in United States v. Griffith, ante, p. 100, and Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. v. United States, ante, p. 110, and need not be repeated here. It is hardly necessary to add that distributors who join in such arrangements by exhibitors are active participants in effectuating a restraint of trade and a monopolistic practice. See United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., supra, p. 183.
The District Court also enjoined the making or further performance of any franchise. A franchise is a contract with an exhibitor which extends over a period of more than a motion picture season and covers the exhibition of features released by the distributor during the period of the agreement. The District Court held that a franchise constituted a restraint of trade because a period of more than one season was too long and the inclusion of all features was disadvantageous to competitors. At least that is the way we read its findings.
Universal and United Artists object to the outlawry of franchise agreements. Universal points out that the charge of illegality of franchises in these cases was restricted to franchises with theatres owned by the major defendants and to franchises with circuits or theatres in a circuit, a circuit being defined in the complaint as a group of more than five theatres controlled by the same person or a group of more than five theatres which combine through a common agent in licensing films. It seems, therefore, that the legality of franchises to other exhibitors (except as to block-booking, a practice to which we will later advert) was not in issue in the litigation. Moreover, the findings on franchises are clouded by the statement of the District Court in the opinion that franchises “necessarily contravene the plan of licensing each picture, theatre by theatre, to the highest bidder.” As will be seen hereafter, we eliminate from the decree the provision for competitive bidding. But for its inclusion of competitive bidding the District Court might well have treated the problem of franchises differently.
We can see how if franchises were allowed to be used between the exhibitor-defendants each might be able to strengthen its strategic position in the exhibition field and continue the ill effects of the conspiracy which the decree is designed to dissipate. Franchise agreements may have been employed as devices to discriminate against some independents in favor of others. We know from the record that franchise agreements often contained discriminatory clauses operating in favor not only of theatres owned by the defendants but also of the large circuits. But we cannot say on this record that franchises are illegal per se when extended to any theatre or circuit no matter how small. The findings do not deal with the issue doubtlessly due to the fact that any system of franchises would necessarily conflict with the system of competitive bidding adopted by the District Court. Hence we set aside the findings on franchises so that the court may examine the problem in the light of the elimination from the decree of competitive bidding.
We do not take that course in the case of formula deals and master agreements, for the findings in these instances seem to stand on their own bottom and apparently have no necessary dependency on the provision for competitive bidding.
(5) Block-Booking.
Block-booking is the practice of licensing, or offering for license, one feature or group of features on condition that the exhibitor will also license another feature or group of features released by the distributors during a given period. The films are licensed in blocks before they are actually produced. All the defendants, except United Artists, have engaged in the practice. Block-booking prevents competitors from bidding for single features on their individual merits. The District Court held it illegal for that reason and for the reason that it “adds to the monopoly of a single copyrighted picture that of another copyrighted picture which must be taken and exhibited in order to secure the first.” That enlargement of the monopoly of the copyright was condemned below in reliance on the principle which forbids the owner of a patent to condition its use on the purchase or use of patented or unpatented materials. See Ethyl Gasoline Corporation v. United States, 309 U. S. 436, 459; Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488, 491; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U. S. 661, 665. The court enjoined defendants from performing or entering into any license in which the right to exhibit one feature is conditioned upon the licensee’s taking one or more other features.
We approve that restriction. The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, “The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.” It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius. But the reward does not serve its public purpose if it is not related to the quality of the copyright. Where a high quality film greatly desired is licensed only if an inferior one is taken, the latter borrows quality from the former and strengthens its monopoly by drawing on the other. The practice tends to equalize rather than differentiate the reward for the individual copyrights. Even where all the films included in the package are of equal quality, the requirement that all be taken if one is desired increases the market for some. Each stands not on its own footing but in whole or in part on the appeal which another film may have.. As the District Court said, the result is to add to the monopoly of the copyright in violation of the principle of the patent cases involving tying clauses.
It is argued that Transparent-Wrap Machine Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., 329 U. S. 637, points to a contrary result. That case held that the inclusion in a patent license of a condition requiring the licensee to assign improvement patents was not per se illegal. But that decision, confined to improvement patents, was greatly influenced by the federal statute governing assignments of patents. It therefore has no controlling significance here.
Columbia Pictures makes an earnest argument that enforcement of the restriction as to block-booking will be very disadvantageous to it and will greatly impair its ability to operate profitably. But the policy of the antitrust laws is not qualified or conditioned by the convenience of those whose conduct is regulated. Nor can a vested interest in a practice which contravenes the policy of the anti-trust laws receive judicial sanction.
We do not suggest that films may not be sold in blocks or groups, when there is no requirement, express or implied, for the purchase of more than one film. All we hold to be illegal is a refusal to license one or more copyrights unless another copyright is accepted.
(6) Discrimination.
The District Court found that defendants had discriminated against small independent exhibitors and in favor of large affiliated and unaflfiliated circuits through various kinds of contract provisions. These included suspension of the terms of a contract if a circuit theatre remained closed for more than eight weeks with reinstatement without liability on reopening; allowing large privileges in the selection and elimination of films; allowing deductions in film rentals if double bills are played; granting mo veo vers and extended runs; granting road show privileges; allowing overage and underage; granting unlimited playing time; excluding foreign pictures and those of independent producers; and granting rights to question the classification of features for rental purposes. The District Court found that the competitive advantages of these provisions were so great that their inclusion in contracts with the larger circuits and their exclusion from contracts with the small independents constituted an unreasonable discrimination against the latter. Each discriminatory contract constituted a conspiracy between licensor and licensee. Hence the District Court deemed it unnecessary to decide whether the defendants had conspired among themselves to make these discriminations. No provision of the decree specifically enjoins these discriminatory practices because they were thought to be impossible under the system of competitive bidding adopted by the District Court.
These findings are amply supported by the evidence. We concur in the conclusion that these discriminatory practices are included among the restraints of trade which the Sherman Act condemns. See Interstate Circuit v. United States, supra, p. 231; United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., supra, pp. 182-183. It will be for the District Court on remand of these cases to provide effective relief against their continuance, as our elimination of the provision for competitive bidding leaves this phase of the cases unguarded.
There is some suggestion on this as well as on other phases of the cases that large exhibitors with whom defendants dealt fathered the illegal practices and forced them onto the defendants. But as the District Court observed, that circumstance if true does not help the defendants. For acquiescence in an illegal scheme is as much a violation of the Sherman Act as the creation and promotion of one.
Second — Competitive Bidding.
The District Court concluded that the only way competition could be introduced into the existing system of fixed prices, clearances and runs was to require that films be licensed on a competitive bidding basis. Films are to be offered to all exhibitors in each competitive area. The license for the desired run is to be granted to the highest responsible bidder, unless the distributor rejects all offers. The licenses are to be offered and taken the-atre by theatre and picture by picture. Licenses to show films in theatres in which the licensor owns directly or indirectly an interest of ninety-five per cent or more are excluded from the requirement for competitive bidding.
Paramount is the only one of the five majors who opposes the competitive bidding system. Columbia Pictures, Universal, and United Artists oppose it. The inter-venors representing certain independents oppose it. And the Department of Justice, which apparently proposed the system originally, speaks strongly against it here.
At first blush there is much to commend the system of competitive bidding. The trade victims of this conspiracy have in large measure been the small independent operators. They are the ones that have felt most keenly the discriminatory practices and predatory activities in which defendants have freely indulged. They have been the victims of the massed purchasing power of the larger units in the industry. It is largely out of the ruins of the small operators that the large empires of exhibitors have been built. Thus it would appear to be a great boon to them to substitute open bidding for the private deals and favors on which the large operators have thrived. But after reflection we have concluded that competitive bidding involves the judiciary so deeply in the daily operation of this nation-wide business and promises such dubious benefits that it should not be undertaken.
Each film is to be licensed on a particular run to “the highest responsible bidder, having a theatre of a size, location and equipment adequate to yield a reasonable return to the licensor.” The bid “shall state what run such exhibitor desires and what he is willing to pay for such feature, which statement may specify a flat rental, or a percentage of gross receipts, or both, or any other form of rental, and shall also specify what clearance such exhibitor is willing to accept, the time and days when such exhibitor desires to exhibit it, and any other offers which such exhibitor may care to make.” We do not doubt that if a competitive bidding system is adopted all these provisions are necessary. For the licensing of films at auction is quite obviously a more complicated matter than the like sales for cash of tobacco, wheat, or other produce. Columbia puts these pertinent queries: “No two exhibitors are likely to make the same bid as to dates, clearance, method of fixing rental, etc. May bids containing such diverse factors be.readily compared? May a flat rental bid be compared with a percentage bid? May the value of any percentage bid be determined unless the admission price is fixed by the license?”
The question as to who is the highest bidder involves the use of standards incapable of precise definition because the bids being compared contain different ingredients. Determining who is the most responsible bidder likewise cannot be reduced to a formula. The distributor’s judgment of the character and integrity of a particular exhibitor might result in acceptance of a lower bid than others offered. Yet to prove that favoritism was shown would be well-nigh impossible, unless perhaps all the exhibitors in the country were given classifications of responsibility. If, indeed, the choice between bidders is not to be entrusted to the uncontrolled discretion of the distributors, some effort to standardize the factors involved in determining “a reasonable return to the licensor” would seem necessary.
We mention these matters merely to indicate the character of the job of supervising such a competitive bidding system. It would involve the judiciary in the administration of intricate and detailed rules governing priority, period of clearance, length of run, competitive areas, reasonable return, and the like. The system would be apt to require as close a supervision as a continuous receivership, unless the defendants were to be entrusted with vast discretion. The judiciary is unsuited to affairs of business management; and control through the power of contempt is crude and clumsy and lacking in the flexibility necessary to make continuous and detailed supervision effective. Yet delegation of the management of the system to the discretion of those who had the genius to conceive the present conspiracy and to execute it with the subtlety which this record reveals, could be done only with the greatest reluctance. At least such choices should not be
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 307 (b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act) provides for direct review in a federal court of appeals of certain locally and regionally applicable actions taken by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under specifically enumerated provisions of the Act, and of “any other final action of the Administrator under '[the] Act . . . which is locally or regionally applicable.” (Emphasis added.) The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was correct in concluding that it was without jurisdiction under §307 (b)(1) to entertain a petition for review in which PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG), and Conoco, Inc. (Conoco), the respondents here, challenged a decision of the Administrator concerning the applicability of EPA’s “new source” performance standards to a power generating facility operated by PPG. More specifically, we must decide whether the Administrator’s decision falls within the ambit of “any other final action” reviewable in a court of appeals under § 307 (b)(1).
I
The dispute underlying this jurisdictional question involves a decision of the Administrator under § 111 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7411 (1976 ed., Supp. II). That provision requires the Administrator to publish, and from time to time to revise, a list of categories of any stationary source that he determines “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” § 111 (b)(1)(A), and to promulgate regulations establishing standards of performance for “new sources” within the list of those categories, § 111 (b)(1) (B). The Act defines a “new source” as “any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after the publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such source.” § 111 (a)(2).
In 1971, the Administrator included “fossil fuel-fired steam generators” in his list of stationary sources. 36 Fed. Reg. 5931. Later that year, pursuant to his mandate to promulgate “new source” performance standards, the Administrator established certain emission limits for any “fossil fuel-fired steam generating unit” of more than 250 million Btu’s per hour heat input, the construction or modification of which was commenced after August 17, 1971, the date on which the standards were proposed. 40 CFR §§ 60.1-60.15, 60.40-60.46 (1979). These “new source” regulations define the term, “fossil fuel-fired steam generating unit,” § 60.41 (a), and also create a procedure under which the Administrator, upon request, will determine whether any action taken or planned by the owner or operator of a facility constitutes or will constitute “construction” or “modification” of the facility for purposes of triggering the applicability of the performance standards. § 60.5.
Sometime in 1970, the respondent PPG, a chemical manufacturing corporation, began the planning and preliminary construction of a new power generating facility at its plant in Lake Charles, La. That facility, designed to take advantage of fuel-efficient “cogeneration” technology, was to consist of two gas turbine generators, two “waste-heat” boilers, and a turbogenerator. The dispute between EPA and PPG concerns the applicability of the “new source” performance standards to the waste-heat boilers of this facility. This controversy first arose in 1975, when the respondent Conoco, PPG’s fuel supplier, informed EPA that Conoco was switching the supply of fuel to the Lake Charles facility from natural gas to fuel oil. An exchange of correspondence ensued, initiated by EPA’s request that PPG submit additional information bearing on whether the waste-heat boilers were covered by the “new source” standards. PPG’s submissions revealed that although assembly of the waste-heat boilers had not begun until 1976, the new power facility itself, of which the boilers were an integral component, had been originally designed and partially ordered in 1970, a year before the proposed date of the “new source” performance standards.
On the basis of PPG’s submissions, the Regional Director for Enforcement of the EPA notified PPG of his conclusion that the boilers were subject to the “new source” standards, since construction of the boilers themselves had not begun until long after January 14, 1971, the date on which the standards had been proposed. In response, PPG took the position that the boilers were part of an integrated unit, the construction of which had begun in 1970, before the proposed date of the standards. The Regional Director, nevertheless, reaffirmed his initial decision.
Pursuant to the procedure outlined in the “new source” regulations, 40 CFR § 60.5 (1979), PPG then submitted a formal request for an EPA determination that (1) the “new source” standards for “fossil fuel-fired steam generators” do not apply to the type of boilers in question, and (2) in any event, since construction of the facility of which the boilers were a part began before the date on which the standards were proposed, the boilers were not “new sources” and thus not- subject to the performance standards. In the event that EPA determined that PPG’s waste-heat boilers were subject to the standards, PPG also requested a clarification as to how those standards would apply.
Responding to PPG’s request, the Regional Administrator notified PPG by letter that he had concluded that the waste-heat boilers were, indeed, subject to the “new source” standards for “fossil fuel-fired steam generators,” and rejected PPG’s argument that construction of the boilers had begun with the construction of other facets of the Lake Charles facility. Thus, the Regional Administrator affirmed the previous EPA determination that the waste-heat boilers were subject to the “new source” performance standards. With regard to the manner in which those standards were to apply to the waste-heat boilers, the Regional Administrator indicated that since PPG’s gas turbine generators were not subject to the “new source” standards, PPG would be held accountable only for those emissions from the waste-heat boilers attributable to the combustion of fossil fuel, not those emissions attributable to waste heat from the gas turbine generators.
PPG then filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking review of EPA’s decision concerning the applicability of the “new source” standards to its waste-heat boilers. Because of its uncertainty regarding the proper forum for judicial review, PPG also filed a complaint for injunctive relief against the Administrator in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. That suit has been stayed pending the disposition of the present case.
PPG’s uncertainty, and the issue in this case, stem from conflicting views as to the proper interpretation of § 307 (b) (1) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7607 (b) (1) (1976 ed., Supp. II). Before 1977, §307 (b)(1) provided for exclusive review in an appropriate court of appeals of certain locally or regionally applicable actions of the Administrator under several specifically enumerated provisions of the Act. Actions of the Administrator under provisions not specifically enumerated in §307 (b)(1) were reviewable only in a district court under its federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1331. Congress expanded the ambit of § 307 (b)(1) in 1977. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. 95-95, 91 Stat. 776, added to the list of locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable exclusively in the appropriate court of appeals both (1) actions of the Administrator under another specifically enumerated provision of the Act, and (2) “any other final action of the Administrator under [the] Act which is locally or regionally applicable.” (Emphasis added.) Later in 1977, in enacting the Clean Air Act Technical and Conforming Amendments, Pub. L. 95-190, 91 Stat. 1404, Congress added several more provisions to those listed in § 307 (b)(1) under which a locally or regionally applicable action of the Administrator is reviewable in the appropriate court of appeals.
It was under §307 (b)(1), as amended, that PPG filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Despite having filed its petition there, PPG, and Conoco as intervenor, argued that that court was without jurisdiction, since the Administrator’s decision was not an action taken under one of the provisions specifically enumerated in § 307 (b) (1), and could not be properly characterized as “any other final action of the Administrator.” The latter phrase, they argued, referred only to other locally or regionally applicable final actions under the provisions of the Act specifically enumerated in § 307 (b)(1). In response, EPA argued that the phrase, “any other final action,” should be read literally to mean any final action of the Administrator.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the Administrator’s decision did not fall within the meaning of “any other final action” under §307 (b)(1). 587 F. 2d 237. It was the court’s view that “[i]f Congress intended ... to cast the entire responsibility for reviewing all EPA action under the Act into the courts of appeals, the numeration of specific sections would appear to be redundant.” Id., at 243. The “most revealing” aspect of the legislative history of § 307 (b)(1), the court thought, was the complete absence of any discussion of such a “massive shift” in jurisdiction. Moreover, the court found it unlikely that Congress could have intended a shift of jurisdiction that would require the courts of appeals to review decisions of the Administrator that simply applied or interpreted his regulations, as in this case. Such a decision, the court noted, is often based on a “skeletal record” that may leave the reviewing court unable to perform meaningful judicial review. Since an appellate court is ill-suited to augment such a record, especially when compared to a trial court in which the tools of discovery are available, the court concluded that “[w]hatever addition to the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals Congress may have contemplated by adding the ‘any other final action’ language to § 307 (b)(1), we assume that section was drafted with the mechanical limitations of the courts of appeals in mind.” 587 F. 2d, at 245. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed PPG’s petition for lack of jurisdiction under § 307 (b)(1). We granted certiorari, 444 U. S. 823, because of the importance of determining the locus of judicial review of the actions of EPA.
II
It is undisputed that the Administrator’s decision concerning the applicability of the “new source” performance standards to PPG’s waste-heat boilers was locally applicable action under a provision of the Act not specifically enumerated in § 307 (b)(1). The question at issue is whether the Administrator’s decision falls within the scope of the phrase, “any other final action of the Administrator,” so as to make that decision reviewable in a federal court of appeals under § 307 (b)(1).
At the outset, we note that the parties are in agreement that the Administrator’s decision was “final action” as that term is understood in the context of the Administrative Procedure Act and other provisions of federal law. It is undisputed that the Administrator’s ruling represented EPA’s final determination concerning the applicability of the “new source” standards to PPG’s power facility. Short of an enforcement action, EPA has rendered its last word on the matter. The controversy thus is not about whether' the Administrator’s decision was “final,” but rather about whether it was “any other final action” within the meaning of § 307 (b)(1), as amended in 1977.
A
The petitioners argue that the phrase, “any other final action,” should be construed in accordance with its literal meaning so as to reach any action of the Administrator under the Act that is “final” and not taken under a specifically enumerated provision in §307 (b)(1). The respondents argue that the statutory language 'should be construed more narrowly. Relying on the familiar doctrine of ejusdem generis, they assert that the phrase, “any other final action,” should be read not to reach all final actions of the Administrator, but rather only those similar to the actions under the specifically enumerated provisions that precede that catchall phrase in the statute. The similarity that the respondents discern among the actions under the specifically enumerated provisions in § 307 (b)(1) is that those actions must be based on what the respondents refer to as “a contemporaneously compiled administrative record,” by which they mean a record “based on administrative proceedings reflecting at least notice and opportunity for hearing.” Since the Administrator’s informal decision in this case was not based on such a record, the respondents argue that his decision was not “other final action” within the meaning of §307 (b)(1) and thus not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
The respondents’ reliance on the rule of ejusdem generis is, we think, misplaced in two respects. Under the rule of ejusdem generis, where general words follow an enumeration of specific items, the general words are read as applying only to other items akin to those specifically enumerated. Applying this rule to § 307 (b)(1), the respondents argue that “any other final action” must refer only to final actions based on an administrative record reflecting at least notice and opportunity for a hearing. The flaw in this argument is that at least one of the specifically enumerated provisions in § 307 (b)(1), namely, § 112 (c) of the Act, 42 TJ. S. C. § 7412 (c) (1976 ed., Supp. II), does not require the Administrator to act only after notice and opportunity for a hearing. In fact, the respondents themselves recognize that an action by the Administrator under § 112 (c) would be based on an administrative record not unlike that involved in this case. Thus, even if the rule of ejusdem generis were applied, it would not significantly narrow the ambit of “any other final action” under §307 (b)(1).
The second problem with the respondents’ reliance on the rule of ejusdem generis is more fundamental. As we have often noted: “‘The rule of ejusdem generis, while firmly established, is only an instrumentality for ascertaining the correct meaning of words when there is uncertainty.’ ” United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87, 91, quoting Gooch v. United States, 297 U. S. 124, 128. With regard to § 307 (b) (1), we discern no uncertainty in the meaning of the phrase, “any other final action.” When Congress amended the provision in 1977, it expanded its ambit to include not simply “other final action,” but rather “any other final action.” This expansive language offers no indication whatever that Congress intended the limiting construction of §307 (b)(1) that the respondents now urge. Accordingly, we think it inappropriate to apply the rule of ejusdem generis in construing § 307 (b)(1). Rather, we agree with the petitioners that the phrase, “any other final action,” in the absence of legislative history to the contrary, must be construed to mean exactly what it says, namely, any other final action.
B
We have found nothing in the legislative history to support a conclusion that the phrase, “any other final action,” in § 307 (b)(1) means anything other than what it says.
Congress added the language, “any other final action,” to § 307 (b) (1) in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. The phrase first appeared in H. R. 6161, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977). That bill, as reported out of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to include review of not only certain EPA actions of nationwide consequences under specifically enumerated provisions of the Act, but also “any other nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator under [the] Act.” In parallel fashion, the bill expanded the jurisdiction of the regional courts of appeals to include review not only of certain local or regional actions under specifically enumerated provisions, but also of “any other final action of the Administrator under [the] Act which is locally or regionally applicable.” (Emphasis added.)
The only extended discussion of this proposed amendment to § 307 (b)(1) was contained in the Committee Report accompanying H. R. 6161. H. R. Rep. No. 95-294, pp. 323-324 (1977). That discussion, however, focused not on the jurisdictional question at issue here, but rather on the proper venue as between the District of Columbia Circuit and the other Federal Circuits. The Committee Report described the proposed amendments as “intended to clarify some questions relating to venue for review of rules or orders under the [A]ct.” Id., at 323. In this regard, the Committee Report explained:
“[The proposed addition to the first sentence of § 307 (b)(1)] makes it clear that any nationally applicable regulations promulgated by the Administrator under the Clean Air Act could be reviewed only in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. . . .
“[The proposed addition to the second sentence] provides for essentially locally, statewide, or regionally applicable rules or orders to be reviewed in the U. S. court of appeals for the circuit in which such locality, State, or region is located. . . .” Ibid.
The Committee Report further stated that the proposed changes reflected the Committee’s agreement with certain venue proposals of the Administrative Conference of the United States, but added the caveat that the adoption of these proposals was not to be taken as an endorsement of the remainder of the Administrative Conference’s recommendations. Id., at 324.
The respondents infer from this scant legislative history that Congress never intended the addition of the phrase, “any other final action,” to § 307 (b)(1) to enlarge the jurisdiction of the .courts of appeals to include the review of cases based on an administrative record reflecting less than notice and an opportunity for a hearing. But, insofar as the respondents rely on what the Committee said in its Report, we fail to see how the Committee’s observations on venue have any bearing at all on the jurisdictional issue now before the Court. Moreover, since the Administrative Conference had not proposed that the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals be expanded to include “any other final action,” the fact that the Committee expressly disclaimed an endorsement of the recommendations of the Administrative Conference on matters other than venue would appear wholly irrelevant.
The respondents also rely on what the Committee and the Congress did not say about the 1977 amendments to § 307 (b)(1). It is unlikely, the respondents assert, that Congress would have expanded so radically the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, and divested the district courts of jurisdiction, without some consideration and discussion of the matter. We cannot accept this argument. First, although the number of actions comprehended by a literal interpretation of “any other final action” is no doubt substantial, the number would not appear so large as ineluctably to have provoked comment in Congress. Secondly, it would be a strange canon of statutory construction that would require Congress to state in committee reports or elsewhere in its deliberations that which is obvious on the face of a statute. In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, a court cannot, in the manner of Sherlock Holmes, pursue the theory of the dog that did not bark.
C
The respondents finally argue that, as a matter of policy, the basic purpose of §307 (b)(1) — to provide prompt pre-enforcement review of EPA action — would be better served by providing for judicial review of cases such as this in a district court rather than a court of appeals. It is the respondents’ view that since agency action predicated on neither formal adjudication nor informal rulemaking is apt to be based on a record too scant to permit informed judicial review, the district court is the preferable forum, since the tools of discovery are there available to augment the record, whereas in a court of appeals a time-consuming remand to EPA might be required.
This is an argument to be addressed to Congress, not to this Court. It is not our task to determine which would be the ideal forum for judicial review of the Administrator’s decision in this case. See, e. g., Currie & Goodman, Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action: Quest for the Optimum Forum, 75 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1975). Rather, we must determine what Congress intended when it vested the courts of appeals with jurisdiction under §307 (b)(1) to review “any other final action.” The language of the statute clearly provides that a decision of the sort at issue here is reviewable in a court of appeals, and nothing in the legislative history points to any different conclusion.
We add only that, as a matter of policy, this conferral of jurisdiction upon the courts of appeals is not wholly irrational. The most obvious advantage of direct review by a court of appeals is the time saved compared to review by a district court, followed by a second review on appeal. It may be seriously questioned whether the overall time lost by court of appeals remands to EPA of those cases in which the records are inadequate would exceed the time saved by forgoing in every case initial review in a district court. But whatever the answer to this empirical question, an appellate court is not without recourse in the event it finds itself unable to exercise informed judicial review because of an inadequate administrative record. In such a situation, an appellate court may always remand a case to the agency for further consideration.
For the reasons stated, we hold that the Court, of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 307 (b)(1) provides in full:
“A petition for review of action of the Administrator in promulgating any national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, any emission standard or requirement under section 112, any standard of performance or requirement under section 111,- any standard under section 202 (other than a standard required to be prescribed under section 202 (b) (1)), any determination under section 202 (b)(5), any control or prohibition under section 211, any standard under section 231, any rule issued under section 113, 119, or under section 120, or any other nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A petition for review of the Administrator’s action in approving or. promulgating any implementation plan under section 110 or section 111 (d), any order under section 111 (j), under section 112 (c), under section 118 (d), under section 119, or under section 120, or his action under section 119 (c)(2)(A), (B), or (C) (as in effect before the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977) or under regulations thereunder, or any other final action of the Administrator under this Act (including any denial or disapproval by the Administrator under title I) which is locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence a petition for review of any action referred to in such sentence may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination. Any petition for review under this subsection shall be filed within sixty days from the date notice of such promulgation, approval, or action appears in the Federal Register, except that if such petition is based solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day, then any petition for review under this subsection shall be filed within sixty days after such grounds arise.” (Emphasis added.) § 307 (b) (1) of the Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1708, and amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L, 95-95, 91 Stat. 776, and the Clean Air Act Technical and Conforming Amendments, § 14 of Pub. L. 95-190, 91 Stat. 1404, 42 U. S. C. § 7607 (b) (1) (1976 ed., Supp. II).
In a request for clarification, PPG expressed its understanding that the “new source” standards would not be applicable during the normal course of operation of the boilers, but only during performance tests or other periods when the boilers were operating on 100% fossil fuel. EPA by letter confirmed PPG’s understanding. This position, however, was inconsistent with both the Regional Administrator’s earlier ruling and with EPA’s position in similar cases. Accordingly, an EPA representative notified PPG by telephone that the letter was incorrect. In a subsequent letter, the Director of the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement of EPA reiterated that the “new source” standards would be applicable during the normal operation of the waste-heat boilers, but only to the extent that the boilers were operating on fossil fuel, rather than waste heat. The Director also indicated that, pursuant to the standards, PPG would be required to operate the boilers at all times with fuel containing less than a certain specified content of sulfur. He further noted that PPG would be required to install and operate opacity monitors in the stacks of the boilers and to perform alternative monitoring tests.
The respondents have abandoned the construction of the statute they advanced in the Court of Appeals, namely, that the phrase, “any other final action,” refers only to other final actions under those provisions specifically enumerated in §307 (b)(1). That construction, as the Court of Appeals correctly noted, is inconsistent with the fact that the phrase, “any other final action,” is modified not by “under these sections,” but rather by “under this Act.”
It would appear that the respondents’ construction of the statute is that adopted by the Court of Appeals, although the matter is not free from doubt. The doubt arises from the fact that the Court of Appeals’ opinion can also be read as establishing a jurisdictional test that turns on a case-by-case inquiry into the adequacy of the administrative record. But, as the respondents themselves acknowledge, that reading, of the opinion would create excessive uncertainty as to the proper forum for judicial review.
The respondents argue that this exception should be ignored in' applying the rule of ejusdem generis, since § 112 (c) governs the regulation of “hazardous air pollutants” for which Congress may have wanted “special review” in the courts of appeals, even in the absence of procedures requiring notice and opportunity for a hearing. It is our view, however, that if the rule of ejusdem generis is applicable, it must be applied to actions under all the specifically enumerated provisions in § 307 (b) (1), not simply those that fit the respondents’ theory.
The respondents raise several objections to so literal a reading of §307 (b)(1), none of which we find persuasive. First, the respondents assert that such a construction of §307 (b)(1) is both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with another provision of the Act. The internal inconsistency is said to arise from the fact that if the phrase, “any other final action,” were construed to include any final action of the Administrator, it would nullify the express exception from review in §307 (b)(1) of any “standard required to be prescribed under section 202 (b)(1).” The inconsistency with another provision in the Act is said to arise from the fact that a literal reading of “any other final action” would effectively repeal another judicial review provision in the Act, §206 (b)(2)(B), 42 U. S. C. § 7525 (b) (2) (B) (1976 ed., Supp. II). These objections fall far short of the mark, however, for the general language of the catchall phrase, “any other final action,” must obviously give way to specific express provisions in the Act.
The respondents also argue that if Congress had intended the phrase, “any other final action,” to refer to all final actions of the Administrator, it would have been unnecessary, in 1977, to add to the list in § 307 (b) (1) of specifically enumerated provisions under which actions of the Administrator are reviewable in the courts of appeals. This may be true, but the fact remains that even if Congress had intended the phrase, “any other final action,” to be read, as the respondents urge, in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis, there still would have been no necessity to add to the list of specifically enumerated provisions.
That the Committee intended the phrase, “any other final action,” to result in at least some expansion of the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals is evident in the fact that the Committee Report expressly indicated that several types of nationwide actions under provisions not specifically enumerated in § 307 (b) (1) would be reviewable in the District of Columbia Circuit. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-294, pp. 323-324 (1977) (e. g., regulations to carry out the nonattainment policy set out in § 117 of the Act). Thus, as even the respondents concede, the issue here is not whether Congress intended any expansion of the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, but rather the extent to which Congress intended to expand that jurisdiction. As to that issue, the legislative history is silent.
Arthur Conan Doyle, The Silver Blaze, in The Complete Sherlock Holmes (1938).
The respondents also argue that a literal construction of §307 (b)(1) would violate due process of law. This argument turns on the interrelationship between §307 (b)(1) and its companion provision, §307 (b)(2), which provides that “[a]ction of the Administrator with respect to which review could have been obtained under [§ 307 (b) (1)] shall not be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.” 42 U. S. C. § 7607 (b) (2) (1976 ed., Supp. II). To preclude a defendant in a civil or criminal enforcement proceeding from attacking the validity of informal action on the part of the Administrator would, in the respondents’ view, violate the defendant’s due process right to a “reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence.” Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 433. The short answer to the respondents’ argument is that the validity of § 307 (b) (2) is not at issue here. The constitutional question raised by the respondents must, therefore, await another day.
The dissenting opinions would modify the language of §307 (b)(1) so as to read either (1) any other final action similar to that under the specifically enumerated provisions other than those added in the Clean Air Act Technical and Conforming Amendments, post, at 600-602, or (2) any other final action expressly, but not impliedly, authorized under the sections of the Act not specifically enumerated in §307 (b)(1), post, at 607. But neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history supports either of these proposed readings of §307 (b)(1).
Whether the present administrative record in this ease is adequate to permit informed judicial review is a question that the Court of Appeals must determine.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case concerns the validity of a criminal contempt judgment entered against petitioner by reason of certain events occurring in the course of a criminal trial in the courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Petitioner was retained counsel for Narvel Tinsley, a Negro, who along with his brother Michael was charged with the murders of two police officers. According to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the “murders created some considerable sensation in Louisville . . . and . . . newspaper coverage was overly abundant.” 494 S. W. 2d 737, 739 (1973). Trial before respondent trial judge began on October 18, 1971, and was completed on October 29.
On nine different occasions during this turbulent trial, respondent, out of the hearing of the jury and most often in chambers, informed petitioner that he was in contempt of court. The first charge was immediately reduced to a warning and no sentence was imposed at the time of charge- in that or any other instance. Petitioner was permitted to respond to most, but not all, of the charges.
At the conclusion of the trial on October 29 and after a guilty verdict had been returned, respondent, in the presence of the jury, made a statement concerning petitioner’s trial conduct. Refusing petitioner’s request to respond and declaring that “I have you” on nine counts, respondent proceeded to impose a jail term on each count totaling almost four and one-half years: 30 days on the first count, 60 days on the second, 90 days on the third, six months on counts four, five, six, and seven, and one year each on counts eight and nine, “all to run consecutive.” A few days later, petitioner was also barred from practicing law by respondent in his division of the Criminal Branch of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
While petitioner’s appeal was pending, on March 2, 1972, respondent entered a corrected judgment containing a “certificate” which described the nine charges of contempt but eliminated the first charge as having been reduced to a warning and reduced the sentence on each of the last two counts to six months in jail. The corrected judgment was silent as to whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that petitioner was guilty of each and every contempt charged. In its view, petitioner’s actions “were deliberate, delaying, or planned disruptive tactics which did in fact create such an atmosphere in the court that he, if permitted to continue, would have appeared to be the star performer in the center ring of a three-ring circus.” 494 S. W. 2d, at 740. Petitioner had committed “innumerable acts . . . which clearly reflected his contempt for the court as well as the judicial system of this Commonwealth . . .” and had been “overbearing, contemptuous, and obnoxiously persistent in his questions and objections . . . .” Id., at 741. The Court of Appeals also concluded that petitioner had not launched any “personal attack” on the trial judge and that the judge had neither conducted himself as an “ 'activist seeking combat’ ” nor had become so personally embroiled that he was disqualified to sit in judgment on the charges of contempt, although his remarks prior to entering judgment of contempt at the conclusion of the trial were “inappropriate.” Id., at 744^745.
The Court of Appeals further ruled that because the amended judgment did not “direct that the sentences, as amended, be served consecutively . . . they must be served concurrently.” Id., at 746. Thus, “[t]he penalty actually imposed on Daniel Taylor [was] six months in jail,” and his conviction and sentence without a jury trial were deemed constitutionally permissible. Id., at 747. The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled, however, that it had exclusive authority to discipline or disbar attorneys and that, in any event, the rule in Kentucky since 1917 had been that suspension from practice was not a permissible punishment for criminal contempt. The order prohibiting petitioner from practicing in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Criminal Branch, Second Division, was therefore reversed. We granted certiorari limited to specified issues, 414 U. S. 1063 (1973).
I
Petitioner contends that any charge of contempt of court, without exception, must be tried to a jury. Quite to the contrary, however, our cases hold that petty contempt like other petty criminal offenses may be tried without a jury and that contempt of court is a petty offense when the penalty actually imposed does not exceed six months or a longer penalty has not been expressly authorized by statute. Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373 (1966); Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194 (1968); Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., Inc., 391 U. S. 216 (1968); Frank v. United States, 395 U. S. 147 (1969) ; Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66 (1970). Hence, although petitioner was ultimately found guilty and sentenced separately on eight counts of contempt, the sentences were to run concurrently and were, as the Kentucky Court of Appeals held, equivalent to a single sentence of six months. Cf. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, post, p. 506. The original sentences imposed on the separate counts were to run consecutively and totaled almost four and one-half years, with two individual counts each carrying a year’s sentence. But the trial court itself entered an amended judgment which was understood by the Kentucky Court of Appeals to impose no more than a six-month sentence. The eight contempts, whether considered singly or collectively, thus constituted petty offenses, and trial by jury was not required.
It is argued that a State should not be permitted, after conviction, to reduce the sentence to less than six months and thereby obviate a jury trial. The thrust of our decisions, however, is to the contrary: in the absence of legislative authorization of serious penalties for contempt, a State may choose to try any contempt without a jury if it determines not to impose a sentence longer than six months. We discern no material difference between this choice and permitting the State, after conviction, to reduce a sentence to six months or less rather than to retry the contempt with a jury. Cf. Cheff v. Schnackenberg, supra, at 380. In either case, the State itself has determined that the contempt is not so serious as to warrant more than a six-month sentence. We remain firmly committed to the proposition that “criminal contempt is not a crime of the sort that requires the right to jury trial regardless of the penalty involved.” Bloom v. Illinois, supra, at 211; cf. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 30 (1972).
II
We are more persuaded by petitioner’s contention that he was entitled to more of a hearing and notice than he received prior to final conviction and sentence. In each instance during the trial when respondent considered petitioner to be in contempt, petitioner was informed of that fact and, in most instances, had opportunity to respond to the charge at that time. It is quite true, as the Kentucky Court of Appeals held, that “[t]he contempt citations and the sentences coming at the end of the trial were not and could not have been a surprise to Taylor, because upon each occasion and immediately following the charged act of contempt the court informed Taylor that he was at that time in contempt of court.” 494 S. W. 2d, at 741-742. But no sentence was imposed during the trial, and it does not appear to us that any final adjudication of contempt was entered until after the verdict was returned. It was then that the court proceeded to describe and characterize petitioner’s various acts during trial as contemptuous, to find him guilty of nine acts of contempt, and to sentence him immediately for each of those acts.
It is also plain from the record that when petitioner sought to respond to what the Kentucky Court of Appeals referred to as the trial court’s “declaration of a charge against Taylor based upon the judge’s observations” during trial, respondent informed him that “[yjou’re not responding to me on anything” and even indicated that petitioner might be gagged if he insisted on defending himself. The trial court then proceeded without further formality to impose consecutive sentences totaling almost four and one-half years in the county jail and to bar petitioner forever from practicing before the court in which the case at issue had been tried.
This procedure does not square with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We are not concerned here with the trial judge’s power, for the purpose of maintaining order in the courtroom, to punish summarily and without notice or hearing contemptuous conduct committed in his presence and observed by him. Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289 (1888). The usual justification of necessity, see Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 14 (1954), is not nearly so cogent when final adjudication and sentence are postponed until after trial. Our decisions establish that summary punishment need not always be imposed during trial if it is to be permitted at all. In proper circumstances, particularly where the offender is a lawyer representing a client on trial, it may be postponed until the conclusion of the proceedings. Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S. 1 (1952); cf. Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455, 463 (1971). But Sacher noted that “[s]ummary punishment always, and rightly, is regarded with disfavor ... .” 343 U. S., at 8. “[W]e have stated time and again that reasonable notice of a charge and an opportunity to be heard in defense before punishment is imposed are 'basic in our system of jurisprudence.’ ” Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U. S. 496, 502 (1972), quoting In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273 (1948). Even where summary punishment for contempt is imposed during trial, “the contemnor has normally been given an opportunity to speak in his own behalf in the nature of a right of allocution.” Groppi v. Leslie, supra, at 504 (and cases cited therein).
On the other hand, where conviction and punishment are delayed, “it is much more difficult to argue that action without notice or hearing of any kind is necessary to preserve order and enable [the court] to proceed with its business.” Ibid. As we noted in Groppi, the contem-nors in the Sacher case were “given an opportunity to speak” and the “trial judge would, no doubt[,] have modified his action had their statements proved persuasive.” Id., at 506, and n. 11. Groppi counsels that before an attorney is finally adjudicated in contempt and sentenced after trial for conduct during trial, he should have reasonable notice of the specific charges and opportunity to be heard in his own behalf. This is not to say, however, that a full-scale trial is appropriate. Usually, the events have occurred before the judge’s own eyes, and a reporter’s transcript is available. But the contemnor might at least urge, for example, that the behavior at issue was not contempt but the acceptable conduct of an attorney representing his client; or, he might present matters in mitigation or otherwise attempt to make amends with the court. Cf. Groppi v. Leslie, supra, at 503, 506 n. 11.
These procedures are essential in view of the heightened potential for abuse posed by the contempt power. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S., at 202; Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S., at 12. The provision of fundamental due process protections for contemnors accords with our historic notions of elementary fairness. While we have no desire “to imprison the discretion of judges within rigid mechanical rules,” Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S., at 15, we remain unpersuaded that “the additional time and expense possibly involved . . . will seriously handicap the effective functioning of the courts.” Bloom v. Illinois, supra, at 208-209. Due process cannot be measured in minutes and hours or dollars and cents. For the accused contemnor facing a jail sentence, his “liberty is valuable and must be seen as within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its termination calls for some orderly process, however informal.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 482 (1972).
Because these minimum requirements of due process of law were not extended to petitioner in this case, the contempt judgment must be set aside.
III
We are also convinced that if petitioner is to be tried again, he should not be tried by respondent. We agree with the Kentucky Court of Appeals that petitioner’s conduct did not constitute the kind of personal attack on respondent that, regardless of his reaction or lack of it, he would be "[un]likely to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication.” Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S., at 465.
But contemptuous conduct, though short of personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil him in controversy that he cannot “hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused . . . .” Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 532 (1927). In making this ultimate judgment, the inquiry must be not only whether there was actual bias on respondent’s part, but also whether there was “such a likelihood of bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused.” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U. S. 575, 588 (1964). “Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties,” but due process of law requires no less. In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955).
With these considerations in mind, we have examined the record in this case, and it appears to us that respondent did become embroiled in a running controversy with petitioner. Moreover, as the trial progressed, there was a mounting display of an unfavorable personal attitude toward petitioner, his ability, and his motives, sufficiently so that the contempt issue should have been finally adjudicated by another judge.
Early in the trial respondent cautioned petitioner against “putting on a show” and added that “if you give him an inch, he'll take a mile. I might as well sit on him now.” App. 31, 40. On another occasion when petitioner asserted that his purpose was to defend his case, respondent replied, “I’m not sure.” Id., at 61. When petitioner remarked that he had five months wrapped up in the case, respondent retorted that “[b]e-fore it's over, you might have a lot more than that.” Id., at 98. On the other hand, petitioner complained of respondent’s “overbearing contentiousness in regard to me, both by phrase and by its utterances,” and asserted that the court was prejudicing the trial of his case. Id., at 60. Respondent was likewise said to be “using [the] brute power of your office” in saying that petitioner was damaging his client. Id., at 61. On another occasion, respondent understood petitioner to be asserting that he, respondent, had rigged the jury. Id., at 85-86.
That respondent had reacted strongly to petitioner’s conduct throughout the 10-day trial clearly emerged in the statement which he made prior to sentencing petitioner and which the Court of Appeals characterized as “inappropriate.” There he said petitioner had put on “the worst display” he had seen in many years at the bar — “[a]s far as a lawyer is concerned, you’re not.” Id., at 28. Furthermore, respondent denied petitioner the opportunity to make any statement at that time, threatened to gag him and forthwith sentenced him to almost four and one-half years in jail, not to mention later disbarring him from further practice in his court. He also refused to grant him bail pending appeal. We assume for the purposes of this case that each of the charged acts was contemptuous; nevertheless, a sentence of this magnitude reflects the extent to which the respondent became personally involved. Cf. Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S., at 17.
From our own reading of the record, we have concluded that “marked personal feelings were present on both sides” and that the marks of “unseemly conduct [had] left personal stings,” Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S., at 464. A fellow judge should have been substituted for the purpose of finally disposing of the charges of contempt made by respondent against petitioner. Respondent relies on Ungar v. Sarafite, supra, but we were impressed there with the fact that the judge “did not purport to proceed summarily during or at the conclusion of the trial, but gave notice and afforded an opportunity for a hearing which was conducted dispassionately and with a decorum befitting a judicial proceeding.” 376 U. S., at 588.
Nothing we have said here should be construed to condone the type of conduct described in the opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals and found by that court to have been engaged in by petitioner. Behavior of this nature has no place in the courtroom which, in a free society, is a forum for the courteous and reasoned pursuit of truth and justice.
The judgment of the Kentucky Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas joins Parts II and III of the Court’s opinion.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Rehnquist, see post, p. 523.]
When for the sixth time petitioner was informed that he was in contempt, he sought to reply and was informed he could do so at the next recess. Nothing more appears in the record with respect to this episode. On the seventh occasion, petitioner undertook to respond but respondent left the chambers, and any further discussion of this charge was apparently ordered excluded from the record by respondent. Petitioner was denied the right to respond when he was informed of the eighth charge of contempt. As far as the record shows, there was neither a request to respond nor denial of response in connection with the ninth contempt charge.
The following is the complete transcript of the proceedings on October 29, 1971, with respect to the contempt charges against petitioner:
“The Court: Mr. Taylor, the Court has something to take up with you sir, at this time.
“Mr. Taylor: Well, I’ll be right here, Judge.
“The Court: I’ve for two weeks sit here and listen to you. Now, you’re going to listen to me. Stand right here, sir.
“For two weeks I’ve seen you put on the worst display I’ve ever seen an attorney in my two years of this court and 15 years of practicing law. You’ve quoted that you couldn’t do it any other way. You know our court system is completely based upon, particularly criminal law, the Doctrine of Eeasonable Doubt. That’s exactly what it means, reason. It doesn’t mean that it’s based upon deceit; it doesn’t mean that it’s based upon trickery; it doesn’t mean it’s based upon planned confusion.
“Sometimes I wonder really what your motive is, if you’re really interested in the justice of your client, or if you have some ulterior motive, if you’re interested in Dan Taylor or Narvel Tinsley.
“It’s a shame that this court has to do something that the Bar Association of this State should have done a long time ago.
“As far as a lawyer is concerned, you’re not. I want the jury to hear this; I want the law students of this community to hear this, that you’re not the rule, you’re the exception to the rule.-
“Mr. Taylor: (Interrupting) Thank you.
“The Court: I want them to understand that your actions should not be their actions because this is not the way that a court is conducted. This is not the way an officer of a court should conduct itself.
“Mr. Taylor: I would respond to you, sir-
“The Court: (Interrupting) You’re not responding to me on anything.
“Mr. Taylor: (Interrupting) Oh yes, I will.
“The Court: Yes, you’re not, either.
“Mr. Taylor: Yes, I will.
“The Court: The sentence is on Count One-
“Mr. Taylor: (Interrupting) Unless you intend to gag me-
“The Court: (Interposing) I’ll do that-
“Mr. Taylor: (Interposing) My lawyers will respond to you-
“The Court: (Interposing) I’ll do that, sir.
“Mr. Taylor: My lawyers will respond to you, sir.
“The Court: You be quiet, or you’ll — there will be some more contempts-
“Mr. Taylor: (Interrupting) No, you heard what I said.
“The Court: I have you nine counts. First Count, 30 days in jail; Second Count, 60 days in jail; Third Count, 90 days in jail; Fourth Count, six months in jail; Fifth Count, six months in jail; Sixth Count, six months in jail; Seventh Count, six months in jail; Eighth Count, one year in jail; Ninth Count, one year in jail, all to run consecutive.
“Take him away.
“Mr. Taylor: We will answer you in court.
“The Court: I’d be glad to see you.” App. 28-29.
The nine charges of contempt were described in the certificate as follows:
“Contempt 1. Mr. Taylor, in questioning a prospective juror, on the second day of Voir Dire, repeatedly ignored the Court’s order not to continue a certain line of questioning and to ask his questions of the jury as a whole, He evidenced utter disrespect for prospective jurors (T. E. 335-347).
“Contempt 2. The court sustained the Commonwealth objection on the use of a prior statement to cross examine Officer Hogan and not to go into the escape of Narvel Tinsley. Mr. Taylor repeatedly and completely ignored the court’s ruling (T. E. 1071-1080).
“Contempt S. During the playing of a tape recording of the voice of witness David White, Mr. Taylor wrote on a blackboard. After the playing of the tape it was ordered that the blackboard be removed from the court and Mr. Taylor was advised by the court that he could use it in his final summation to the jury. Mr. Taylor was disrespectful to the court by his tone of voice and manner when he replied, ‘I’ll certainly keep that in mind, your Honor’ (T. E. 1355).
“Contempt 4- During cross-examination of Narvel Tinsley, by Mr. Schroering, Mr. Taylor interrupted and moved for a recess, was overruled by the court, and then became most disrespectful to the court and refused to take his seat at counsel’s table as ordered. “Contempt 6. Complete and utter disrespect by Mr. Taylor in the questioning of Mr. Irvin Foley, and (sic) attorney and Legal Advisor to the Louisville Police Department when he continually disobeyed the court’s ruling regarding a press conference which the court had ruled on unadmissible (sic). Mr. Taylor accused the court of disallowing admittance of black persons in the courtroom during the examination of this witness and made a statement in the presence of the jury inferring that only white police officers could enter the courtroom. It has always been the rule of this court that there will be no interruption during the examination of a witness or during closing arguments by people coming and going into and from the courtroom, which rule was known to Mr. Taylor, (T. E. 1950-1955). “Contempt 6. The witness Jesse Taylor, a Louisville Police Officer, read a statement by witness, David White. A Ruling was made by the court that the statement spoke for itself, had been introduced in evidence and could not be commented on by Officer Taylor, who merely took the statement. Mr. Taylor continued to disregard the court’s order and ruling by continually reading parts of the statement out of context (T. E. 2008-2016).
“Contempt 7. Mr. Taylor in examining Mr. Norbert Brown, again referred to a press conference that the court had previously ordered him not to go into. He also waved his arms at the witness in a derogatory manner indicating the witness was not truthful and showing utter contempt of the court’s ruling (T. E. 2030-2032). “Contempt 8. The court directed Mr. Taylor to call his next witness. He called Lt. Garrett, Louisville Police Department. After the witness was sworn and took the stand, a deputy Sheriff advised the court that Mr. Taylor’s aide was not searched, as everyone else had been upon entering the courtroom. Mr. Taylor ordered the deputy to search his aide. The court ordered Mr. Taylor to begin his examination, which he refused to do until he was cited for contempt in the court’s chamber (T. E. 2068-2069).
“Contempt 9. Mr. Taylor repeatedly asked the same question of witness Floyd Miller that the court had held improper. He was also disrespectful in his tone of voice when referring to a certain police officer as ‘this nice police officer’ (T. E. 2169-2172).” App. 24-26.
494 S. W. 2d 737, 744 (1973).
App. 29.
“Punishment without issue or trial [is] so contrary to the usual and ordinarily indispensable hearing before judgment, constituting due process, that the assumption that the court saw everything that went on in open court [is] required to justify the exception; but the need for immediate penal vindication of the dignity of the court created it.” Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 536 (1925).
Groppi dealt with contempt of a state legislative body, and the contempt action was not taken until several days later without notice or opportunity for Groppi to be heard.
The American Bar Association Advisory Committee on the Judge’s Function has recommended, inter alia:
“Notice of charges and opportunity to be heard.
“Before imposing any punishment for criminal contempt, the judge should give the offender notice of the charges and at least a summary opportunity to adduce evidence or argument relevant to guilt or punishment.
“Commentary
“Although there is authority that in-court contempts can be punished without notice of charges or an opportunity to be heard, Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289 (1888), such a procedure has little to commend it, is inconsistent with the basic notions of fairness, and is likely to bring disrespect upon the court. Accordingly, notice and at least a brief opportunity to be heard should be afforded as a matter of course. Nothing in this standard, however, implies that a plenary trial of contempt charges is required.” American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Function of the Trial Judge § 7.4, p. 95 (Approved Draft 1972).
Cf. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 42 (b); Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162 (1965). State courts have reached a similar conclusion. See, e. g., New York State Appellate Division, First and Second Departments, Special Rules Concerning Court Decorum § 609.2 (b) (1971) in N. Dorsen & L. Friedman, Disorder in the Court: Report of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Special Committee on Courtroom Conduct 352 (1973).
My Brother Rehnquist’s dissent insists that the Court has rejected the teaching of Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S. 1 (1952), that in a posttrial contempt proceeding, the court need not afford the contemnor the full panoply of procedures such as "the issuance of process, service of complaint and answer, holding hearings, taking evidence, listening to arguments, awaiting briefs, submission of findings, and all that goes with a conventional court trial.” Id., at 9 (emphasis added). But all we have decided today is that a contemnor is entitled to the elementary due process protections of “reasonable notice of the specific charges and opportunity to be heard in his own behalf,” supra, at 499, neither of which petitioner received. Nowhere do we intimate that “a full-scale trial is appropriate.” Ibid.; see also n. 8, supra. Moreover, whatever justifications may sometimes necessitate immediate imposition of summary punishment during trial “to maintain order in the courtroom and the integrity of the trial process in the face of an ‘actual obstruction of justice,’ ” Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, post, at 513, “[rjeasons for permitting straightway exercise of summary power are not reasons for compelling or encouraging its immediate exercise.” Sacher v. United States, supra, at 9-10.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist’s dissent also asserts that our decision provides the means whereby “a judge can be driven out of a case by any counsel sufficiently astute to read the new-found constitutional principles enunciated [here and in Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455 (1971)].” Post, at 530. But this statement — perhaps dissenter’s license — misconceives our holding and undervalues the import of the Due Process Clause. As expressly noted in the text, we by no means equate this case with Mayberry v. Pennsylvania. It is not petitioner’s conduct, considered alone, that requires recusal in this case; rather, the critical factor, as revealed by the record before us, is the character of respondent’s response to misbehavior during the course of the trial. The dissent, of course, may view the record differently, but on that issue we are in unavoidable disagreement.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These petitions for certiorari, arising out of the same bankruptcy proceeding, present the question whether § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 554(a), authorizes a trustee in bankruptcy to abandon property in contravention of state laws or regulations that are reasonably designed to protect the public’s health or safety.
HH
Quanta Resources Corporation (Quanta) processed waste oil at two facilities, one in Long Island City, New York, and the other in Edgewater, New Jersey. At the Edgewater facility, Quanta handled the oil pursuant to a temporary operating permit issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), respondent in No. 84-801. In June 1981, Midlantic National Bank, petitioner in No. 84-801, provided Quanta with a $600,000 loan secured by Quanta’s inventory, accounts receivable, and certain equipment. The same month, NJDEP discovered that Quanta had violated a specific prohibition in its operating permit by accepting more than 400,000 gallons of oil contaminated with PCB, a highly toxic carcinogen. NJDEP ordered Quanta to cease operations at Edgewater, and the two began negotiations concerning the cleanup of the Edgewater site. But on October 6, 1981, before the conclusion of negotiations, Quanta filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The next day, NJDEP issued an administrative order requiring Quanta to clean up the site. Quanta’s financial condition remained perilous, however, and the following month, it converted the action to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7. Thomas J. O’Neill, petitioner in No. 84-805, was appointed trustee in bankruptcy, and subsequently oversaw abandonment of both facilities.
After Quanta filed for bankruptcy, an investigation of the Long Island City facility revealed that Quanta had accepted and stored there over 70,000 gallons of toxic, PCB-contaminated oil in deteriorating and leaking containers. Since the mortgages on that facility’s real property exceeded the property’s value, the estimated cost of disposing of the waste oil plainly rendered the property a net burden to the estate. After trying without success to sell the Long Island City property for the benefit of Quanta’s creditors, the trustee notified the creditors and the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey that he intended to abandon the property pursuant to § 554(a). No party to the bankruptcy proceeding disputed the trustee’s allegation that the site was “burdensome” and of “inconsequential value to the estate” within the meaning of § 554.
The City and the State of New York (collectively New York), respondents in No. 84-805, nevertheless objected, contending that abandonment would threaten the public’s health and safety, and would violate state and federal environmental law. New York rested its objection on “public policy” considerations reflected in applicable local laws, and on the requirement of 28 U. S. C. § 959(b) that a trustee “manage and operate” the property of the estate “according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property is situated.” New York asked the Bankruptcy Court to order that the assets of the estate be used to bring the facility into compliance with applicable law. After briefing and argument, the court approved the abandonment, noting that “[t]he City and State are in a better position in every respect than either the Trustee or debtor’s creditors to do what needs to be done to protect the public against the dangers posed by the PCB-contaminated facility.” The District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed, and New York appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Upon abandonment, the trustee removed the 24-hour guard service and shut down the fire-suppression system. It became necessary for New York to decontaminate the facility, with the exception of the polluted subsoil, at a cost of about $2.5 million.
On April 23, 1983, shortly after the District Court had approved abandonment of the New York site, the trustee gave notice of his intention to abandon the personal property at the Edgewater site, consisting principally of the contaminated oil. The Bankruptcy Court approved the abandonment on May 20, over NJDEP’s objection that the estate had sufficient funds to protect the public from the dangers posed by the hazardous waste.
Because the abandonments of the New Jersey and New York facilities presented identical issues, the parties in the New Jersey litigation consented to NJDEP’s taking a direct appeal from the Bankruptcy Court to the Court of Appeals pursuant to § 405(c)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. In re Quanta Resources Corp., 739 F. 2d 912 (1984); In re Quanta Resources Corp., 739 F. 2d 927 (1984). Although the court found little guidance in the legislative history of § 554, it concluded that Congress had intended to codify the judge-made abandonment practice developed under the previous Bankruptcy Act. Under that law, where state law or general equitable principles protected certain public interests, those interests were not overridden by the judge-made abandonment power. The court also found evidence in other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that Congress did not intend to pre-empt all state regulation, but only that grounded on policies outweighed by the relevant federal interests. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the Bankruptcy Court erred in permitting abandonment, and remanded both cases for further proceedings.
We granted certiorari and consolidated these cases to determine whether the Court of Appeals properly construed § 554, 469 U. S. 1207 (1985). We now affirm.
HH f-H
Before the 1978 revisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee’s abandonment power had been limited by a judicially developed doctrine intended to protect legitimate state or federal interests. This was made clear by the few relevant cases. In Ottenheimer v. Whitaker, 198 F. 2d 289 (CA4 1952), the Court of Appeals concluded that a bankruptcy trustee, in liquidating the estate of a barge company, could not abandon several barges when the abandonment would have obstructed a navigable passage in violation of federal law. The court stated:
“The judge-made [abandonment] rule must give way when it comes into conflict with a statute enacted in order to ensure the safety of navigation; for we are not dealing with a burden imposed upon the bankrupt or his property by contract, but a duty and a burden imposed upon an owner of vessels by an Act of Congress in the public interest.” Id., at 290.
In In re Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 129 F. 2d 1 (CA7), cert. denied sub nom. Chicago Junction R. Co. v. Sprague, 317 U. S. 683 (1942), the Court of Appeals held that the trustee of a debtor transit company could not cease its operation of a branch railway line when local law required continued operation. While the court did not forbid the trustee to abandon property (i. e., to reject an unexpired lease), it conditioned his actions to ensure compliance with state law. Similarly, in In re Lewis Jones, Inc., 1 BCD 277 (Bkrtcy Ct. ED Pa. 1974), the Bankruptcy Court invoked its equitable power to “safeguard the public interest” by requiring the debtor public utilities to seal underground steam lines before abandoning them.
Thus, when Congress enacted §554, there were well-recognized restrictions on a trustee’s abandonment power. In codifying the judicially developed rule of abandonment, Congress also presumably included the established corollary that a trustee could not exercise his abandonment power in violation of certain state and federal laws. The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific. Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256, 266-267 (1979). The Court has followed this rule with particular care in construing the scope of bankruptcy codifications. If Congress wishes to grant the trustee an extraordinary exemption from nonbankruptcy law, “the intention would be clearly expressed, not left to be collected or inferred from disputable considerations of convenience in administering the estate of the bankrupt.” Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U. S. 441, 444 (1904); see Palmer v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 79, 85 (1939) (“If this old and familiar power of the states [over local railroad service] was withdrawn when Congress gave district courts bankruptcy powers over railroads, we ought to find language fitting for so drastic a change”). Although these cases do not define for us the exact contours of the trustee’s abandonment power, they do make clear that this power was subject to certain restrictions when Congress enacted § 554(a).
I — I I — I H-i
Neither the Court nor Congress has granted a trustee in bankruptcy powers that would lend support to a right to abandon property in contravention of state or local laws designed to protect public health or safety. As we held last Term when the State of Ohio sought compensation for cleaning the toxic waste site of a bankrupt corporation:
“Finally, we do not question that anyone in possession of the site — whether it is [the debtor] or another in the event the receivership is liquidated and the trustee abandons the property, or a vendee from the receiver or the bankruptcy trustee — must comply with the environmental laws of the State of Ohio. Plainly, that person or firm may not maintain a nuisance, pollute the waters of the State, or refuse to remove the source of such conditions.” Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U. S. 274, 285 (1985) (emphasis added).
Congress has repeatedly expressed its legislative determination that the trustee is not to have carte blanche to ignore nonbankruptcy law. Where the Bankruptcy Code has conferred special powers upon the trustee and where there was no common-law limitation on that power, Congress has expressly provided that the efforts of the trustee to marshal and distribute the assets of the estate must yield to governmental interest in public health and safety. Infra, at 503-504. One cannot assume that Congress, having placed these limitations upon other aspects of trustees’ operations, intended to discard a well-established judicial restriction on the abandonment power. As we held nearly two years ago in the context of the National Labor Relations Act, “the debtor-in-possession is not relieved of all obligations under the [Act] simply by filing a petition for bankruptcy.” NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U. S. 513, 534 (1984).
The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, § 362(a), has been described as “one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy laws.” S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 54 (1978); H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 340 (1977). Despite the importance of § 362(a) in preserving the debtor’s estate, Congress has enacted several categories of exceptions to the stay that allow the Government to commence or continue legal proceedings. For example, § 362(b)(5) permits the Government to enforce “nonmone-tary” judgments against a debtor’s estate. It is clear from the legislative history that one of the purposes of this exception is to protect public health and safety:
“Thus, where a governmental unit is suing a debtor to prevent or stop violation of fraud, environmental protection, consumer protection, safety, or similar police or regulatory laws, or attempting to fix damages for violation of such a law, the action or proceeding is not stayed under the automatic stay.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 343 (emphasis added); S. Rep. No. 95-989, supra, at 52 (emphasis added).
Petitioners have suggested that the existence of an express exception to the automatic stay undermines the inference of a similar exception to the abandonment power: had Congress sought to restrict similarly the scope of § 554, it would have enacted similar limiting provisions. This argument, however, fails to acknowledge the differences between the predecessors of §§ 554 and 362. As we have noted, the exceptions to the judicially created abandonment power were firmly established. But in enacting §362 in 1978, Congress significantly broadened the scope of the automatic stay, see 1 W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice §20.03, pp. 5-6 (1981), an expansion that had begun only five years earlier with the adoption of the Bankruptcy Rules in 1973, see id., §20.02, at 4-5. Between 1973 and 1978, some courts had stretched the expanded automatic stay to foreclose States’ efforts to enforce their antipollution laws, and Congress wanted to overrule these interpretations in its 1978 revision. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 174-175. In the face of the greatly increased scope of § 362, it was necessary for Congress to limit this new power expressly.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 959(b) provides additional evidence that Congress did not intend for the Bankruptcy Code to preempt all state laws. Section 959(b) commands the trustee to “manage and operate the property in his possession ... according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State.” Petitioners have contended that § 959(b) is relevant only when the trustee is actually operating the business of the debtor, and not when he is liquidating it. Even though § 959(b) does not directly apply to an abandonment under § 554(a) of the Bankruptcy Code — and therefore does not delimit the precise conditions on an abandonment — the section nevertheless supports our conclusion that Congress did not intend for the Bankruptcy Code to pre-empt all state laws that otherwise constrain the exercise of a trustee’s powers.
r*H <1
Although the reasons elaborated above suffice for us to conclude that Congress did not intend for the abandonment power to abrogate certain state and local laws, we find additional support for restricting that power in repeated congressional emphasis on its “goal of protecting the environment against toxic pollution.” Chemical Manufacturers Assn., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U. S. 116, 143 (1985). Congress has enacted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U. S. C. §§6901-6987, to regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes by monitoring wastes from their creation until after their permanent disposal. That Act authorizes the United States to seek judicial or administrative restraint of activities involving hazardous wastes that “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. ” 42 U. S. C. §6973; see also S. Rep. No. 98-284, p. 58 (1983). Congress broadened the scope of the statute and tightened the regulatory restraints in 1984. In the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, § 2(c)(2)(B), Congress established a fund to finance cleanup of some sites and required certain responsible parties to reimburse either the fund or the parties who paid for the cleanup. The Act also empowers the Federal Government to secure such relief as may be necessary to avert “imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance.” 42 U. S. C. § 9606. In the face of Congress’ undisputed concern over the risks of the improper storage and disposal of hazardous and toxic substances, we are unwilling to presume that by enactment of § 554(a), Congress implicitly overturned longstanding restrictions on the common-law abandonment power.
V
In the light of the Bankruptcy trustee’s restricted pre-1978 abandonment power and the limited scope of other Bankruptcy Code provisions, we conclude that Congress did not intend for § 554(a) to pre-empt all state and local laws. The Bankruptcy Court does not have the power to authorize an abandonment without formulating conditions that will adequately protect the public’s health and safety. Accordingly, without reaching the question whether certain state laws imposing conditions on abandonment may be so onerous as to interfere with the bankruptcy adjudication itself, we hold that a trustee may not abandon property in contravention of a state statute or regulation that is reasonably designed to protect the public health or safety from identified hazards. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Section 554(a) reads:
“After notice and a hearing, the trustee may abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the estate or that is of inconsequential value to the estate.”
Technical amendments in the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 added the words “and benefit” after “value” in § 554(a). Pub. L. 98-353, Tit. Ill, § 468(a), 98 Stat. 380.
The sole issue presented by these petitions is whether a trustee may abandon property under § 554 in contravention of local laws designed to protect the public’s health and safety. New York is claiming reimbursement for its expenditures as an administrative expense. That question, however, like the question of the ultimate disposition of the property, is not before us.
The trustee was not required to take even relatively minor steps to reduce imminent danger, such as security fencing, drainage and diking repairs, sealing deteriorating tanks, and removing explosive agents. Moreover, the trustee’s abandonment at both sites aggravated already existing dangers by halting security measures that prevented public entry, vandalism, and fire. Joint Appendix in No. 83-5142 (CA3), pp. 11-12 (affidavit of Richard Docyk, Deputy Chief Inspector for N. Y. City Fire Department); id., at 26 (transcript of proceedings before DeVito, J.). The 470,000 gallons of highly toxic and carcinogenic waste oil in unguarded, deteriorating containers “present risks of explosion, fire, contamination of water supplies, destruction of natural resources, and injury, genetic damage, or death through personal contact.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 4, 23; see Joint Appendix, supra, at 17 (70,000 gallons at New York site); Appendix in No. 83-5730 (CA3), p. A7 (400,000 gallons at New Jersey site); id., at A46 (deteriorating containers); Joint Appendix, supra, at 11 (deteriorating tanks); id., at 26 (guard service); id., at 12 (risk of fire); id., at 11 (contamination of adjacent areas); id., at 20 (health effects of exposure to PCBs and their derivatives).
Judge Gibbons dissented, arguing that §554 permits abandonment without any exception analogous to that provided to the automatic stay. The dissent further contended that the majority’s interpretation of § 554 raised substantial questions under the Takings Clause by potentially destroying the interest of secured creditors, see United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U. S. 70 (1982), and that the majority had failed to address the important underlying issue of the priority of the States’ claims for reimbursement.
Section 362(a) provides:
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U. S. C. 78eee(a)(3)), operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—
“(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
“(2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title;
“(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate;
“(4) any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate;
“(5) any act to create, perfect, or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
“(6) any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
“(7) the setoff of any debt owing to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against any claim against the debtor; and
“(8) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United States Tax Court concerning the debtor.”
See, e. g., In re Hillsdale Foundry Co., 1 BCD 195 (Bkrtcy Ct. WD Mich. 1974) (action by Michigan Attorney General to enforce State’s antipollution laws held subject to automatic stay). The House Report also referred to an unreported case from Texas where a stay prevented the State of Maine from closing down a debtor’s plant that was polluting a river in violation of the State’s environmental protection laws. H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, pp. 174-175 (1977).
Section 959(b) provides:
“Except as provided in section 1166 of title 11, a trustee, receiver or manager appointed in any cause pending in any court of the United States, including a debtor in possession, shall manage and operate the property in his possession as such trustee, receiver or manager according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property is situated, in the same manner that the owner or possessor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof.”
Congress eliminated the small generator exception and subjected many more facilities to the regulations. Pub. L. 98-616, 98 Stat. 3221, 3248-3272 (codified at 42 U. S. C. § 6921(d) (1982 ed., Supp. III)). Another provision automatically broadens the Act’s coverage by automatically assigning a hazardous rating to substances that the Environmental Protection Agency does not classify by a set deadline. 98 Stat. 3227-3231 (codified at 42 U. S. C. §§6924(d), (e), (f)(3), (g)(6) (1982 ed., Supp. III)). Amended enforcement provisions allow more citizen suits, 98 Stat. 3271-3272 (codified at 42 U. S. C. § 6973 (1982 ed., Supp. Ill)), and authorize administrative orders or suits to compel “corrective action” after a leak has occurred. 98 Stat. 3257-3258 (codified at 42 U. S. C. § 6928(h) (1982 ed., Supp. III)).
This exception to the abandonment power vested in the trustee by § 554 is a narrow one. It does not encompass a speculative or indeterminate future violation of such laws that may stem from abandonment. The abandonment power is not to be fettered by laws or regulations not reasonably calculated to protect the public health or safety from imminent and identifiable harm.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The National Labor Relations Board entertained a complaint by the Textile Workers Union of America against respondent, Highland Park Manufacturing Company, and ordered respondent to bargain with that Union. At all times relevant to the proceedings, the Textile Workers Union was affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations and, while the Textile Workers Union officers had filed the non-Communist affidavits pursuant to statute, the officers of the C. I. O. at that time had not. The statute provides that “No investigation shall be made by the Board . . ., no petition under subsection (e) (1) of this section shall be entertained, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 160 of this title, unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit executed ... by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the Communist Party [etc.].” § 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat. 146, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 159 (h). (Italics added.) The order was challenged upon the grounds, among others, that the failure of the C. I. O. officers to file non-Communist affidavits disabled its affiliate, the Textile Workers Union, and the Board could not entertain their complaint and enter the order.
The general counsel of the Board had ruled that the Board could not entertain a complaint under these circumstances; but the Board, with one member dissenting, overruled him, for reasons stated in Matter of Northern Virginia Broadcasters, 75 N. L. R. B. 11. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reached the same conclusion as the Board in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Labor Board, 87 U. S. App. D. C. 179, 184 F. 2d 233. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in this case, 184 F. 2d 98, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Labor Board v. Postex Cotton Mills, 181 F. 2d 919, arrived at a contrary result, holding that the Board could not entertain the complaint. The conflicting results are each so well-considered and so thoroughly documented in opinions already appearing in the books that little could be added to either. We agree with the conclusions of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits.
The definition of “labor union” in the statute con-cededly includes the C. I. O. It is further conceded that the phrase “labor organization national or international in scope” as found in § 10 (c) refers to the A. F. of L. and C. I. O. (Italics added.) But it is claimed that when the adjectives “national” or “international” are alone added, they exclude the C. I. 0., because it is regarded in labor circles as a federation rather than a national or international union. We think, however, that the use of geographic terms to reach nation-wide or more than nation-wide unions does not exclude those of some particular technical structure. The C. I. 0., being admittedly a labor union and one of nation-wide jurisdiction, operation and influence, is certainly in the speech of people a national union, whatever its internal composition. If Congress intended geographic adjectives to have a structural connotation or to have other than their ordinarily accepted meaning, it would and should have given them a special meaning by definition.
The language in its ordinarily accepted sense is consistent with the context and purpose of the Act, which we have defined at length in American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382. As the Courts of Appeals for both the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have said, the congressional purpose was to “wholly eradicate and bar from leadership in the American labor movement, at each and every level, adherents to the Communist party and believers in the unconstitutional overthrow of our Government.” 181 F. 2d 919, 920; 184 F. 2d 98, 101. It would require much clearer language of exemption to justify holding that the very top levels of influence and actual power in the labor movement in this country were untouched while only the lower levels were affected.
The further contention is advanced by the Board that the administrative determination that a petitioning labor organization has complied with the Act is not subject to judicial review at the instance of an employer in an unfair labor practice proceeding. If there were dispute as to whether the C. I. O. had filed the required affidavits or whether documents filed met the statutory requirements and the Board had resolved that question in favor of the labor organizations, a different question would be presented. But here there is no question of fact. While the C. I. O. officers have since filed the affidavits, they were not on file at any time relevant to this proceeding.
It would be strange indeed if the courts were compelled to enforce without inquiry an order which could only result from proceedings that, under the admitted facts, the Board was forbidden to conduct. The Board is a statutory agency, and, when it is forbidden to investigate or entertain complaints in certain circumstances, its final order could hardly be valid. We think the contention is without merit and that an issue of law of this kind, which goes to the heart of the validity of the proceedings on which the order is based, is open to inquiry by the courts when they are asked to lend their enforcement powers to an administrative tribunal.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
Mr. Justice Harlan, for the reasons stated in Daegele v. Kansas, ante, p. 1, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we decide whether Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002), applies retroactively to cases already final on direct review.
I
In April 1981, Finance America employee Brenna Bailey disappeared while on a house call to discuss an outstanding debt with respondent Warren Summerlin’s wife. That evening, an anonymous woman (later identified as respondent’s mother-in-law) called the police and accused respondent of murdering Bailey. Bailey’s partially nude body, her skull crushed, was found the next morning in the trunk of her car, wrapped in a bedspread from respondent’s home. Police arrested respondent and later overheard him make incriminating remarks to his wife.
Respondent was convicted of first-degree murder and sexual assault. Arizona’s capital sentencing provisions in effect at the time authorized the death penalty if one of several enumerated aggravating factors was present. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-703(E), (F) (West 1978), as amended by Act of May 1, 1979 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 144. Whether those aggravating factors existed, however, was determined by the trial judge rather than by a jury. § 13-703(B). In this case the judge, after a hearing, found two aggravating factors: a prior felony conviction involving use or threatened use of violence, § 13-703(F)(2), and commission of the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner, § 13-703(F)(6). Finding no mitigating factors, the judge imposed the death sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed on direct review. State v. Summerlin, 138 Ariz. 426, 675 P. 2d 686 (1983).
Protracted state and federal habeas proceedings followed. While respondent's case was pending in the Ninth Circuit, we decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona, supra. In Apprendi, we interpreted the constitutional due-process and jury-trial guarantees to require that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U. S., at 490. In Ring, we applied this principle to a death sentence imposed under the Arizona sentencing scheme at issue here. We concluded that, because Arizona law authorized the death penalty only if an aggravating factor was present, Apprendi required the existence of such a factor to be proved to a jury rather than to a judge. 536 U. S., at 603-609. We specifically overruled our earlier decision in Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639 (1990), which had upheld an Arizona death sentence against a similar challenge. 536 U. S., at 609.
The Ninth Circuit, relying on Ring, invalidated respondent’s death sentence. Summerlin v. Stewart, 341 F. 3d 1082, 1121 (2003) (en banc). It rejected the argument that Ring did not apply because respondent’s conviction and sentence had become final on direct review before Ring was decided. We granted certiorari. 540 U. S. 1045 (2003).
II
When a decision of this Court results in a “new rule,” that rule applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review. Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 328 (1987). As to convictions that are already final, however, the rule applies only in limited circumstances. New substantive rules generally apply retroactively. This includes decisions that narrow the scope of a criminal statute by interpreting its terms, see Bousley v. United States, 523 U. S. 614, 620-621 (1998), as well as constitutional determinations that place particular conduct or persons covered by the statute beyond the State’s power to punish, see Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484, 494-495 (1990); Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 311 (1989) (plurality opinion). Such rules apply retroactively because they “necessarily carry a significant risk that a defendant stands convicted of ‘an act that the law does not make criminal’” or faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him. Bousley, supra, at 620 (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U. S. 333, 346 (1974)). .
New rules of procedure, on the other hand, generally do not apply retroactively. They do not produce a class of persons convicted of conduct the law does not make criminal, but merely raise the possibility that someone convicted with use of the invalidated procedure might have been acquitted otherwise. Because of this more speculative connection to innocence, we give retroactive effect to only a small set of “ ‘watershed rules of criminal procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” Saffle, supra, at 495 (quoting Teague, 489 U. S., at 311 (plurality opinion)). That a new procedural rule is “fundamental” in some abstract sense is not enough; the rule must be one “without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.” Id., at 313 (emphasis added). This class of rules is extremely narrow, and “it is unlikely that any ... ‘ha[s] yet to emerge.’” Tyler v. Cain, 533 Ü. S. 656, 667, n. 7 (2001) (quoting Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 243 (1990)).
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the State that Ring announced a new rule. 341 F. 3d, at 1108-1109. It nevertheless applied the rule retroactively to respondent’s case, relying on two alternative theories: first, that it was substantive rather than procedural; and second, that it was a “watershed” procedural rule entitled to retroactive effect. We consider each theory in turn.
A
A ruléis substantive rather than procedural if it alters the range of conduct or the class of persons that the law punishes. See Bousley, supra, at 620-621 (rule “hold[s] that a . . . statute does not reach certain conduct” or “make[s] conduct criminal”); Saffle, supra, at 495 (rule “decriminalize[s] a class of conduct [or] prohibit^] the imposition of . . . punishment on a particular class of persons”). In contrast, rules that regulate only the manner of determining the defendant’s culpability are procedural. See Bousley, supra, at 620.
Judged by this standard, Ring’s holding is properly classified as procedural. Ring held that “a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, [may not] find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty.” 536 U. S., at 609. Rather, “the Sixth Amendment requires that [those circumstances] be found by a jury.” Ibid. This holding did not alter the range of conduct Arizona law subjected to the death penalty. It could not have; it rested entirely on the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee, a provision that has nothing to do with the range of conduct a State may criminalize. Instead, Ring altered the range of permissible methods for determining whether a defendant’s conduct is punishable by death, requiring that a jury rather than a judge find the essential facts bearing on punishment. Rules that allocate decisionmaking authority in this fashion are prototypical procedural rules, a conclusion we have reached in numerous other contexts. See Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U. S. 415, 426 (1996) (Erie doctrine); Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 280-281 (1994) (antiretroactivity presumption); Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U. S. 282, 293-294 (1977) (Ex Post Facto Clause).
Respondent nevertheless argues that Ring is substantive because it modified the elements of the offense for which he was convicted. He relies on our statement in Ring that, “[b]ecause Arizona’s enumerated aggravating factors operate as ‘the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense,’ the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.” 536 U. S., at 609 (citation omitted); see also Satta-zahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U. S. 101, 111 (2003) (plurality opinion). The Ninth Circuit agreed, concluding that Ring “reposition[ed] Arizona’s aggravating factors as elements of the separate offense of capital murder and reshaped] the structure of Arizona murder law.” 341 F. 3d, at 1105.
A decision that modifies the elements of an offense is normally substantive rather than procedural. New elements alter the range of conduct the statute punishes, rendering some formerly unlawful conduct lawful or vice versa. See Bousley, 523 U. S., at 620-621. But that is not what Ring did; the range of conduct punished by death in Arizona was the same before Ring as after. Ring held that, because Arizona’s statutory aggravators restricted (as a matter of state law) the class of death-eligible defendants, those aggravators effectively were elements for federal constitutional purposes, and so were subject to the procedural requirements the Constitution attaches to trial of elements. 536 U. S., at 609. This Court’s holding that, because Arizona has made a certain fact essential to the death penalty, that fact must be found by a jury, is not the same as this Court’s making a certain fact essential to the death penalty. The former was a procedural holding; the latter would be substantive. The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that Ring nonetheless “reshaped] the structure of Arizona murder law,” 341 F. 3d, at 1105, is particularly remarkable in the face of the Arizona Supreme Court’s previous conclusion to the contrary. See State v. Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, 390-391, 64 P. 3d 828, 832-833, cert. dism’d, 539 U. S. 986 (2003).
B
Respondent argues in the alternative that Ring falls under the retroactivity exception for “ ‘watershed rules of criminal procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” Saffle, 494 U. S., at 495 (quoting Teague, 489 U. S., at 311). He offers several reasons why juries are more accurate factfinders, including the tendency of group deliberation to suppress individual eccentricities; the jury’s protection from exposure to inadmissible evidence; and its better representation of the common sense of the community. The Ninth Circuit majority added others, including the claim that a judge might be too acclimated to capital sentencing and that he might be swayed by political pressure. 341 F. 3d, at 1109-1116. Respondent further notes that common-law authorities praised the jury’s fact-finding ability. See, e. g., 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 380 (1768); Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 1, 4 (1794) (jury charge of Jay, C. J.).
The question here is not, however, whether the Framers believed that juries are more accurate factfinders than judges (perhaps so — they certainly thought juries were more independent, see Blakely v. Washington, ante, at 305-308). Nor is the question whether juries actually are more accurate factfinders than judges (again, perhaps so). Rather, the question is whether judicial factfinding so “seriously dimin-ishe[s]” accuracy that there is an ‘“impermissibly large risk’ ” of punishing conduct the law does not reach. Teague, supra, at 312-313 (quoting Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 262 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting)) (emphasis added). The evidence is simply too equivocal to support that conclusion.
First, for every argument why juries are more accurate factfinders, there is another why they are less accurate. The Ninth Circuit dissent noted several, including juries’ tendency to become confused over legal standards and to be influenced by emotion or philosophical predisposition. 341 F. 3d, at 1129-1131 (opinion of Rawlinson, J.) (citing, inter alia, Eisenberg & Wells, Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases, 79 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (1993); Garvey, The Emotional Economy of Capital Sentencing, 75 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 26 (2000); and Bowers, Sandys, & Steiner, Foreclosed Impartiality in Capital Sentencing: Jurors’ Predispositions, Guilt-Trial Experience, and Premature Decision Making, 83 Cornell L. Rev. 1476 (1998)). Members of this Court have opined that judicial sentencing may yield more consistent results because of judges’ greater experience. See Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 252 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). Finally, the mixed reception that the right to jury trial has been given in other countries, see Vidmar, The Jury Elsewhere in the World, in World Jury Systems 421-447 (N. Vidmar ed. 2000), though irrelevant to the meaning and continued existence of that right under our Constitution, surely makes it implausible that judicial fact-finding so “seriously diminished]” accuracy as to produce an “ ‘impermissibly large risk’ ” of injustice. When so many presumably reasonable minds continue to disagree over whether juries are better factfinders at all, we cannot confidently say that judicial factfinding seriously diminishes accuracy.
Our decision in DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U. S. 631 (1968) (per curiam), is on point. There we refused to give retroac-tiv'e effect to Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), which applied the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee to the States. While DeStefano was decided under our preTeague retroactivity framework, its reasoning is germane. We noted that, although “the right to jury trial generally tends to prevent arbitrariness and repression!,] . . , ‘[w]e would not assert... that every criminal trial — or any particular trial — held before a judge alone is unfair or that a defendant may never be as fairly treated by a judge as he would be by a jury.’” 392 U. S., at 633-634 (quoting Duncan, supra, at 158). We concluded that “[t]he values implemented by the right to jury trial would not measurably be served by requiring retrial of all persons convicted in the past by procedures not consistent with the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.” 392 U. S., at 634. If under De-Stefano a trial held entirely without a jury was not impermissibly inaccurate, it is hard to see how a trial in which a judge finds only aggravating factors could be.
The dissent contends that juries are more accurate because they better reflect community standards in deciding whether, for example, a murder was heinous, cruel, or depraved. Post, at 361-362 (opinion of Breyer, J.). But the statute here does not condition death eligibility on whether the offense is heinous, cruel, or depraved as determined by community standards. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(F)(6) (West 1978). It is easy to find enhanced accuracy in jury determination when one redefines the statute’s substantive scope in such manner as to ensure that result. The dissent also advances several variations on the theme that death is different (or rather, “dramatically different,” post, at 363). Much of this analysis is not an application of Teague, but a rejection of it, in favor of a broader endeavor to “balance competing considerations,” post, at 362. Even were we inclined to revisit Teague in this fashion, we would not agree with the dissent’s conclusions. Finally, the dissent notes that, in DeStefano, we considered factors other than enhanced accuracy that are no longer relevant after Teague. See post, at 365. But we held in that case that “fa]H three factors favor only prospective application of the rule.” 392 U. S., at 633 (emphasis added). Thus, the result would have been the same even if enhanced accuracy were the sole criterion for retroactivity.
* * *
The right to jury trial is fundamental to our system of criminal procedure, and States are bound to enforce the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees as we interpret them. But it does hot follow that, when a criminal defendant has had a full trial and one round of appeals in which the State faithfully applied the Constitution as we understood it at the time, he may nevertheless continue to litigate his claims indefinitely in hopes that we will one day have a change of heart. Ring announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. The contrary judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Because Arizona law already required aggravating factors to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, see State v. Jordan, 126 Ariz. 283, 286, 614 P. 2d 825, 828, cert. denied, 449 U. S. 986 (1980), that aspect of Apprendi was not at issue.
Because respondent filed his habeas petition before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1214, the provisions of that Act do not apply. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 336-337 (1997).
The State also sought certiorari on the ground that there was no Apprendi violation because the prior-conviction aggravator, exempt from Apprendi under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224 (1998), was sufficient standing alone to authorize the death penalty. We denied certiorari on that issue, 540 U. S. 1045 (2003), and express no opinion on it.
We have sometimes referred to rules of this latter type as falling under an exception to Teague’s bar on retroactive application of procedural rules, see, e. g., Horn v. Banks, 536 U. S. 266, 271, and n. 5 (2002) (per curiam); they are more accurately characterized as substantive rules not subject to the bar.
Respondent also argues that Ring was substantive because our understanding of Arizona law changed. Compare Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 602-603 (2002), with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 496-497 (2000). Even if our understanding of state law changed, however, the actual content of state law did not. See State v. Ring, 200 Ariz. 267, 279, 25 P. 3d 1139, 1151 (2001), rev'd on other grounds, 536 U. S. 584 (2002); State v. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. 42, 54, 659 P. 2d 1, 13, cert. denied, 461 U. S. 971 (1983); Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U. S. 911, 916 (1997).
The dissent distinguishes DeStefano on the ground that “this ease involves only a small subclass of defendants deprived of jury trial rights, the relevant harm within that subclass is more widespread, the administration of justice problem is far less serious, and the reliance interest less weighty.” Post, at 366. But the first, third, and fourth of these points are irrelevant under Teague, and the second, insofar as it relates to accuracy, is an unsubstantiated assertion. If jury trial significantly enhances accuracy, we would not have been able to hold as we did in DeStefano that the first factor — “preventing] arbitrariness and repression,” 392 U. S., at 633 — did not favor retroactivity.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action by the United States to recover statutory forfeitures under the False Claims Act. The question is whether the Act applies to the supplying of false information in support of an application to a federal agency, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), for a loan. The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that an application for a CCC loan, as distinguished from a claim for payment of an obligation owed by the Government, is not a “claim” within the meaning of the Act. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. We granted certiorari. 389 U. S. 814 (1967).
The CCC is authorized to make loans to grain growers to finance the construction or purchase of storage facilities. § 4 (h) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, as amended, 62 Stat. 1071, 15 U. S. C. § 714b (h). Pursuant to its authority under statute, 15 U. S. C. § 714b (d), the CCC has adopted regulations providing for the granting of loans in amounts not to exceed 80% of the actual purchase price of storage bins. A grain grower who desires to apply for a loan is required to support his application by an invoice showing the purchase price and the amount of the down payment made by him. 23 Fed. Reg. 9687.
Since the Government’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true for present purposes. According to the complaint, respondent is a dealer in grain storage bins. In 1959, in selling bins to 12 grain farmers, one of respondent’s officers prepared invoices in which the purchase price was deliberately overstated. The purpose was fraudulently to induce the CCC to extend loans to respondent’s customers in amounts exceeding 80% of the actual purchase price. The invoices were submitted to the CCC along with the loan applications, and the agency relied on the overstated purchase price in determining the amount of loans that were subsequently made. The United States claims the statutory forfeiture of $2,000 for each of the 12 alleged violations of the Act.
The issue in this case is narrow and precise: Does the False Claims Act reach “claims” for favorable action by the Government upon applications for loans or is it confined to “claims” for payments due and owing from the Government? It is respondent’s position that the term “claims” in the Act must be read in its narrow sense to include only a demand based upon the Government’s liability to the claimant. Respondent relies upon United States v. Cohn, 270 U. S. 339 (1926), and United States v. McNinch, 356 U. S. 595 (1958), to support this narrow reading.
Cohm, involved a criminal proceeding under an earlier version of the present False Claims Act. It concerned a fraudulent application to obtain the release of merchandise which did not belong to the United States and which was being held by the customs authorities as bailee only. The case did not involve an attempt, by fraud, to cause the Government to part with its money or property, either in discharge of an obligation or in response to an application for discretionary action. The language in the Court’s opinion upon which respondent relies cannot be taken as a decision upon a point which the facts of the case did not present.
In McNinch, the Government brought suit for damages and forfeitures under the False Claims Act, in its present form, against persons who had filed fraudulent applications for home-modernization loans with a private bank which was regularly insured by the Federal Housing Administration against losses on such loans. The bank granted the loans sought by defendants, which were “routinely” insured by the FHA. 356 U. S., at 597, n. 4. This Court held that since FHA “disburses no funds nor does it otherwise suffer immediate financial detriment,” id., at 599, the transaction was not within the ambit of the False Claims Act. The Court emphasized the distinction between contracts of insurance against loss such as those involved in McNinch, and transactions in which the United States pays or lends money. For purposes of the present case, we need not reconsider the validity of this distinction. It is sufficient to note that the instant case involves a false statement made with the purpose and effect of inducing the Government immediately to part with money.
The precise question presented by this case has never been considered by the Court. However, both the history and the language of the False Claims Act, as well as the thrust of our prior decisions, indicate the answer to our present inquiry. The original False Claims Act was passed in 1863 as a result of investigations of the fraudulent use of government funds during the Civil War. Debates at the time suggest that the Act was intended to reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the Government. In its present form the Act is broadly phrased to reach any person who makes or causes to be made “any claim upon or against” the United States, or who makes a false “bill, receipt, . . . claim, . . . affidavit, or deposition” for the purpose of “obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or approval of” such a false claim. In the various contexts in which questions of the proper construction of the Act have been presented, the Court has consistently refused to accept a rigid, restrictive reading, even at the time when the statute imposed criminal sanctions as well as civil. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537 (1943).
On the very day that this Court decided McNinch, it also decided three cases holding that a fraudulent application for a loan submitted to the CCC was a claim against the Government of the United States, within the meaning of the False Claims Act. The question debated in those cases was not the meaning of the word “claim,” but whether the CCC, a wholly owned government corporation, was “the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof” within the meaning of the statute. In the course of its opinion on this matter, the Court noted that the objective of Congress in enacting the False Claims Act “was broadly to protect the funds and property of the Government from fraudulent claims, regardless of the particular form, or function, of the government instrumentality upon which such claims were made” and that “ [b] y any ordinary standard the language of the Act is certainly comprehensive enough to achieve this purpose.” Rainwater v. United States, 356 U. S. 590, 592 (1958).
Analogous reasoning leads us to hold today that the False Claims Act should not be given the narrow reading that respondent urges. This remedial statute reaches beyond “claims” which might be legally enforced, to all fraudulent attempts to cause the Government to pay out sums of money. We believe the term “claim,” as used in the statute, is broad enough to reach the conduct alleged by the Government in its complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In relevant part, the statute provides as follows:
R. S. § 3490 (1874):
“Any person . . . who shall do or commit any of the acts prohibited by any of the provisions of section fifty-four hundred and thirty-eight, Title ‘CRIMES/ shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of two thousand dollars, and, in addition, double the amount of damages which the United States may have sustained by reason of the doing or committing such act . . . .”
R. S. § 5438 (1874):
“Every person who makes or causes to be made, or presents or causes to be presented, for payment or approval, to or by any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, or who, for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or approval of such claim, makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, or who enters into any agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, by obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or allowance of any false or fraudulent claim, . . . shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one nor more than five years, or fined not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand dollars.”
The criminal aspect of this statutory scheme has been altered and codified in 18 U. S. C. §287 and 18 U. S. C. § 1001; see n. 2, infra. The civil (forfeiture) provisions have been codified, unaltered, in 31 U. S. C. § 231, but the above-cited version of these provisions continues to be the official one. The above-quoted provisions survive only insofar as civil liability is concerned.
No other issue is presented. The statute expressly reaches persons who falsify a “receipt” “for the purpose of . . . aiding to obtain the payment or approval of [a] claim.” See n. 1, supra.
See n. 1, supra. The criminal aspect of the original False Claims Act has been carried forward in two separate criminal statutes currently in force. Section 287 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person to present “any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent.”
Section 1001 of the same title subjects to criminal penalties “[w]hoever . . . knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry.”
Respondent has been indicted under still another criminal statute, 15 U. S. C. § 714m (a), which prohibits the making of false statements for the purpose of influencing the CCC.
“[I]t is clear, in the light of the entire context, that in the present statute, the provision relating to the payment or approval of a ‘claim upon or against’ the Government relates solely to the payment or approval of a claim for money or property to which a right is asserted against the Government, based upon the Government’s own liability to the claimant!’ 270 U. S., at 345-346. (Emphasis added.)
See Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess., 952-958.
See n. 1, supra.
The principal case was Rainwater v. United States, 356 U. S. 590 (1958). Reference was made to the other two cases, Cato Bros. v. United States and Toepleman v. United States, in the course of the opinion in McNinch.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), we held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., at 490. In federal prosecutions, such facts must also be charged in the indictment. Id., at 476 (quoting Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227, 243, n. 6 (1999)). In this case, we address whether the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence justifies a court of appeals’ vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
Respondent Stanley Hall, Jr., led a “vast drug organization” in Baltimore. 261 F. 3d 397, 401 (CA4 2001). The six other respondents helped run the operation. In October 1997, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging respondents with conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§846 and 841(a)(1). A superseding indictment returned in March 1998, which extended the time period of the conspiracy and added five more defendants, charged a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a “detectable amount” of cocaine and cocaine báse. The superseding indictment did not allege any of the threshold levels of drug quantity that lead to enhanced penalties under § 841(b).
In accord with the superseding indictment, the District Court instructed the jury that “as long as you find that a defendant conspired to distribute or posses[s] with intent to distribute these controlled substances, the amounts involved are not important.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a (emphasis deleted). The jury found respondents guilty.
Congress established “a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years” for drug offenses involving a detectable quantity of cocaine or cocaine base. § 841(b)(1)(C). But the District Court did not sentence respondents under this provision. Consistent with the practice in federal courts at the time, at sentencing the District Court made a finding of drug quantity that implicated the enhanced penalties of § 841(b)(1)(A), which prescribes “a term of imprisonment which may not be . . . more than life” for drug offenses involving at least 50 grams of cocaine base. The District Court found, based on the trial testimony, respondent Hall responsible for at least 500 grams of cocaine base, and the other respondents responsible for at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base. The court sentenced respondents Hall and Powell to 30 years' imprisonment and the other respondents to life imprisonment. Respondents did not object in the District Court to the fact that these sentences were based on an amount of drug quantity not alleged in the indictment.
While respondents’ appeal was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, we decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, supra. Respondents then argued in the Court of Appeals that their sentences were invalid under Apprendi, because the issue of drug quantity was neither alleged in the indictment nor submitted to the petit jury. The Court of Appeals noted that respondents “failed to raise this argument before the district court” and thus reviewed the argument for plain error. 261 F. 3d, at 403 (citing Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b)). A divided court nonetheless vacated respondents’ sentences , on the ground that “because an indictment setting forth all the essential elements of an offense is both mandatory and jurisdictional,... a court is without jurisdiction to . . . impose a sentence for an offense not charged in the indictment.” 261 F. 3d, at 404-405 (internal quotation marks omitted). Such an error, the Court of Appeals concluded, “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id., at 406. We granted certiorari, 534 U. S. 1074 (2002), and now reverse.
We first address the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the omission from the indictment was a “jurisdictional” defect and thus required vacating respondents’ sentences. Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1 (1887), is the progenitor of this view. In Bain, the indictment charged that Bain, the cashier and director of a bank, made false statements “with intent to deceive the Comptroller of the Currency and the agent appointed to examine the affairs” of the bank. Id., at 4. Before trial, the court struck the words “the Comptroller of the Currency and,” on the ground that they were superfluous. The jury found Bain guilty. Id., at 4-5. Bain challenged the amendment to the indictment in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court concluded that the amendment was improper and that therefore “the jurisdiction of the offence [was] gone, and the court [had] no right to proceed any further in the progress of the case for want of an indictment.” Id., at 13.
Bain, however, is a product of an era in which this Court’s authority to review criminal convictions was greatly circumscribed. At the time it was decided, a defendant could not obtain direct review of his criminal conviction in the Supreme Court. See generally United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310, 319-322 (1892); L. Orfield, Criminal Appeals in America 244-246 (1939). The Court’s authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus was limited to cases in which the convicting “court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment which it gave.” Bain, supra, at 3; see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 485 (1973). In 1887, therefore, this Court could examine constitutional errors in a criminal trial only on a writ of habeas corpus, and only then if it deemed the error “jurisdictional.” The Court’s desire to correct obvious constitutional violations led to a “somewhat expansive notion of ‘jurisdiction,’” Custis v. United States, 511 U. S. 485, 494 (1994), which was “more a fiction than anything else,” Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 79 (1977).
Bain's elastic concept of jurisdiction is not what the term “jurisdiction” means today, i. e., “the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 89 (1998). This latter concept of subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived. Consequently, defects in subject-matter jurisdiction require correction regardless of whether the error was raised in district court. See, e. g., Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149 (1908). In contrast, the grand jury right can be waived. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 7(b); Smith v. United States, 360 U. S. 1, 6 (1959).
Post-Bain eases confirm that defects in an indictment do not deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case. In Lamar v. United States, 240 U. S. 60 (1916), the Court rejected the claim that “the court had no jurisdiction because the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States.” Id., at 64. Justice Holmes explained that a district court “has jurisdiction of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States . . . [and] [t]he objection that the indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case.” Id., at 65. Similarly, United States v. Williams, 341 U. S. 58, 66 (1951), held that a ruling “that the indictment is defective does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court to determine the case presented by the indictment.”
Thus, this Court some time ago departed from Bain's view that indictment defects are “jurisdictional.” Bain has been cited in later cases such as Stirone v. United States, 361 U. S. 212 (1960), and Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749 (1962), for the proposition that “an indictment may not be amended except by resubmission to the grand jury, unless the change is merely á matter of form,” id., at 770 (citing Bain, supra). But in each of these cases proper objection had been made in the District Court to the sufficiency of the indictment. We need not retreat from this settled proposition of law decided in Bain to say that the analysis of that issue in terms of “jurisdiction” was mistaken in the light of later cases such as Lamar and Williams. Insofar as it held that a defective indictment deprives a court of jurisdiction, Bain is overruled.
Freed from the view that indictment omissions deprive a court of jurisdiction, we proceed to apply the plain-error test of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) to respondents’ forfeited claim. See United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 731 (1993). “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.’ ” Johnson v. United States, 520 U. S. 461, 466-467 (1997) (quoting Olano, supra, 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.” 520 U. S., at 467 (internal quotation marks omit-, ted) (quoting Olano, supra, at 732).
The Government concedes that the indictment’s failure to allege a fact, drug quantity, that increased the statutory maximum sentence rendered respondents’ enhanced sentences erroneous under the reasoning of Apprendi and Jones. The Government also concedes that such error was plain. See Johnson, supra, at 468 (“[Wjhere 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”).
The third inquiry is whether the plain error “affect[ed] substantial rights.” This usually means that the error “must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Olano, supra, at 734. Respondents argue that an indictment error falls within the “limited class” of “structural errors,” Johnson, supra, at 468-469, that “can be corrected regardless of their effect on the outcome,” Olano, supra, at 735. Respondents cite Silber v. United States, 370 U. S. 717 (1962) (per curiam), and Stirone v. United States, supra, in support of this position. The Government counters by noting that Johnson’s list of structural errors did not include Stirone or Silber, see 520 U. S., at 468-469, and that the defendants in both of these cases preserved their claims at trial.
As in Johnson (see id., at 469), we need not resolve whether respondents satisfy this element of the plain-error inquiry, because even assuming respondents’ substantial rights were affected, the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The error in Johnson was the District Court’s failure to submit an element of the false statement offense, materiality, to the petit jury. The evidence of materiality, however, was “overwhelming” and “essentially uncontroverted.” Id., at 470. We thus held that there was “no basis for concluding that the error ‘seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Ibid.
The same analysis applies in this case to the omission of drug quantity from the indictment. The evidence that the conspiracy involved at least 50 grams of cocaine base was “overwhelming” and “essentially uncontroverted.” Much of the evidence implicating respondents in the drug conspiracy revealed the conspiracy’s involvement with far more than 50 grams of cocaine base. Baltimore police officers made numerous state arrests and seizures between February 1996 and April 1997 that resulted in the seizure of 795 zip-lock bags and clear bags containing approximately 380 grams of cocaine base. 20 Record 179-244. A federal search of respondent Jovan Powell’s residence resulted in the seizure of 51.3 grams of cocaine base. 32 id., at 18-30. A cooperating co-conspirator testified at trial that he witnessed respondent Hall cook one-quarter of a kilogram of cocaine powder into cocaine base. 22 id., at 208. Another cooperating co-conspirator testified at trial that she was present in a hotel room where the drug operation bagged one kilogram of cocaine base into ziplock bags. 27 id., at 107-108. Surely the grand jury, having found that the conspiracy existed, would have also found that the conspiracy involved at least 50 grams of cocaine base.
Respondents emphasize that the Fifth Amendment grand jury right serves a vital function in providing for a body of citizens that acts as a check on prosecutorial power. No doubt that is true. See, e. g., 3 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1779 (1883), reprinted in 5 The Founders’ Constitution 295 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987). But that is surely no less true of the Sixth Amendment right to a petit jury, which, unlike the grand jury, must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The important role of the petit jury did not, however, prevent us in Johnson from applying the longstanding rule “that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right....” Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 444 (1944).
In providing for graduated penalties in 21 U. S. C. § 841(b), Congress intended that defendants, like respondents, involved in large-scale drug operations receive more severe punishment than those committing drug offenses involving lesser quantities. Indeed, the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system depends on meting out to those inflicting the greatest harm on society the most severe punishments. The real threat then to the “fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings” would be if respondents, despite the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence that they were involved in a vast drug conspiracy, were to receive a sentence prescribed for those committing less substantial drug offenses because of an error that was never objected to at trial. Cf. Johnson, supra, at 470 (quoting R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 50 (1970)).
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In 1889, Congress authorized direct review of capital cases in the Supreme Court. See 25 Stat. 655. In 1891, this right was extended to defendants in all cases involving “infamous crime[s].” 26 Stat. 827; see In re Claasen, 140 U. S. 200 (1891).
Respondents also argue that even if the indictment defect is not structural error, it did affect their substantial rights because they were sentenced to more than the 20-year maximum that § 841(b) authorizes without regard to drug quantity. The Government responds that the defendants had notice that their sentences could exceed 20 years, and that the grand jury would have found that the conspiracy involved at least 50 grams of cocaine base had the Government sought such an allegation.
Respondents challenged the presentence reports’ assignment of a base offense level of 38, which is applicable to 1.5 kilograms or more of cocaine base. But they never argued that the conspiracy involved less than 50 grams of cocaine base, which is the relevant quantity for purposes of Apprendi, as that is the threshold quantity for the penalty of life imprisonment in 21 U. S. C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners stand convicted on a single-count indictment charging a conspiracy under § 1 of the Sherman Act. They contend that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit them to inspect the grand jury minutes covering the testimony before that body of a key government witness at the trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, 260 F. 2d 397. With reference to the present claim, it held that Rule 6 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure committed the inspection or not of grand jury minutes to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and that in this instance, no abuse of that discretion had been shown. We granted certiorari limited to the question posed by this ruling; 358 U. S. 917, 918. We conclude that in the circumstances of this case the trial court did not err in refusing to make. Jonas’ grand jury testimony available to petitioners for use in cross-examination.
The indictment returned in the case named as defendants seven corporations, all manufacturers of mirrors, and three of their officers. However, only three of the corporations are petitioners here, along with one individual, J. A. Messer, Sr. The indictment charged a conspiracy to fix the price of plain plate glass mirrors sold in interstate commerce. It is not necessary for our purposes to detail the facts of this long trial, the record of which covers 860 pages. It is sufficient to say that the Government proved its case through 10 witnesses, the last of whom was Jonas. He was President of a large North Carolina mirror manufacturing company and had a reputation for independence in the industry. Although neither he nor his corporation was indicted, the latter was made a co-conspirator. The evidence indicates that the conspiracy was consummated at two meetings held on successive days during the week of-the annual meeting of the Mirror Manufacturers Association in 1954 at Asheville, North Carolina. Jonas, not being a member of the Association, did not attend the convention. Talk at the convention regarding prices culminated in telephone calls by several representatives of mirror manufacturers to, Jonas concerning his attitude on raising prices. On the day following these calls Jonas and three of the participants in the conspiracy met at an inn away from the convention headquarters and discussed “prices/’ Within three days thereafter each of the manufacturers announced an identical price increase, which was approximately 10 percent. Jonas’ testimony, of course, was confined to the telephone calls and the meeting at .the inn' where the understanding was finalized. The Government admits that he was an “important” witness. However, proof of the conspiracy, was overwhelming aside from Jonas’ testimony. While he was the only witness who characterized the outcome of the meetings as an “agreement” on prices, no witness negatived this conclusion and the identical price "fists that followed the meeting at the inn were little less than proof positive.
After the conclusion of Jonas’ testimony, defense counsel interrogated him as to the number of times he appeared and the subject of' his testimony before the grand jury. Upon ascertaining that Jonas had testified three times on “the same general subject matter,” counsel moved for the delivery of the grand jury minutes. He stated that the petitioners had “a right ... to inspect the Grand Jury, record of the testimony of this witness after he has completed his direct-examination” relating to “the same general subject matter” as his trial testimony. As authority for “the automatic delivery of Grand Jury transcripts” under'such circumstances-counsel cited Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657 (1957). As previously indicated, the motion was denied.
It appears to us clear that Jencks v. United States, supra, is in nowise controlling here. It had nothing to do with grand jury proceedings and its language was not intended to encompass grand jury minutes. Likewise, it is equally clear that Congress intended to exclude those minutes from the operation of the so-called Jencks Act, 71 Stat. 595, 18 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1958) § 3500.
Petitioners concede, as they must, that any disclosure of grand jury minutes is covered by Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 6 (e) promulgated by this Court in 1946 after the approval of Congress. In fact, the federal' trial courts as well as the Courts of Appeals have been nearly unanimous in regarding disclosure as committed to the discretion of the trial judge. Our cases announce the same principle, and Rule 6 (e) is but declaratory of it. As recently' as last Term we characterized cases where grand jury minutes are used “to impeach a witness, to refresh his recollection, to test his credibility and the like” as instances of “particularized need where the secrecy of thé proceedings is lifted discretely and limitedly.” United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U. S. 677, 683 (1958).
Petitioners argue, however, that the trial judge’s discretion under Rule 6 (e) must be exercised in accordance with the rationale of Jencks; namely, upon a showing on cross-examination that a trial witness testified before the grand jury — and nothing more — the defense has a “right” to the delivery to it of the witness’ grand jury testimony.
This conclusion, however, runs counter to “a long-established policy” of secrecy, United States v. Procter & Gamble, supra, at 681, older than our Nation itself. The reásons therefor are manifold, id., at 682, and are compelling when viewed in the light of the history and modus operandi of the grand jury. Its establishment in the Constitution “as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases” indeed “shows the high place it [holds] as an instrument of justice.” Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 362 (1956). Ever since this action by the .Fathers, the American grand jury, like that of England, “has convened as a body of laymen, free from technical rules, acting in secret, pledged to indict no one because of prejudice and to free no one because of special favor.” Ibid. Indeed, indictments- may be returned on hearsay, or for that matter,. even on the knowledge of the grand jurors themselves. Id., at 362, 363. To make public any part of its proceedings would inevitably detract from its efficacy. Grand jurors would not act with that independence required of an accusatory and inquisitorial body. Moreover, not only would the participation of the jurors be curtailed, but testimony would be parsimonious if each ydtness knew that his testimony would soon be.in the hands of the accused. Especially is this true in antitrust proceedings where fear of business reprisal might haunt both the grand juror and the witness. And this “go slow” sign would continue as realistically at the time of trial as theretofore.
It does not follow, however, that grand jury minutes should never be made available to the defense. This Court has long held that there are occasions, see United States v. Procter & Gamble, supra, at 683, when the trial judge may in the exercise of his discretion order the minutes of a grand jury witness produced for use on his cross-examination at trial. Certainly “disclosure is wholly proper where the ends of justice require it.” United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., supra, at 234.
• The burden, however, is on the defense to show that “a particularized need” exists for the minutes which outweighs the policy of secrecy. We have no such showing here. As we read the record the petitioners failed to show any need' whatever for the testimony of the witness Jonas. They contended only that they had a “right” to the transcript because it dealt with subject matter generally covered at the trial. Petitioners indicate that the trial judge required a showing of contradiction between Jonas’ trial and grand jury testimony. Such a preliminary showing would not, of course, be necessary. While in a colloquy with counsel the judge did refer to such a requirement, we read his denial as being based on the breadth of petitioners’ claim. Petitioners also claim error because the trial judge failed to examine the transcript himself for any inconsistencies. But we need not consider .that problem because petitioners made no such request of the trial judge. The Court of Appeals apparently was of the view that even if the trial judge had been requested to examine the transcript he would not have been absolutely required to do so. It is contended here that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reached a contrary conclusion. United States v. Spangelet, 258 F. 2d 338. Be that as it may, resolution of that question must await a case where the issue is'presented by the record. The short of it is that in the present case the petitioners did not invoke the discretion of the trial judge, but asserted a supposed absolute right, a right which we hold they did not have. The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
“Rule 6. The Grand Jury.
“(e) Secrecy of Proceedings and Disclosure. Disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury other than its deliberations and the vote of any juror may be made to the attorneys for the government for • use in the performance of their duties. Otherwise a juror, attorney, interpreter or stenographer may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury only when so directed by the court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding or when.permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon a showing that, grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury. No obligation of secrecy may be imposed upon any person except in accordance with this rule. The court may direct that an indictment shall be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has given bail, and in that event the clerk shall seal the indictment and no- person shall disclose the finding of the indictment except when necessary for the issuance and execution of a warrant or summons.”
The fact that the trial testimony and that before the grand jury included the same “subjects” or related to "the same general subject matter” is not’ contested.
See S. Rep. No. 981, 85th Cong., 1st Sess.; 103 Cong. Rec. 15933.
E. g., United States v. Spangelet, 258 F. 2d 338; United States v. Angelet, 255 F. 2d 383; United States v. Rose, 215 F. 2d 617, 629; Schmidt v. United States, 115 F. 2d 394; United States v. American Medical Assn., 26 F. Supp. 429.
United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150 (1940). And see United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677 (1958); United States v. Johnson, 319 U. S. 503, 513 (1943).
See Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules, following Rule 6, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, as is the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Under 28 U. S. C. § 1915 he applied to the District Court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Petitioner, who was assisted by court-appointed counsel in preparing his application, contended that the evidence was insufficient to justify his conviction and that the trial court had committed reversible error by permitting the United States Attorney to ask him irrelevant and prejudicial questions about another criminal offense. Petitioner requested that the District Court make available a transcript of the trial record so he could substantiate his claimed errors. In reply the United States Attorney filed an affidavit asserting that the evidence was sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction. However the affidavit did not directly controvert petitioner’s claim that the prosecuting attorney had been allowed to inject irrelevant and prejudicial matter into the trial. Counsel for petitioner then filed an affidavit in answer supporting petitioner’s allegation of errors.
The District Court refused the request for a transcript of the trial record and denied the application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on the ground that the appeal was “not taken in good faith” because it was “frivolous and without merit” and “[t]he evidence amply supported the verdict.” Petitioner then asked the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal in forma pauperis but that court denied his request indicating that his claimed errors were without substance. 242 F. 2d 338. And see 238 F. 2d 575.
As things now stand conflicting affidavits have been introduced concerning petitioner’s contention of errors at the trial. If the allegations made by petitioner and his counsel are correct then it seems quite clear to us that his appeal cannot be characterized as frivolous. Before his allegation of errors can be accurately evaluated, however, to ascertain if they do have any merit he should be furnished with a transcript of the trial record — unless counsel can agree on a statement of the relevant facts or some other means are devised to make the minutes of the trial available to petitioner — so that he has an opportunity to substantiate his allegations and point out their significance and so that they can be appraised on a dependable record. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565. In our judgment petitioner has not yet been afforded an adequate opportunity to show the Court of Appeals that his claimed errors are not frivolous so as to enable that court to review properly the District Court’s certification that the appeal was in bad faith. Accordingly the judgment below must be vacated and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan 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:
|
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 KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The suit giving rise to the case before the Court was filed by a plaintiff who was a member of a putative class in a class action but who later elected to withdraw and proceed in this separate suit, seeking recovery for the same illegalities that were alleged in the class suit. The class-action suit had been filed within the time permitted by statute. Whether the later, separate suit was also timely is the controlling question.
I
A
The Securities Act of 1933 "protects investors by ensuring that companies issuing securities... make a 'full and fair disclosure of information' relevant to a public offering." Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1318, 1323, 191 L.Ed.2d 253 (2015) (quoting Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 646, 108 S.Ct. 2063, 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988) ); see 48 Stat. 74, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq. Companies may offer securities to the public only after filing a registration statement, which must contain information about the company and the security for sale. Omnicare, 575 U.S., at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1323. Section 11 of the Securities Act "promotes compliance with these disclosure provisions by giving purchasers a right of action against an issuer or designated individuals," including securities underwriters, for any material misstatements or omissions in a registration statement. Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1323 ; see 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a).
The Act provides time limits for § 11 suits. These time limits are set forth in a two-sentence section of the Act, § 13. It provides as follows:
"No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under [§ 11] unless brought within one year after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence.... In no event shall any such action be brought to enforce a liability created under [§ 11] more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public...." 15 U.S.C. § 77m.
So there are two time bars in the quoted provision; and the second one, the 3-year bar, is central to this case.
B
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. formerly was one of the largest investment banks in the United States. In 2007 and 2008, Lehman raised capital through a number of public securities offerings. Petitioner, California Public Employees' Retirement System (sometimes called CalPERS), is the largest public pension fund in the country. Petitioner purchased securities in some of these Lehman offerings; and it is alleged that respondents, various financial firms, are liable under the Act for their participation as underwriters in the transactions. The separate respondents are listed in an appendix to this opinion.
In September 2008, Lehman filed for bankruptcy. Around the same time, a putative class action concerning Lehman securities was filed against respondents in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The operative complaint raised claims under § 11, alleging that the registration statements for certain of Lehman's 2007 and 2008 securities offerings included material misstatements or omissions. The complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the identified securities, making petitioner a member of the putative class. Petitioner, however, was not one of the named plaintiffs in the suit. The class action was consolidated with other securities suits against Lehman in a single multidistrict litigation.
In February 2011, petitioner filed a separate complaint against respondents in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This suit was filed more than three years after the relevant transactions occurred. The complaint alleged identical securities law violations as the class-action complaint, but the claims were on petitioner's own behalf. The suit was transferred and consolidated with the multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of New York. Soon thereafter, a proposed settlement was reached in the putative class action. Petitioner, apparently convinced it could obtain a more favorable recovery in its separate suit, opted out of the class.
Respondents then moved to dismiss petitioner's individual suit alleging § 11 violations as untimely under the 3-year bar in the second sentence of § 13. Petitioner countered that its individual suit was timely because that 3-year period was tolled during the pendency of the class-action filing. The principal authority cited to support petitioner's argument that the 3-year period was tolled was American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974).
The District Court disagreed with petitioner's argument, holding that the 3-year bar in § 13 is not subject to tolling. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. In agreement with the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that the tolling principle discussed in American Pipe is inapplicable to the 3-year time bar. In re Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation, 655 Fed.Appx. 13, 15 (2016). As the Court of Appeals noted, there is disagreement about whether the tolling rule of American Pipe applies to the 3-year time bar in § 13. Compare Joseph v. Wiles, 223 F.3d 1155, 1166-1168 (C.A.10 2000), with Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc., 821 F.3d 780, 792-795 (C.A.6 2016), and Dusek v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 832 F.3d 1243, 1246-1249 (C.A.11 2016).
The Court of Appeals also rejected petitioner's alternative argument that its individual claims were "essentially 'filed' in the putative class complaint," so that the filing of the class action within three years made the individual claims timely. 655 Fed. Appx., at 15.
This Court granted certiorari. 580 U.S. ---- (2017).
II
The question then is whether § 13 permits the filing of an individual complaint more than three years after the relevant securities offering, when a class-action complaint was timely filed, and the plaintiff filing the individual complaint would have been a member of the class but for opting out of it. The answer turns on the nature and purpose of the 3-year bar and of the tolling rule that petitioner seeks to invoke. Each will be addressed in turn.
A
As the Court explained in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2175, 189 L.Ed.2d 62 (2014), statutory time bars can be divided into two categories: statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. Both "are mechanisms used to limit the temporal extent or duration of liability for tortious acts," but "each has a distinct purpose." Id., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2182.
Statutes of limitations are designed to encourage plaintiffs "to pursue diligent prosecution of known claims." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2182-2183 (internal quotation marks omitted). In accord with that objective, limitations periods begin to run "when the cause of action accrues"-that is, "when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2182 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a personal-injury or property-damage action, for example, more often than not this will be " 'when the injury occurred or was discovered.' " Ibid.
In contrast, statutes of repose are enacted to give more explicit and certain protection to defendants. These statutes "effect a legislative judgment that a defendant should be free from liability after the legislatively determined period of time." Id., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2183 (internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, statutes of repose begin to run on "the date of the last culpable act or omission of the defendant." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2182.
The 3-year time bar in § 13 reflects the legislative objective to give a defendant a complete defense to any suit after a certain period. From the structure of § 13, and the language of its second sentence, it is evident that the 3-year bar is a statute of repose. In fact, this Court has already described the provision as establishing "a period of repose," which " 'impose [s] an outside limit' " on temporal liability. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 363, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991).
The statute provides in clear terms that "[i]n no event" shall an action be brought more than three years after the securities offering on which it is based. 15 U.S.C. § 77m. This instruction admits of no exception and on its face creates a fixed bar against future liability. See CTS, supra, at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2182-2183 ; cf. United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 350, 117 S.Ct. 849, 136 L.Ed.2d 818 (1997) (noting that a statute that "sets forth its time limitations in unusually emphatic form... cannot easily be read as containing implicit exceptions"). The statute, furthermore, runs from the defendant's last culpable act (the offering of the securities), not from the accrual of the claim (the plaintiff's discovery of the defect in the registration statement). Under CTS, this point is close to a dispositive indication that the statute is one of repose.
This view is confirmed by the two-sentence structure of § 13. In addition to the 3-year time bar, § 13 contains a 1-year statute of limitations. The limitations statute runs from the time when the plaintiff discovers (or should have discovered) the securities-law violation. The pairing of a shorter statute of limitations and a longer statute of repose is a common feature of statutory time limits. See, e.g., Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442, 453, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013) ("[S]tatutes applying a discovery rule... often couple that rule with an absolute provision for repose"). The two periods work together: The discovery rule gives leeway to a plaintiff who has not yet learned of a violation, while the rule of repose protects the defendant from an interminable threat of liability. Cf. Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, 650, 130 S.Ct. 1784, 176 L.Ed.2d 582 (2010) (reasoning that 2-year discovery rule would not "subject defendants to liability for acts taken long ago," because the statute also included an "unqualified bar on actions instituted '5 years after such violation' ").
The history of the 3-year provision also supports its classification as a statute of repose. It is instructive to note that the statute was not enacted in its current form. The original version of the 1933 Securities Act featured a 2-year discovery period and a 10-year outside limit, see § 13, 48 Stat. 84, but Congress changed this framework just one year after its enactment. The discovery period was changed to one year and the outside limit to three years. See Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 207, 48 Stat. 908. The evident design of the shortened statutory period was to protect defendants' financial security in fast-changing markets by reducing the open period for potential liability.
B
The determination that the 3-year period is a statute of repose is critical in this case, for the question whether a tolling rule applies to a given statutory time bar is one "of statutory intent." Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, ----, 134 S.Ct. 1224, 1232, 188 L.Ed.2d 200 (2014). The purpose of a statute of repose is to create "an absolute bar on a defendant's temporal liability," CTS, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2183 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); and that purpose informs the assessment of whether, and when, tolling rules may apply.
In light of the purpose of a statute of repose, the provision is in general not subject to tolling. Tolling is permissible only where there is a particular indication that the legislature did not intend the statute to provide complete repose but instead anticipated the extension of the statutory period under certain circumstances.
For example, if the statute of repose itself contains an express exception, this demonstrates the requisite intent to alter the operation of the statutory period. See 1 C. Corman, Limitation of Actions § 1.1, pp. 4-5 (1991) (Corman); see, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 1113 (establishing a 6-year statute of repose, but stipulating that, in case of fraud, the 6-year period runs from the plaintiff's discovery of the violation). In contrast, where the legislature enacts a general tolling rule in a different part of the code-e.g., a rule that suspends time limits until the plaintiff reaches the age of majority-courts must analyze the nature and relation of the legislative purpose of each provision to determine which controls. See 2 Corman § 10.2.1, at 108. In keeping with the statute-specific nature of that analysis, courts have reached different conclusions about whether general tolling statutes govern particular periods of repose. Ibid., n. 15.
Of course, not all tolling rules derive from legislative enactments. Some derive from the traditional power of the courts to " 'apply the principles... of equity jurisprudence.' " Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 50, 122 S.Ct. 1036, 152 L.Ed.2d 79 (2002) (alteration omitted). The classic example is the doctrine of equitable tolling, which permits a court to pause a statutory time limit "when a litigant has pursued his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance prevents him from bringing a timely action."
Lozano, 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1231-1232. Tolling rules of that kind often apply to statutes of limitations based on the presumption that Congress " 'legislate[s] against a background of common-law adjudicatory principles.' " Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1232.
The purpose and effect of a statute of repose, by contrast, is to override customary tolling rules arising from the equitable powers of courts. By establishing a fixed limit, a statute of repose implements a " 'legislative decisio[n] that as a matter of policy there should be a specific time beyond which a defendant should no longer be subjected to protracted liability.' " CTS, 573 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2183. The unqualified nature of that determination supersedes the courts' residual authority and forecloses the extension of the statutory period based on equitable principles. For this reason, the Court repeatedly has stated in broad terms that statutes of repose are not subject to equitable tolling. See, e.g., id., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2183-2184 ; Lampf, Pleva, 501 U.S., at 363, 111 S.Ct. 2773.
C
Petitioner contends that the 3-year provision is subject to tolling based on the rationale and holding in the Court's decision in American Pipe. The language of the 3-year statute does not refer to or impliedly authorize any exceptions for tolling. If American Pipe had itself been grounded in a legislative enactment, perhaps an argument could be made that the enactment expressed a legislative objective to modify the 3-year period. If, however, the tolling decision in American Pipe derived from equity principles, it cannot alter the unconditional language and purpose of the 3-year statute of repose.
In American Pipe, a timely class-action complaint was filed asserting violations of federal antitrust law. 414 U.S., at 540, 94 S.Ct. 756. Class certification was denied because the class was not large enough, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(a)(1), and individuals who otherwise would have been members of the class then filed motions to intervene as individual plaintiffs. The motions were denied on the grounds that the applicable 4-year time bar had expired. See 15 U.S.C. § 15b. The Court of Appeals reversed, permitting intervention.
This Court affirmed. It held the individual plaintiffs' motions to intervene were timely because "the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class." American Pipe, 414 U.S., at 554, 94 S.Ct. 756. The Court reasoned that this result was consistent "both with the procedures of Rule 23 and with the proper function of the limitations statute" at issue. Id., at 555, 94 S.Ct. 756. First, the tolling furthered "the purposes of litigative efficiency and economy" served by Rule 23. Id., at 556, 94 S.Ct. 756. Without the tolling, "[p]otential class members would be induced to file protective motions to intervene or to join in the event that a class was later found unsuitable," which would "breed needless duplication of motions." Id., at 553-554, 94 S.Ct. 756. Second, the tolling was in accord with "the functional operation of a statute of limitations." Id., at 554, 94 S.Ct. 756. By filing a class complaint within the statutory period, the named plaintiff "notifie[d] the defendants not only of the substantive claims being brought against them, but also of the number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs who may participate in the judgment." Id., at 555, 94 S.Ct. 756.
As this discussion indicates, the source of the tolling rule applied in American Pipe is the judicial power to promote equity, rather than to interpret and enforce statutory provisions. Nothing in the American Pipe opinion suggests that the tolling rule it created was mandated by the text of a statute or federal rule. Nor could it have. The central text at issue in American Pipe was Rule 23, and Rule 23 does not so much as mention the extension or suspension of statutory time bars.
The Court's holding was instead grounded in the traditional equitable powers of the judiciary. The Court described its rule as authorized by the "judicial power to toll statutes of limitations." Id., at 558, 94 S.Ct. 756 ; see also id., at 555, 94 S.Ct. 756 ("the tolling rule we establish here " (emphasis added)). The Court also relied on cases that are paradigm applications of equitable tolling principles, explaining with approval that tolling in one such case was based on "considerations 'deeply rooted in our jurisprudence.' " Id., at 559, 94 S.Ct. 756 (quoting Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal, 359 U.S. 231, 232, 79 S.Ct. 760, 3 L.Ed.2d 770 (1959) ; alteration omitted); see also 414 U.S., at 559, 94 S.Ct. 756 (citing Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) ). The Court noted too that "bad faith" was not the cause of the District Court's denial of class certification. 414 U.S., at 553, 94 S.Ct. 756 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Perhaps for these reasons, this Court has referred to American Pipe as "equitable tolling." See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, and n. 3, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) ; see also Young,supra, at 49, 122 S.Ct. 1036 ; Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc., 437 U.S. 322, 338, n., 98 S.Ct. 2370, 57 L.Ed.2d 239 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (using American Pipe as an example of "[t]he authority of a federal court, sitting as a chancellor, to toll a statute of limitations on equitable grounds"). It is true, however, that the American Pipe Court did not consider the criteria of the formal doctrine of equitable tolling in any direct manner. It did not analyze, for example, whether the plaintiffs pursued their rights with special care; whether some extraordinary circumstance prevented them from intervening earlier; or whether the defendant engaged in misconduct. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (identifying these considerations); Young, 535 U.S., at 50, 122 S.Ct. 1036 (same). The balance of the Court's reasoning nonetheless reveals a rule based on traditional equitable powers, designed to modify a statutory time bar where its rigid application would create injustice.
D
This analysis shows that the American Pipe tolling rule does not apply to the 3-year bar mandated in § 13. As explained above, the 3-year limit is a statute of repose. See supra, at 2049 - 2050. And the object of a statute of repose, to grant complete peace to defendants, supersedes the application of a tolling rule based in equity. See supra, at 2050 - 2051. No feature of § 13 provides that deviation from its time limit is permissible in a case such as this one. To the contrary, the text, purpose, structure, and history of the statute all disclose the congressional purpose to offer defendants full and final security after three years.
Petitioner raises four counterarguments, but they are not persuasive. First, petitioner contends that this case is indistinguishable from American Pipe itself. If the 3-year bar here cannot be tolled, petitioner reasons, then there was no justification for the American Pipe Court's contrary decision to suspend the time bar in that case. American Pipe, however, is distinguishable. The statute in American Pipe was one of limitations, not of repose; it began to run when " 'the cause of action accrued.' " 414 U.S., at 541, n. 2, 94 S.Ct. 756 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 15b ). The statute in the instant case, however, is a statute of repose. Consistent with the different purposes embodied in statutes of limitations and statutes of repose, it is reasonable that the former may be tolled by equitable considerations even though the latter in most circumstances may not. See supra, at 2050 - 2051.
Second, petitioner argues that the filing of a class-action complaint within three years fulfills the purposes of a statutory time limit with regard to later filed suits by individual members of the class. That is because, according to petitioner, the class complaint puts a defendant on notice as to the content of the claims against it and the set of potential plaintiffs who might assert those claims. It is true that the American Pipe Court, in permitting tolling, suggested that generic notice satisfied the purposes of the statute of limitations in that case. See 414 U.S., at 554-555, 94 S.Ct. 756. While this was deemed sufficient in balancing the equities to allow tolling under the antitrust statute, it must be noted that here the analysis differs because the purpose of a statute of repose is to give the defendant full protection after a certain time.
If the number and identity of individual suits, where they may be filed, and the litigation strategies they will use are unknown, a defendant cannot calculate its potential liability or set its own plans for litigation with much precision. The initiation of separate individual suits may thus increase a defendant's practical burdens. See, e.g., Cottreau, Note, The Due Process Right To Opt Out of Class Actions, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 480, 486, and n. 29 (1998) ("A defendant's transaction costs are likely to be reduced by having to defend just one action"). The emergence of individual suits, furthermore, may increase a defendant's financial liability; for plaintiffs who opt out have considerable leverage and, as a result, may obtain outsized recoveries. See, e.g., Coffee, Accountability and Competition in Securities Class Actions: Why "Exit" Works Better Than "Voice," 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 407, 417, 432-433 (2008) ; Perino, Class Action Chaos? The Theory of the Core and an Analysis of Opt-Out Rights in Mass Tort Class Actions, 46 Emory L.J. 85, 97 (1997). These uncertainties can put defendants at added risk in conducting business going forward, causing destabilization in markets which react with sensitivity to these matters. By permitting a class action to splinter into individual suits, the application of American Pipe tolling would threaten to alter and expand a defendant's accountability, contradicting the substance of a statute of repose. All this is not to suggest how best to further equity under these circumstances but simply to support the recognition that a statute of repose supersedes a court's equitable balancing powers by setting a fixed time period for claims to end.
Third, petitioner contends that dismissal of its individual suit as untimely would eviscerate its ability to opt out, an ability this Court has indicated should not be disregarded. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 363, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011). It does not follow, however, from any privilege to opt out that an ensuing suit can be filed without regard to mandatory time limits set by statute.
Fourth, petitioner argues that declining to apply American Pipe tolling to statutes of repose will create inefficiencies. It contends that nonnamed class members will inundate district courts with protective filings. Even if petitioner were correct, of course, this Court "lack[s] the authority to rewrite" the statute of repose or to ignore its plain import. Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2158, 2169, 192 L.Ed.2d 208 (2015).
And petitioner's concerns likely are overstated. Petitioner has not offered evidence of any recent influx of protective filings in the Second Circuit, where the rule affirmed here has been the law since 2013. This is not surprising. The very premise of class actions is that "'small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.' " Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). Many individual class members may have no interest in protecting their right to litigate on an individual basis. Even assuming that they do, the process is unlikely to be as onerous as petitioner claims. A simple motion to intervene or request to be included as a named plaintiff in the class-action complaint may well suffice. See, e.g., Brief for Washington Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae 6-11 (describing procedures); Brief for Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association et al. as Amici Curiae 16, 19-20 (same). District courts, furthermore, have ample means and methods to administer their dockets and to ensure that any additional filings proceed in an orderly fashion. Cf. Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892, 195 L.Ed.2d 161 (2016) ("[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases").
III
Petitioner makes an alternative argument that does not depend on tolling. Petitioner submits its individual suit was timely in any event. Section 13 provides that an "action" must be "brought" within three years of the relevant securities offering. See 15 U.S.C. § 77m. Petitioner argues that requirement is met here because the filing of the class-action complaint "brought" petitioner's individual "action" within the statutory time period.
This argument rests on the premise that an "action" is "brought" when substantive claims are presented to any court, rather than when a particular complaint is filed in a particular court. The term "action," however, refers to a judicial "proceeding," or perhaps to a "suit"-not to the general content of claims. See Black's Law Dictionary 41 (3d ed. 1933) (defining "action" as, inter alia, "an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice"); see also id., at 43 ("The terms 'action' and'suit' are... nearly, if not entirely, synonymous"). Whether or not petitioner's individual complaint alleged the same securities law violations as the class-action complaint, it defies ordinary understanding to suggest that its filing-in a separate forum, on a separate date, by a separate named party-was the same "action," "proceeding," or "suit."
The limitless nature of petitioner's argument, furthermore, reveals its implausibility. It appears that, in petitioner's view, the bringing of the class action would make any subsequent action raising the same claims timely. Taken to its logical limit, an individual action would be timely even if it were filed decades after the original securities offering-provided a class-action complaint had been filed at some point within the initial 3-year period. Congress would not have intended this result.
Petitioner's argument also fails because it is inconsistent with the reasoning in American Pipe itself. If the filing of a class action made all subsequent actions by putative class members timely, there would be no need for tolling at all. Yet this Court has described American Pipe as creating a tolling rule, necessary to permit the ensuing individual actions to proceed. See, e.g., American Pipe, 414 U.S., at 555, 94 S.Ct. 756 ; Irwin, 498 U.S., at 96, n. 3, 111 S.Ct. 453 ; Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983). Indeed, the American Pipe Court reasoned that the class-action complaint "was filed with 11 days yet to run" in the statutory period, so the motions for intervention were timely only if filed within 11 days after the denial of class certification. 414 U.S., at 561, 94 S.Ct. 756. If the filing of the class action "brought" any included individual actions, it would have sufficed for the Court to note the date on which the class action was filed and deem all subsequent individual actions proper, regardless when filed.
* * *
Tolling may be of great value to allow injured persons to recover for injuries that, through no fault of their own, they did not discover because the injury or the perpetrator was not evident until the limitations period otherwise would have expired. This is of obvious utility in the securities market, where complex transactions and events can be obscure and difficult for a market participant to analyze or apprehend. In a similar way, tolling as allowed in American Pipe may protect plaintiffs who anticipated their interests would be protected by a class action but later learned that a class suit could not be maintained for reasons outside their control.
The purpose of a statute of repose, on the other hand, is to allow more certainty and reliability. These ends, too, are a necessity in a marketplace where stability and reliance are essential components of valuation and expectation for financial actors. The statute in this case reconciles these different ends by its two-tier structure: a conventional statute of limitations in the first clause and a statute of repose in the second.
The statute of repose transforms the analysis. In a hypothetical case with a different statutory scheme, consisting of a single limitations period without an additional outer limit, a court's equitable power under American Pipe in many cases would authorize the relief petitioner seeks. Here, however, the Court need not consider how equitable considerations should be formulated or balanced, for the mandate of the statute of repose takes the case outside the bounds of the American Pipe rule.
The final analysis, then, is straightforward. The 3-year time bar in § 13 of the Securities Act is a statute of repose. Its purpose and design are to protect defendants against future liability. The statute displaces the traditional power of courts to modify statutory time limits in the name of equity. Because the American Pipe tolling rule is rooted in those equitable powers, it cannot extend the 3-year period. Petitioner's untimely filing of its individual action is ground for dismissal.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
Respondents are the following financial securities firms: ANZ Securities, Inc.; Bankia, S. A.; BBVA Securities Inc.; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; BNP Paribas FS, LLC; BNP Paribas S. A.; BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC; CIBC World Markets Corp.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited; DZ Financial Markets LLC; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; HVB Capital Markets, Inc.; ING Financial Markets LLC; Mizuho Securities USA Inc.; M.R. Beal & Company; Muriel Siebert & Co. Inc.; nabSecurities LLC; Natixis Securities Americas LLC; RBC Capital Markets LLC; RBS Securities, Inc.; RBS WCS Holding Company; Santander Investment Securities Inc.; Scotia Capital (USA) Inc.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; Sovereign Securities Corporation LLC; SunTrust Capital Markets, Inc.; Utendahi Capital Partners, L. P.; and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC.
Justice GINSBURG, with whom Justice BREYER, Justice SOTOMAYOR, and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting.
A class complaint was filed against respondents well within the three-year period of repose set out in § 13 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77m. That complaint informed respondents of the substance of the claims asserted against them and the identities of potential claimants. See American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554-555, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974) ; Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 353, 103
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The ultimate question here is whether a federal court, having jurisdiction of a stockholder’s derivative action only because the parties are of diverse citizenship, must apply a statute of the forum state which makes the plaintiff, if unsuccessful,, liable for the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of the defense and entitles the corporation to require security for their payment.
Petitioners’ decedent, as plaintiff, brought in the United States District Court. for New Jersey an action 'in the right of the Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation, a Delaware corporation doing business in New Jersey. The defendants were the corporation and certain of its managers and directors. The complaint alleged generally that since 1929 the individual defendants engaged in a continuing and. successful conspiracy to enrich themselves at the expense of the corporation. Specific charges of mismanagement and fraud extended over a period of eighteen years and the assets allegedly wasted or diverted thereby were said to exceed $100,000,000. The stockholder had demanded that the corporation institute proceedings for its recovery but, by their control of the corporation, the individual defendants prevented it from doing so. This stockholder, therefore, sought to assert the right of the corporation. One of 16,000 stockholders, he owned 100 of its more than two million shares, so that his holdings, together with 150 shares held by the intervenor, approximated 0.0125% of the outstanding stock and had a market value that had never exceeded $9,000.
The action was brought in 1943, and various proceedings had been taken therein when, in 1945, New Jersey enacted the statute which is here involved. Its general effect is to make a plaintiff having so small an interest liable for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees of the defense if he fails to make good his complaint and to entitle the corporation to indemnity before the case can be prosecuted. These conditions are made applicable to pending actions. The corporate defendant therefore moved to require security, pointed to its by-laws by which it might be required to indemnify the individual defendants, and averred that a bond of $125,000. would be appropriate.
The District Court was of the opinion that the state enactment is not applicable to such an action- when pending in a federal court, 7 F. R. D. 352. The Court of Appeals was of a contrary opinion and reversed, 170 F. 2d 44, and we granted certiorari. 336 U. S. 917.
Appealability.
At the threshold we are met with the question whether the District Court’s order refusing to apply the statute was an appealable one. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1291 provides, as did its predecessors, for appeal only “from all final decisions of the district courts,” except when direct appeal to this Court is provided. Section 1292 allows appeals also from certain interlocutory orders, decrees and'judgments, not material to this case except as they indicate the purpose to allow appeals from orders other than final judgments when they have a final and irreparable effect on the rights of the parties. It is obvious that, if . Congress had . allowed appeals only from those final judgments which terminate an action, this order would not be appealable.
The effect of the statute is to disallow appeal-from any decision which is tentative', informal or incomplete. Appeal gives the upper court a power of review, not one of intervention. So long as the matter remains open, unfinished or inconclusive, there may be no intrusion by appeal. But the District Court’s action upon this application was concluded and closed and its decision final in that sense before the appeal was taken.
Nor does the Statute permit appeals, even from fully consummated decisions, where they are but steps towards final judgment in which they will merge. The . purpose is to combine in one review all stages of the proceeding that effectively may be reviewed and corrécted if and when final judgment results. But this order of the District Court did not make any step toward final disposition of the merits of the case and will not be merged in final judgment. When that time comes, it will be too late effectively to review the present order, and the rights conferred by the statute, if ít is applicable, will have been lost, probably irreparably. We conclude that the matters embraced in the decision appealed from are not of such an interlocutory-nature as to affect, or to be affected by, decision of the merits of this .case.
This decision appears to fall in that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole, case is adjudicated. ' The Court has long given this provision of the statute this practical rather than a technical construction. Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567, 569; United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U. S. 411, 414; Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 328.
We hold this order appealable because it is a final disposition of a claimed right which is not an ingredient of the cause of action and does not require consideration with it. But we do not mean that every order fixing security is subject to appeal. Here it is the right to security that presents a serious and unsettled question. If the right were admitted or clear and ,the order involved only an exercise of discretion as to the amount of security, a matter the statute makes subject to reconsideration from time to time, appealability would present a different question.
Since this order may be reviewed on appeal, the petition in No. 512, whereby the corporation asserts the right to ■compel security by mandamus, is dismissed.
Constitutionality.
Petitioners deny the validity of the statute under the Federal Constitution and the New. Jersey Constitution. The latter question is ultimately for the state courts, and since they have made no contrary determination^ we shall presume in the circumstances of this case that the statute conforms with the state constitution.
Federal constitutional questions we must consider, because a federal court would not give effect, in either a diversity or nondiversity case, to a state statute‘that violates the Constitution of the United States.
The background of stockholder litigation with which this statute deals requires no more than general notice. As business enterprise increasingly sought the advantages of incorporation, management became vested with almost uncontrolled discretion in handling other people’s money. .The- vast aggregate of funds committed to corporate control came to be drawn to a considerable extent from numerous and scattered holders of small interests. The director was not subject to an effective accountability. That created strong temptation for managers to profit personally at expense of their trust. Thé business code became all too tolerant of such practices. Corporate laws were lax and were not sélf-enforcing, and stockholders, in face of gravest abuses, were singularly impotent in obtaining redress of abuses of trust.
Equity came to the relief of the stockholder, who had no standing to bring civil action at law against faithless directors and managers. . Equity, however, allowed him to step into the corporation’s shoes and to seek in its right the restitution he could not demand in his own. It required him first to demand that the corporation vindicate its own rights, but when, as was usual, -those who perpetrated the wrongs also were able to obstruct any remedy, equity would hear and adjudge the corporation’s cause through its stockholder with the corporation as a defendant, albeit a rather nominal one. This remedy, born of stockholder helplessness, was long the chief regulator of corporate management and has afforded no small incentive to avoid at least grosser forms of betrayal of stockholders’ interests. It is argited, and not without reason, that without it there would be little practical check on such abuses.
Unfortunately, the remedy itself provided opportunity for abuse, which was not neglected. Suits sometimes were brought- not to. redress real wrongs, but to realize upon their nuisance value. . They were bought off by secret settlements in which any wrongs to the general body of share owners were compounded by the suing stockholder, who was. mollified by payments from corporate assets. These litigations were aptly characterized in professional slang as “strike suits.”- And it- was said that these suits were more commonly brought by small -and irresponsible than by large stockholders, because the former put less to risk and a small interest was more often within the capacity and, readiness of management to compromise than a large one.
We need not determine the measure of these abuses or the evils they produced on the one hand or prevented" and redressed on the other. The Legislature of New Jersey, like that of other states, considered them sufficient to warrant some remedial measures.
The, very nature of the stockholder’s derivative action makes it one in the regulation of which the legislature of a state has wide powers. Whatever theory one may hold as to the nature of the corporate entity, it remains a wholly artificial creation whose internal relations between management and stockholders are dependent upon state law and may be subject to most complete and penetrating regulation, either by public authority or by some form of stockholder action. Directors and managers, if not technically trustees, occupy positions of a fiduciary nature, and nothing in the Federal Constitution prohibits a state from imposing on them the strictest measure of responsibility, liability and accountability, either as a condition of assuming office or as a consequence of holding it.
Likewise, a stockholder who brings suit on a cause' of action derived from the corporation assumes a position, not technically as a trustee perhaps, but one of a fiduciary character. He sues, not for himself alone, but as representative of a class comprising all who are similarly situated. The interests of all in the redress of the wrongs are taken into his hands, dependent upon his diligence, wisdom and integrity. And while the stockholders have chosen the corporate director or manager, they have no such election as to a plaintiff who steps forward to represent them. He is a self-chosen representative and a volunteer champion. The Federal Constitution does not oblige the state to place its litigating and adjudicating processes at the disposal of such a representative, at least without imposing standards of responsibility, liability and accountability which it considers will protect the interests he elects himself to represent. It is not without significance that this Court has found it necessary long ago in the Equity Rules and how in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to impose procedural regulations of the class action not applicable to any other. We conclude that the state has plenary power over this type of litigation. ,
In considering specific objections to the way in which the state has exercised its power in this particular statute, it should be unnecessary to say that we are concerned only with objections which go to constitutionality. The wisdom and the policy of this and similar statutes are involved in controversies amply debated in legal literature but not for us to judge, and hence not for us to remark upon. The Federal Constitution does not invalidate state legislation because it fails to embody the highest wisdom or .provide the best conceivable remedies. Nor can legislation be set aside by courts because of the-fact, if it be such, that'it has been sponsored and promoted by those who advantage from it. In dealing with such difficult and controversial subjects, only experience will verify or disclose weaknesses and defects of any policy and teach lessons which may be applied by amendment. Within the area of constitutionality, the states should not be restrained from devising experiments, even those we might think dubious, in the effort to preserve the maximum good which equity sought in creating the derivative stockholder’s action and at the same time to eliminate as much as possible its defects and evils.
It is said that this statute transgresses the Due Process Clause by being “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable”; the Equal Protection Clause by singling out small stockholders to burden most heavily; that it violates the Contract Clause; and that its application to pending litigation renders it unconstitutionally retroactive.
The contention that this statute violates the Contract Clause of the Constitution is one in which we see not the slightest merit. Plaintiff’s suit is entertainéd by equity largely because he had no contract rights on which to base an action at law, and hence none which is impaired by this legislation.
In considering whether the statute offends the Due Process Clause we can judge it only by its own terms, for it has had no interpretation or application as yet. It imposes liability and requires security for “the reasonable expenses, including counsel fees, which may be incurred” (emphasis supplied) by the corporation and by other parties defendant. The amount of security is subject to increase if the progress of the litigation reveals that it is inadequate, or to decrease if it is proved to be excessive. A state may set the terms on which it will permit litigations in its courts. No type of litigation is more susceptible of regulation than that of a fiduciary nature. And it cannot seriously be said that a state makes such unreasonable use of its power as to violate the Constitution when it provides liability and security for payment of reasonable expenses if a litigation of this character is adjudged to be tmsustainable. It is urged that such a requirement will foreclose resort by most stockholders to the only available judicial remedy for the protection of their rights. Of course, to require security for the payment of any kind of costs, or the necessity for bearing any kind of expense of litigation, has a deterring effect. But we deal with power, not wisdom; and we think, notwithstanding this tendency, it is within the power of a state to close its courts to this type of litigation if the condition of reasonable security is not met.
The contention that the statute denies equal protection of the laws is based upon the fact that it enables a stockholder who owns 5% of a corporation’s outstanding shares, or $50,000 in market value, to proceed without either security or liability and imposes both upon those who elect to proceed with a smaller interest. We do not think the state is forbidden to use the amount of one’s financial, interest, which measures his individual injury from the misconduct to be redressed, as some measure of the good faith and responsibility of one who seeks at his own election to act a's custodian of the interests of all stockholders, and'as an indication that he volunteers for the large burdens of the litigation from a real sense of grievance and is not putting forward a claim to capitalize personally on its harassment value. These may not be the best ways of precluding “strike lawsuits,” but we are unable to say that a classification for these purposes, based upon the percentage or market value of the stock alleged to be injured by the wrongs, is an unconstitutional one. Where any classification is based on a percentage or an amount, it is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. It is difficult to say of many lines drawn by legislation that they give those just above and those just below the line a perfectly equal protection. A taxpayer with $10,000.01 of income does not think it is equality to tax him at a different rate than one who has $9,999.99, or to require returns from one just above and not from one just below a certain figure. It is difficult to say that a stockholder who has 49.99% of a company’s stock should be unable to elect any representative to its Board of Directors"while one who owns 50.01% may name the entire Board. If there is power, as we think there is, to draw a line based on considerations of proportion or amount, it is a rare case, of which this is not one, that a constitutional objection may be made to the particular point which the legislature has chosen.
The contention also, is made that the provision which applies this statute to actions pending upon its enactment, in which no final judgment has been entered, renders it void under the Due Process Clause for retro-activity. While by its terms the statute applies to pending cases, it does not provide the manner of application; nor do. the New Jersey courts appear to have settled what its effect is to be. Its terms do not appear to require an interpretation that it creates new liability against the plaintiff for expenses incurred by the defense previous to its enactment. The statute would admit of a construction that plaintiff’s liability begins only from the time when the Act was passed or perhaps when the corporation’s application for security is granted and that security for expenses and counsel fees which “may be incurred” does not include those which have been incurred before one or the other of these periods. We would, not, for the purpose of considering constitutionality, construe the statute in absence of a state decision as imposing liability for events before its enactment. On this basis its alleged retroactivity amounts only to a stay of further proceedings unless and until security is furnished for expense incurred in the future, and does not extend either to destruction of an existing cause of action or to creation of a new liability for past events.
The mere fact that a statute applies to a civil action retrospectively does not render it unconstitutional. Blount v. Windley, 95 U. S. 173, 180; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 258 U. S. 13; Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304. Looking upon the statute as we haye indicated, its retroactive effect, if any, is certainly less drastic and prejudicial than that held not to be unconstitutional in these decisions. We do not find in the bare statute any such retroactive effect as renders it unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, and of course we express, no opinion as to the effect of an application other than we have indicated;
It is also contended that this statute may not be applied in this case because the cause of action derives from a Delaware corporation and hence' Delaware law governs it. But it is the plaintiff who has brought the case in New Jersey. The. trial will very likely involve questions of conflict of laws as to which the law of New Jersey will apply, Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co., 313 U. S. 487; Griffin v. McCoach, 313 U. S. 498, and perhaps questions of full faith and credit. These are not before us now. A plaintiff cannot avail himself of the New Jersey forum and at the same time escape the terms on which it is made available, if the law is applicable to a federal court sitting in that State, which we later consider.
We conclude, therefore, that, so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, New Jersey’s security statute is a valid law of that State and the question remains as to whether it must be applied by federal courts in that State to suits brought therein on diversity grounds.
Applicability in Federal Court.
The Rules of Decision Act, in effect since the First Congress of the United States and now found at 28 U. S. C. § 1652, provides: “Thedaws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be-regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.” This Court in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, held that judicial decisions are laws of the states within its meaning. But Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins and its progeny have wrought a more far-reaching change in the relation of state and federal courts and the application of state law in the latter whereby in diversity cases the federal court administers the state system of law in all except details related to its own conduct of business. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99. The oniy substantial argument that this New Jersey statute is not applicable here is that its provisions are mere rules of procedure rather than rules of substantive law.
Even if we were to agree that the New Jersey statute is procedural, it would not determine that it is not applicable. Rules which lawyers call procedural do not always exhaust their effect by regulating procedure. But this statute is not merely a regulation of procedure. With it or without it the main action takes the same course. However, it creates a new liability where none existed before, for it makes a stockholder who institutes a derivative action liable for the expense to which he puts the corporation and other defendants, if he does not make good his claims. Such liability is not usual and it goes beyond payment of what we know as “costs.” If all the Act did was to create this liability, it would clearly be substantive. But this new liability would be without meaning and value in many cases if it resulted in nothing but a judgment for expenses at or after the end of the case. Therefore, a procedure is prescribed by which the liability is insured by entitling the corporate defendant to a bond of indemnity before the outlay is incurred. We dp not think a statute which so conditions the stockholder’s action can be disregarded by the federal court as a mere procedural device.
It is urged, however, that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 23 deals with plaintiff’s right to maintain such an action in federal court and that therefore the subject is recognized as procedural and the federal rule alone prevails. Rule 23 requires the stockholder’s complaint to be verified by oath and-to show that the plaintiff was a stockholder at the time of the transaction of which he complains or that his share thereafter devolved upon him by operation of law. In other words, the federal court will not permit itself to be used to litigate a purchased grievance or become a party to speculation in wrongs done to corporations. It also requires a showing that an action is not a collusive one to confer jurisdiction and to set forth the facts showing that the plaintiff has endeavored to obtain his remedy through the corporation itself. It further provides^that the class action shall not be dismissed .or compromised without approval of the court, with notice to the members^ of the class. These provisions neither create nor exempt from liabilities, but require complete disclosure to the court and notice to the parties in interest. None conflict with the statute in question and all may be observed by a federal court, even if not applicable in state court.
We see no reason why the policy stated m Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, should not apply.
We hold that the New Jersey statute applies in federal courts and that the District Court erred in declining to fix the amount of indemnity reasonably to be exacted as a condition of further prosecution of the suit.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Chapter 131, New Jersey Laws of 1945, provides in pertinent part as follows:
"1. In any action instituted or maintained in the'right of any domestic or foreign corporation by the holder or holders of shares, or of voting trust certificates representing shares, of such corporation having a total par value or Stated capital value of less than five per centum (5%) of the aggregate par value or stated capital value of all the outstanding shares of such corporation’s stock of every class . . . unless the shares or voting trust certificates held by such holder or holders have a market value in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), the corporation in whose right such action is brought shall be entitled, at any stage of the proceeding before final judgment, to require the complainant or complainants to give security for the reasonable expenses, including counsel fees, which may be. incurred by it in connection with such action and by the other parties defendant’in connection therewith for which it may become subject pursuant to law, its certificate of incorporation, its by-laws or under equitable principles, to which the- corporation shall have recourse in such amount as the court having -jurisdiction shall determine upon the termination' of such action. The amount of such security may thereafter, from time to time, be increased or decreased in-the discretion of the court having jurisdiction of sucli action upon showing that the security provided has or may become inadequate or is excessive.
“2. In any action, suit or proceeding brought or maintained in the right of a domestic or foreign corporation by- the holder or holders • of shares, or of voting trust certificates representing shares, of such corporation, it must be made to appear that the complainant was a shareholder - or the holder of a voting trust certificate at the time of the transaction of which he complains or that his share or voting trust certificate thereafter devolved upon him by operation of law.
“3. ‘This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all such actions, suits or proceedings now pending in which no final judgment has been entered, • and to all future actions, suits and proceedings.”
See New York General Corporation Law, § 61 — b; 12 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1322; Laws of Maryland, 1945, c. 989; Wisconsin Stat. §180.13 (1945).
Old Equity Rule 94, 104 U. S. ix; Equity Rule 27, 226 U. S. 649,656.
Rule 23 (b).
See Hornstein, Problems of Procedure in Stockholder’s Derivative Suits, 42 Col. L. R. 574; Hornstein, Directors’ Expenses in Stockholders’ Suits, 43 id. 301; Koessler, The Stockholder’s Suit: A Comparative View, 46 id. 238; Hornstein, New Aspects of Stockholders’ Derivative Suits, 47 id. 1; Carson, Current Phases of Derivative Actions Against Directors, 40 Mich. L. R. 1125; P. E. Jackson, Reorganization of the Corporate Concept And the Effect of Section 61-b of the New York General Corporation Law, A5 Am. Bankr. Rev. 323; Carson, Further Phases of Derivative Actions Against Director's, 29 Cornell L. Q. 431; House, Stockholders’ Suits And the Coudert-Mitchell Laws, 20 N. Y. U. L. Q. Rev. 377; Hornstein, The Death Knell of Stockholders’ Derivative Suits in New York, 32 California L. R. 123; Zlinkoff, The American Investor And the Constitutionality of Section 61-b of the New York General Corporation Law, 54 Yale E. J. 352. See Douglas, Directors Who Do Not Direct, 47 Harv. L. R. 1305.
Daniel v. Family Insurance Co., 336 U. S. 220.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, AFL-CIO (the Union) filed an amended petition with the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to § 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, requesting a representation election among the porters, janitors and maids working at four Florida bus terminals operated by the respondent (Greyhound). The amended petition designated the “employer” of the employees sought to be represented as Greyhound and Floors, Inc. The latter, a corporation engaged in the business of providing cleaning, maintenance and similar services to various customers in Florida, had contracted with Greyhound to provide such services at the four terminals in question.
At the Board hearing on the petition, the Union contended alternatively that the unit requested was appropriate as a residual unit of all unrepresented Greyhound employees at the four terminals — on the ground that Greyhound was at least a joint employer with Floors of the employees — or that the unit was appropriate because the employees comprised a homogeneous, distinct group. Greyhound and Floors claimed that the latter was the sole employer of the employees, and that the appropriate bargaining unit should therefore encompass all Floors’ employees, either in all four cities in which the terminals are located, or in separate groups.
The Board found that while Floors hired, paid, disciplined, transferred, promoted and discharged the employees, Greyhound took part in setting up work schedules, in determining the number of employees required to meet those schedules, and in directing the work of the employees in question. The Board also found that Floors’ supervisors visited the terminals only irregularly — on occasion not appearing for as much as two days at a time — and that in at least one instance Greyhound had prompted the discharge of an employee whom it regarded as unsatisfactory. On this basis, the Board, with one member dissenting, concluded that Greyhound and Floors were joint employers, because they exercised common control over the employees, and that the unit consisting of all employees under the joint employer relationship was an appropriate unit in which to hold an election. The Board thereupon directed an election to determine whether the employees desired to be represented by the Union.
Shortly before the election was scheduled to take place, Greyhound filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking to set aside the decision of the Board and to enjoin the pending election. After a hearing, the court entered an order permanently restraining the election. 205 F. Supp. 686. Concluding that it had jurisdiction on the basis of this Court’s decision in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184, the court held on the merits that the Board’s findings were insufficient as a matter of law to establish a joint employer relationship, that those findings established, as a matter of law, that Floors was the sole employer of the employees in question, and that the Board had therefore violated the National Labor Relations Act by attempting to conduct a representation election where no employment relationship existed between the employees and the purported employer. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 309 F. 2d 397, and we granted certiorari to consider a seemingly important question of federal labor law. 372 U. S. 964. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Both parties agree that in the normal course of events Board orders in certification proceedings under § 9 (c) are not directly reviewable in the courts. This Court held as long ago as American Federation of Labor v. Labor Board, 308 U. S. 401, that the “final order [s]” made reviewable by §§10 (e) and (f) in the Courts of Appeals do not include Board decisions in certification proceedings. Such decisions, rather, are normally reviewable only where the dispute concerning the correctness of the certification eventuates in a finding by the Board that an unfair labor practice has been committed as, for example, where an employer refuses to bargain with a certified representative on the ground that the election was held in an inappropriate bargaining unit. In such a case, § 9 (d) of the Act makes full provision for judicial review of the underlying certification order by providing that “such certification and the record of such investigation shall be included in the transcript of the entire record required to be filed” in the Court of Appeals.
That this indirect method of obtaining judicial review imposes significant delays upon attempts to challenge the validity of Board orders in certification proceedings is obvious. But it is equally obvious that Congress explicitly intended to impose precisely such delays. At the time of the original passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, the House Report clearly delineated the congressional policy judgment which underlay the restriction of judicial review to that provided for in §9(d):
“When an employee organization has built up its membership to a point where it is entitled to be recognized as the representative of the employees for collective bargaining, and the employer refuses to accord such recognition, the union, unless an election can promptly be held to determine the choice of representation, runs the risk of impairment of strength by attrition and delay while the case is dragging on through the courts, or else is forced to call a strike to achieve recognition by its own economic power. Such strikes have been called when election orders of the National Labor Relations Board have been held up by court review.”
And both the House and the Senate Reports spelled out the thesis, repeated on the floor, that the purpose of § 9 (d) was to provide “for review in the courts only after the election has been held and the Board has ordered the employer to do something predicated upon the results of the election.” Congressional determination to restrict judicial review in such situations was reaffirmed in 1947, at the time that the Taft-Hartley amendments were under consideration, when a conference committee rejected a House amendment which would have permitted any interested person to obtain review immediately after a certification because, as Senator Taft noted, “such provision would permit dilatory tactics in representation proceedings.”
In light of the clear import of this history, this Court has consistently refused to allow direct review of such orders in the Courts of Appeals. American Federation of Labor v. Labor Board, supra. In two cases, however, each characterized by extraordinary circumstances, our decisions have permitted district court review of orders entered in certification proceedings. In Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184, despite the injunction of § 9 (b)(1) of the Act that “the Board shall not (1) decide that any unit is appropriate ... if such unit includes both professional employees and employees who are not professional employees unless a majority of such professional employees vote for inclusion in such unit,” the Board- — • without polling the professional employees — -approved as appropriate a unit containing both types of employees. The Board conceded in the Court of Appeals that it “had acted in excess of its powers and had thereby worked injury to the statutory rights of the professional employees.” 358 U. S., at 187. We pointed out there that the District Court suit was “not one to 'review/ in the sense of that term as used in the Act, a decision of the Board made within its jurisdiction. Rather it is one to strike down an order of the Board made in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the Act.” 358 U. S., at 188. Upon these grounds we affirmed the District Court’s judgment setting aside the Board’s “attempted exercise of [a] power that had been specifically withheld.” 358 U. S., at 189. And in McCul-loch v. Sociedad Nacional, 372 U. S. 10, in which District Court jurisdiction was upheld in a situation involving the question of application of the laws of the United States to foreign-flag ships and their crews, the Court was careful to note that “the presence of public questions particularly high in the scale of our national interest because of their international complexion is a uniquely compelling justification for prompt judicial resolution of the controversy over the Board’s power. No question of remotely comparable urgency was involved in Kyne, which was a purely domestic adversary situation. The exception recognized today is therefore not to be taken as an enlargement of the exception in Kyne.” 372 U. S., at 17.
The respondent makes no claim that this case is akin to Sociedad Nacional. The argument is, rather, that the present case is one which falls within the narrow limits of Kyne, as the District Court and the Court of Appeals held. The respondent points out that Congress has specifically excluded an independent contractor from the definition of “employee” in § 2 (3) of the Act. It is said that the Board’s finding that Greyhound is an employer of employees who are hired, paid, transferred and promoted by an independent contractor is, therefore, plainly in excess of the statutory powers delegated to it by Congress. This argument, we think, misconceives both the import of the substantive federal law and the painstakingly delineated procedural boundaries of Kyne.
Whether Greyhound, as the Board held, possessed sufficient control over the work of the employees to qualify as a joint employer with Floors is a question which is unaffected by any possible determination as to Floors’ status as an independent contractor, since Greyhound has never suggested that the employees themselves occupy an independent contractor status. And whether Greyhound possessed sufficient indicia of control to be an “employer” is essentially a factual issue, unlike the question in Kyne, which depended solely upon construction of the statute. The Kyne exception is a narrow one, not to be extended to permit plenary district court review of Board orders in certification proceedings whenever it can be said that an erroneous assessment of the particular facts before the Board has led it to a conclusion which does not comport with the law. Judicial review in such a situation has been limited by Congress to the courts of appeals, and then only under the conditions explicitly laid down in § 9 (d) of the Act.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 169 (c), provides in pertinent part:
“(1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board—
“(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in subsection (a) of this section, or (ii) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in subsection (a) of this section; or
“(B) by an employer, alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in subsection (a) of this section; “the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.”
Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 160, provides in pertinent part:
“(e) The Board shall have power to petition any court of appeals of the United States, or if all the courts of appeals to which application may be made are in vacation, any district court of the United States, within any circuit or district, respectively, wherein the unfair labor practice in question occurred or wherein such person resides or transacts business, for the enforcement of such order and for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order, and shall file in the court the record in the proceedings, as provided in section 2112 of Title 28. . . . [Footnote 2 continued on p. 4-77]
“(f) Any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board granting or denying in whole or in part the relief sought may obtain a review of such order in any United States court of appeals in the circuit wherein the unfair labor practice in question was alleged to have been engaged in or wherein such person resides or transacts business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such a court a written petition praying that the order of the. Board be modified or set aside.”
Section 9 (d) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 159 (d), provides in pertinent part:
“Whenever an order of the Board made pursuant to section 160 (c) . . . is based in whole or in part upon facts certified following an investigation pursuant to subsection (c) of this section and there is a petition for the enforcement or review of such order, such certification and the record of such investigation shall be included in the transcript of the entire record required to be filed under subsection (e) or (f) . . . , and thereupon the decree of the court enforcing, modifying, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Board shall be made and entered upon the pleadings, testimony, and proceedings set forth in such transcript.”
H. R. Rep. No. 972, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 5.
“. . . Section 9 (d) of the bill makes clear that there is to be no court review prior to the holding of the election, and provides an exclusive, complete, and adequate remedy whenever an order of the Board made pursuant to section 10 (c) is based in whole or in part upon facts certified following an election or other investigation pursuant to section 9 (c). The hearing required to be held in any such investigation provides an appropriate safeguard and opportunity to be heard. Since the certification and the record of the investigation are required to be included in the transcript of the entire record filed pursuant to section 10 (e) or (f), the Board’s actions and determinations of fact and law in regard thereto will be subject to the same court review as is provided for its other determinations under sections 10 (b) and 10 (c).” H. R. Rep. No. 972, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 20-21. [Footnote 6 is on p. 479]
“Section 9 (d) makes it absolutely clear that there shall be no right to court review anterior to the holding of an election. An election is the mere determination of a preliminary fact, and in itself has no substantial effect upon the rights of either employers or employees. There is no more reason for court review prior to an election than for court review prior to a hearing. But if subsequently the Board makes an order predicated upon the election, such as an order to bargain collectively with elected representatives, then the entire election procedure becomes part of the record upon which the order of the Board is based, and is fully reviewable by any aggrieved party in the Federal courts in the manner provided in section 10. And this review Would include within its scope the action of the Board in determining the appropriate unit for purposes of the election. This provides a complete guarantee against arbitrary action by the Board.” S. Rep. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 14.
79 Cong. Rec. 7658.
See H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 43; H. R. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 56-57.
93 Cong. Rec. 6444.
Section 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3). The effect of this provision was to overrule Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111. See H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 18.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized by Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 432, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §1471 et seq. (1976 ed., and Supp. V), to extend financial and technical assistance through the Farmers Home Administation (FmHA) to low-income rural residents who seek to obtain housing. Respondent Onilea Neal, the recipient of an FmHA loan for the construction of a prefabricated house, brought this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680. She alleged that defects discovered after she set up residence were partly attributable to the failure of FmHA employees properly to inspect and supervise construction of her house. This case presents the question whether respondent’s action is barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2680(h), which precludes recovery under the Tort Claims Act for “[a]ny claim arising out of . . . misrepresentation. ”
I
A
The facts described in respondent’s complaint may be summarized as follows. Unable to obtain credit from other sources, Neal applied for a Rural Housing Loan from FmHA pursuant to § 502(a) of the Housing Act of 1949, 42 U. S. C. § 1472(a). FmHA approved her application in June 1977. During the summer of that year, Neal received advice from S. Lain Parkison, the FmHA Supervisor for Roane County, Tenn.
On August 8, 1977, Neal contracted with Home Marketing Associates, Inc. (Home Marketing), for the construction of a prefabricated house. The contract required that Home Marketing’s work conform to plans approved by FmHA. It also granted FmHA the right to inspect and test all materials and workmanship and reject any that were defective. At the same time, Neal entered into a deed of trust with FmHA and signed a promissory note providing for repayment of the principal sum of $21,170, plus interest of 8% per annum on the unpaid principal.
Home Marketing commenced work on Neal’s house in August 1977 and finished the following month. An FmHA official, Mary Wells, inspected the site on three occasions: soon after construction began, shortly before it was concluded, and after the house was completed. Her inspection reports contained no adverse comments on the construction work. After her third inspection, Wells issued a final report, signed by Neal, which indicated that the construction accorded with the drawings and specifications approved by FmHA. Home Marketing issued a one-year builder’s warranty covering workmanship, materials, and equipment.
Neal moved into the house in 1977. During the winter, she discovered that the heat pump in the house was not working properly. She notified FmHA and Home Marketing. An inspection by Parkison, the County FmHA Supervisor, revealed that the heat pump unit was either defective or undersized. On March 22, 1978, FmHA’s State Director and other FmHA officials conducted a complete inspection and identified 13 additional defects in the construction of the house. These included deviations from plans approved by FmHA and from applicable Minimum Property Standards. The inadequacies in materials and workmanship included defects in caulking, bridging, sealing, and plumbing, and extended to all areas of the house, such as the porch, the rear door, the floor, the roof, the exterior paint, and the interior wall finish. Home Marketing refused to comply with FmHA’s request to cure these defects in accordance with the builder’s warranty.
In November 1978 respondent asked FmHA to pay for the correction of the heating system and other structural defects. It declined to do so.
B
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed Neal’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Neal v. Bergland, 489 F. Supp. 512 (1980). It found that no contractual duty to supervise the construction of respondent’s home was created either by the Federal Housing Act of 1949 and the regulations promulgated thereunder or by the various agreements between respondent and FmHA. The court concluded that regulations requiring FmHA officials to ensure that the builder adhere to the terms of its construction contract were intended solely to protect the Government’s security interest, and were not intended to make FmHA warrant the quality of construction for the benefit of those receiving rural assistance loans. Id., at 514-515. The District Court also concluded that respondent failed to state a claim against FmHA under applicable tort law. Id., at 515.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Neal v. Bergland, 646 F. 2d 1178 (CA6 1981). It agreed with the District Court that FmHA had no contractual obligation to provide Neal with technical assistance or to inspect and supervise construction of her house. Id., at 1181. However, the Court of Appeals found that respondent’s complaint stated a claim for negligence under the principle “that one who undertakes to act, even though gratuitously, is required to act carefully and with the exercise of due care and will be liable for injuries proximately caused by failure to use such care.” Id., at 1181-1182, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §323 (1965). It noted that, subject to express exceptions, the Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §2674, authorizes suit against the Government for the negligence of a federal agency in performing a voluntary undertaking. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals then considered the question now before us: whether respondent’s claim “aris[es] out of. . . misrepresentation,” 28 U. S. C. § 2680(h), and is therefore ex-eluded from coverage by the Tort Claims Act. Distinguishing this case from others including United States v. Neustadt, 366 U. S. 696 (1961), the court concluded that respondent’s negligence claim did not fall within this exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity. The Secretary of Agriculture and other Government officials petitioned for certiorari and suggested summary reversal on the ground that the decision below cannot be reconciled with this Court’s decision in Neustadt. We granted the writ, 456 U. S. 988 (1982), and we now affirm.
II
The question before us is a narrow one. Petitioners argue only that respondent’s claim is a claim of “misrepresentation” within the meaning of § 2680(h). They do not seek review of the threshold determination that respondent’s complaint states a claim for negligence under the Good Samaritan doctrine that is otherwise actionable under 28 U. S. C. §2674. Thus, we need not decide precisely what Neal must prove in order to prevail on her negligence claim, nor even whether such a claim lies. Nor are we called on to consider whether recovery is barred by any other provision of the Tort Claims Act, including the exception for any action “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function.” §2680(a). Finally, we are not asked to determine whether the administrative remedy created by the Housing Act of 1949, 42 U. S. C. § 1479(c) (1976 ed., Supp. V), provides the exclusive remedy against the Government for damages attributable to the negligence of FmHA officials.
The scope of the “misrepresentation” exception to the Tort Claims Act was the focus of this Court’s decision in United States v. Neustadt, supra. Neustadt purchased a house in reliance on an appraisal undertaken by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for mortgage insurance purposes. After he took up residence, cracks appeared in the ceilings and walls of his house. The cracks were caused by structural defects that had not been noticed by the FHA appraiser during the course of his inspection. Neustadt sued the Government under the Tort Claims Act to recover the difference between the fair market value of the property and the purchase price. He alleged that the FHA had negligently inspected and appraised the property, and that he had justifiably relied on the appraisal in paying a higher price for the house than he would otherwise have paid.
This Court held that the claim in Neustadt arose out of “misrepresentation” under § 2680(h). We determined initially that § 2680(h) applies to claims arising out of negligent, as well as intentional, misrepresentation. 366 U. S., at 703-706. This Court found that Neustadt’s claim that the Government had breached its “duty to use due care in obtaining and communicating information upon which [the plaintiff] may reasonably be expected to rely in the conduct of his economic affairs,” merely restated the traditional legal definition of “negligent misrepresentation” as would have been understood by Congress when the Tort Claims Act was enacted. Id., at 706-707. Finally, we examined the National Housing Act of 1934, as amended, under which the FHA had conducted its appraisal, and found nothing to indicate “that Congress intended, in a case such as this, to limit or suspend the application of the ‘misrepresentation’ exception of the Tort Claims Act.” Id., at 708-710.
We cannot agree with petitioners that this case is controlled by Neustadt. As we recognized in that decision, the essence of an action for misrepresentation, whether negligent or intentional, is the communication of misinformation on which the recipient relies. The gravamen of the action against the Government in Neustadt was that the plaintiff was misled by a “Statement of FHA Appraisal” prepared by the Government. Neustadt alleged no injury that he would have suffered independently of his reliance on the erroneous appraisal. Because the alleged conduct that was the basis of his negligence claim was in essence a negligent misrepresentation, Neustadt’s action was barred under the “misrepresentation” exception.
Section 2680(h) thus relieves the Government of tort liability for pecuniary injuries which are wholly attributable to reliance on the Government’s negligent misstatements. As a result, the statutory exception undoubtedly preserves sovereign immunity with respect to a broad range of Government actions. But it does not bar negligence actions which focus not on the Government’s failure to use due care in communicating information, but rather on the Government’s breach of a different duty.
In this case, unlike Neustadt, the Government’s misstatements are not essential to plaintiff’s negligence claim. The Court of Appeals found that to prevail under the Good Samaritan doctrine, Neal must show that FmHA officials voluntarily undertook to supervise construction of her house; that the officials failed to use due care in carrying out their supervisory activity; and that she suffered some pecuniary injury proximately caused by FmHA’s failure to use due care. FmHA’s duty to use due care to ensure that the builder adhere to previously approved plans and cure all defects before completing construction is distinct from any duty to use due care in communicating information to respondent. And it certainly does not “appea[r] beyond doubt” that the only damages alleged in the complaint to be caused by FmHA’s conduct were those attributable to Neal’s reliance on FmHA inspection reports. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Neal’s factual allegations would be consistent with proof at trial that Home Marketing would never have turned the house over to Neal in its defective condition if FmHA officials had pointed out defects to the builder while construction was still underway, rejected defective materials and workmanship, or withheld final payment until the builder corrected all defects.
Of course, in the absence of the “misrepresentation” exception to the Tort Claims Act, respondent could also have brought a claim for negligent misrepresentation to recover for any injury caused by her misplaced reliance on advice provided by FmHA officials and on the FmHA inspection reports. Common to both the misrepresentation and the negligence claim would be certain factual and legal questions, such as whether FmHA officials used due care in inspecting Neal’s home while it was under construction. But the partial overlap between these two tort actions does not support the conclusion that if one is excepted under the Tort Claims Act, the other must be as well. Neither the language nor history of the Act suggests that when one aspect of the Government’s conduct is not actionable under the “misrepresentation” exception, a claimant is barred from pursuing a distinct claim arising out of other aspects of the Government’s conduct. “ ‘The exemption of the sovereign from suit involves hardship enough where consent has been withheld. We are not to add to its rigor by refinement of construction where consent has been announced.’” United States v. Aetna Surety Co., 338 U. S. 366, 383 (1949), quoting Anderson v. Hayes Constr. Co., 243 N. Y. 140, 147, 153 N. E. 28, 29-30 (1926) (Cardozo, J.). Any other interpretation would encourage the Government to shield itself completely from tort liability by adding misrepresentations to whatever otherwise actionable torts it commits.
We therefore hold that respondent’s claim against the Government for negligence by FmHA officials in supervising construction of her house does not “aris[e] out of . . . misrepresentation” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 2680(h). The Court of Appeals properly concluded that Neal’s claim is not barred by this provision of the Tort Claims Act because Neal does not seek to recover on the basis of misstatements made by FmHA officials. Although FmHA in this case may have undertaken both to supervise construction of Neal’s house and to provide Neal information regarding the progress of construction, Neal’s action is based solely on the former conduct. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.
Regulations then in effect allowed the recipient of an FmHA loan under § 502 of the Housing Act of 1949, 42 U. S. C. § 1472, to obtain new housing in one of three ways. The method undertaken by respondent, known as the “contract method” of financing new construction, involved the performance of work by a builder in accordance with a signed contract approved by FmHA. See 7 CFR § 1804.4(d) (1977). Although the FmHA “will not become a party to a construction contract nor incur any liability thereunder,” ibid., its officials were significantly involved in all phases of the construction of respondent’s house. For example, the FmHA County Supervisor was authorized to assist the borrower in selecting a contractor based on the bids or proposals and the contractor’s qualifications. § 1804.4(d)(6). He reviewed all plans and specifications, § 1804.4(a), and was required to give prior approval of any changes in the plans, § 1804.4(d), or in the contract. § 1804.4(d)(8). He was responsible for making periodic and final inspections. § 1804.4(d)(6)(i)(/). See also §§ 1808.2, 1803.5, 1804.4(g). He also had a responsibility to see that partial payments made to the contractor were properly applied against his bills for material and labor, § 1804.4(d)(7)(iv), and to determine that work was performed in compliance with all the terms and conditions of the contract before making final payment. § 1804.4(d)(7)(vii). Finally, he assisted the borrower with respect to claims arising under the builder’s warranty. § 1804.4(g)(5).
The court cited, inter alia, Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61 (1955) (Coast Guard’s failure to maintain the beacon light in a lighthouse); Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. United States, 473 F. 2d 714 (CA5 1973) (negligent design and construction of a drainage ditch); and Barron v. United States, 473 F. Supp. 1077 (Haw. 1979) (failure to require a subcontractor to comply with a contract’s safety requirements).
The Court of Appeals found that respondent stated a claim against the United States under the common-law Good Samaritan doctrine which is described in § 823 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). However, the court did not expressly find that Tennessee law recognizes this doctrine, see 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b), and would apply it to a private person responsible for similar negligence. See 28 U. S. C. § 2674; Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 315, 319 (1957); Indian Towing Co. v. United States, supra. Nor did the court describe in any significant detail what respondent must show in order to prevail on her negligence claim.
Compare, e. g., Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427 (1952) (Federal Employees’ Compensation Act provides exclusive remedy for civilian employees), with United States v. Muniz, 374 U. S. 150, 160 (1963) (provision allowing compensation of certain prison inmates for work-related injuries was not exclusive remedy for inmate), and United States v. Brown, 348 U. S. 110, 111 (1954) (receipt of disability payments under the Veterans Act does not bar recovery under the Tort Claims Act).
Petitioners do argue at length, however, that neither the Housing Act of 1949 nor subsequent amendments were intended to expand liability beyond that established under the Tort Claims. Act. Brief for Petitioners 22-32. Because we find that respondent’s claim under the Good Samaritan doctrine is not barred by the “misrepresentation” exception to the Tort Claims Act, we do not consider whether the Housing Act provides an alternative basis for respondent’s claim.
The Court distinguished negligent misrepresentation from the “many familiar forms of negligent misconduct [which] may be said to involve an element of ‘misrepresentation,’ [only] in the generic sense of that word.” 366 U. S., at 711, n. 26. The “misrepresentation” exception applies only when the action itself falls within the commonly understood definition of a misrepresentation claim, which “ ‘has been identified with the common law action of deceit,’ and has been confined ‘very largely to the invasion of interests of a financial or commercial character, in the course of business dealings.’” Ibid,., quoting W. Prosser, Law of Torts §85, pp. 702-703 (1941 ed.). Thus, the claim in Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U. S. 61 (1955), for damages to a vessel which ran aground due to the Coast Guard’s alleged negligence in maintaining a lighthouse, did not “aris[e] out of. . . misrepresentation” within the meaning of § 2680(h).
See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552(3) (1977).
Although this negligence claim may include an element of reliance on FmHA’s voluntary undertaking to supervise construction in a competent manner, this element of the claim would constitute “misrepresentation” only in the generic sense of the word. See n. 5, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 474, the Court held that, once a defendant in custody asks to speak with a lawyer, all interrogation must cease until a lawyer is present. The issue in this case is whether the respondent was “interrogated” in violation of the standards promulgated in the Miranda opinion.
I
On the night of January 12, 1975, John Mulvaney, a Providence, R. I., taxicab driver, disappeared after being dispatched to pick up a customer. His body was discovered four days later buried in a shallow grave in Coventry, R. I. He had died from a shotgun blast aimed at the back of his head.
On January 17, 1975, shortly after midnight, the Providence police received a telephone call from Gerald Aubin, also a taxicab driver, who reported that he had just been robbed by a man wielding a sawed-off shotgun. Aubin further reported that he had dropped off his assailant near Rhode Island College in a section of Providence known as Mount Pleasant. While at the Providence police station waiting to give a statement, Aubin noticed a picture of his assailant on a bulletin board. Aubin so informed one of the police officers present. The officer prepared a photo array, and again Aubin identified a picture of the same person. That person was the respondent. Shortly thereafter, the Providence police began a search of the Mount Pleasant area.
At approximately 4:30 a. m. on the same date, Patrolman Lovell, while cruising the streets of Mount Pleasant in a patrol car, spotted the respondent standing in the street facing him. When Patrolman Lovell stopped his car, the respondent walked towards it. Patrolman Lovell then arrested the respondent, who was unarmed, and advised him of his so-called Miranda rights. While the two men waited in the patrol car for other police officers to arrive, Patrolman Lovell did not converse with the respondent other than to respond to the latter’s request for a cigarette.
Within minutes, Sergeant Sears arrived at the scene of the arrest, and he also gave the respondent the Miranda warnings. Immediately thereafter, Captain Leyden and other police officers arrived. Captain Leyden advised the respondent of his Miranda rights. The respondent stated that he understood those rights and wanted to speak with a lawyer. Captain Leyden then directed that the respondent be placed in a “caged wagon,” a four-door police car with a wire screen mesh between the front and rear seats, and be driven to the central police station. Three officers, Patrolmen Gleckman, Williams, and McKenna, were assigned to accompany the respondent to the central station. They placed the respondent in the vehicle and shut the doors. Captain Leyden then instructed the officers not to question the respondent or intimidate or coerce him in any way. The three officers then entered the vehicle, and it departed.
While en route to the central station, Patrolman Gleckman initiated a conversation with Patrolman McKenna concerning the missing shotgun. As Patrolman Gleckman later testified:
“A. At this point, I was talking back and forth with Patrolman McKenna stating that I frequent this area while on patrol and [that because a school for handicapped children is located nearby,] there’s a lot of handicapped children running around in this area, and God forbid one of them might find a weapon with shells and they might hurt themselves.” App. 43^44.
Patrolman McKenna apparently shared his fellow officer’s concern:
“A. I more or less concurred with him [Gleckman] that it was a safety factor and that we should, you know, continue to search for the weapon and try to find it.” Id., at 53.
While Patrolman Williams said nothing, he overheard the conversation between the two officers:
“A. He [Gleckman] said it would be too bad if the little — I believe he said a girl — would pick up the gun, maybe kill herself.” Id., at 59.
The respondent then interrupted the conversation, stating that the officers should turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located. At this point, Patrolman McKenna radioed back to Captain Leyden that they were returning to the scene of the arrest, and that the respondent would inform them of the location of the gun. At the time the respondent indicated that the officers should turn back, they had traveled no more than a mile, a trip encompassing only a few minutes.
The police vehicle then returned to the scene of the arrest where a search for the shotgun was in progress. There, Captain Leyden again advised the respondent of his Miranda rights. The respondent replied that he understood those rights but that he “wanted to get the gun out of the way bepause of the kids in the area in the school.” The respondent then led the police to a nearby field, where he pointed out the shotgun under some rocks by hhe side of the road.
On March 20, 1975, a grand jury returned an indictment charging the respondent with the kidnaping, robbery, and murder of John Mulvaney. Before trial, the respondent moved to suppress the shotgun and the statements he had made to the police regarding it. After an evidentiary hearing at which the respondent elected not to testify, the trial judge found that the respondent had been “repeatedly and completely advised of his Miranda rights.” He further found that it was “entirely understandable that [the officers in the police vehicle] would voice their concern [for the safety of the handicapped children] to each other.” The judge then concluded that the respondent’s decision to inform the police of the location of the shotgun was “a waiver, clearly, and on the basis of the evidence that I have heard, and [sic] intelligent waiver, of his [Miranda] right to remain silent.” Thus, without passing on whether the police officers had in fact “interrogated” the respondent, the trial court sustained the admissibility of the shotgun and'testimony related to its discovery. That evidence was later introduced at the respondent’s trial, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.
On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, set aside the respondent’s conviction. 120 R. I. -, 391 A. 2d 1158. Relying at least in part on this Court’s decision in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, the court concluded that the respondent had invoked his Miranda right to counsel and that, contrary to Miranda’s mandate that, in the absence of counsel, all custodial interrogation then cease, the police officers in the vehicle had “interrogated” the respondent without a valid waiver of his right to counsel. It was the view of the state appellate court that, even though the police officers may have been genuinely concerned about the public safety and even though the respondent had not been addressed personally by the police officers, the respondent nonetheless had been subjected to “subtle coercion” that was the equivalent of “interrogation” within the meaning of the Miranda opinion. Moreover, contrary to the holding of the trial court, the appellate court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of waiver. Having concluded that both the shotgun and testimony relating to its discovery were obtained in violation of the Miranda standards and therefore should not have been admitted into evidence, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the respondent was entitled to a new trial.
We granted certiorari to address for the first time the meaning of “interrogation” under Miranda v. Arizona. 440 U. S. 934.
II
In its Miranda opinion, the Court concluded that in the context of “custodial interrogation” certain procedural safeguards are necessary to protect a defendant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. More specifically, the Court held that “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” 384 U. S., at 444. Those safeguards included the now familiar Miranda warnings — namely, that the defendant be informed “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” — or their equivalent. Id., at 479.
The Court in the Miranda opinion also outlined in some detail the consequences that would result if a defendant sought to invoke those procedural safeguards. With regard to the right to the presence of counsel, the Court noted:
“Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.” Id., at 473-474.
In the present case, the parties are in agreement that the respondent was fully informed of his Miranda rights and that he invoked his Miranda right to counsel when he told Captain Leyden that he wished to consult with a lawyer. It is also uncontested that the respondent was “in custody” while being transported to the police station.
The issue, therefore, is whether the respondent was “interrogated” by the police officers in violation of the respondent’s undisputed right under Miranda to remain silent until he had consulted with a lawyer. In resolving this issue, we first define the term “interrogation” under Miranda before turning to a consideration of the facts of this case.
A
The starting point for defining “interrogation” in this context is, of course, the Court’s Miranda opinion. There the Court observed that “[b]y custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id., at 444 (emphasis added). This passage and other references throughout the opinion to “questioning” might suggest that the Miranda rules were to apply only to those police interrogation practices that involve express questioning of a defendant while in custody.
We' do not, however, construe the Miranda opinion so narrowly. The concern of the Court in Miranda was that the “interrogation environment” created by the interplay of interrogation and custody would “subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner” and thereby undermine the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Id., at 457-458. The police practices that evoked this concern included several that did not involve express questioning. For example, one of the practices discussed in Miranda was the use of lineups in which a coached witness would pick the defendant as the perpetrator. This was designed to establish that the defendant was in fact guilty as a predicate for further interrogation. Id., at 453. A variation on this theme discussed in Miranda was the so-called “reverse line-up” in which a defendant would be identified by coached witnesses as the perpetrator of a fictitious crime, with the object of inducing him to confess to the actual crime of which he was suspected in order to escape the false prosecution. Ibid. The Court in Miranda also included in its survey of interrogation practices the use of psychological ploys, such as to “posi[t]” "the guilt of the subject,” to “minimize the moral seriousness of the offense,” and “to cast blame on the victim or on society.” Id., at 450. It is clear that these techniques of persuasion, no less than express questioning, were thought, in a custodial setting, to amount to interrogation.
This is not to say, however, that all statements obtained by the police after a person has been taken into custody are to be considered the product of interrogation. As the Court in Miranda noted:
“Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. . . . Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.” Id., at 478 (emphasis added).
It is clear therefore that the special procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda are required not where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation. “Interrogation,” as conceptualized in the Miranda opinion, must reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself.
We conclude that the Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
B
Turning to the facts of the present case, we conclude that the respondent was not “interrogated” within the meaning of Miranda. It is undisputed that the first prong of the definition of “interrogation” was not satisfied, for the conversation between Patrolmen Gleckman and McKenna included no express questioning of the respondent. Rather, that conversation was, at least in form, nothing more than a dialogue between the two officers to which no response from the respondent was invited.
Moreover, it cannot be fairly concluded that the respondent was subjected to the “functional equivalent” of questioning. It cannot be said, in short, that Patrolmen Gleckman and McKenna should have known that their conversation was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the respondent. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the officers were aware that the respondent was peculiarly susceptible to an appeal to his conscience concerning the safety of handicapped children. Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that the police knew that the respondent was unusually disoriented or upset at the time of his arrest.
The case thus boils down to whether, in the context of a brief conversation, the officers should have known that the respondent would suddenly be moved to make a self-incriminating response. Given the fact that the entire conversation appears to have consisted of no more than a few offhand remarks, we cannot say that the officers should have known that it was reasonably likely that Innis would so respond. This is not a case where the police carried on a lengthy harangue in the presence of the suspect. Nor does the record support the respondent’s contention that, under the circumstances, the officers’ comments were particularly “evocative.” It is our view, therefore, that the respondent was not subjected by the police to words or actions that the police should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from him.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court erred, in short, in equating “subtle compulsion” with interrogation. That the officers’ comments struck a responsive chord is readily apparent. Thus, it may be said, as the Rhode Island Supreme Court did say, that the respondent was subjected to “subtle compulsion.” But that is not the end of the inquiry. It must also be established that a suspect’s incriminating response was the product of words or actions on the part of the police that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. This was not established in the present case.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Although there was conflicting testimony about the exact seating arrangements, it is clear that everyone in the vehicle heard the conversation.
Since we conclude that the respondent was not “interrogated” for Miranda purposes, we do not reach the question whether the respondent waived his right under Miranda to be free from interrogation until counsel was present.
To limit the ambit of Miranda to express questioning would “place a premium on the ingenuity of the police to devise methods of indirect interrogation, rather than to implement the plain mandate of Miranda." Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 445 Pa. 292, 297, 285 A. 2d 172, 175.
There is language in the opinion of the Rhode Island Supreme Court in this case suggesting that the definition of “interrogation” under Miranda is informed by this Court’s decision in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387. 120 R. I. —,-, 391 A. 2d 1158, 1161-1162. This suggestion is erroneous. Our decision in Brewer rested solely on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. 430 U. S., at 397-399. That right, as we held in Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, 206, prohibits law enforcement officers from “deliberately elicit [ing]” incriminating information from a defendant in the absence of counsel after a formal charge against the defendant has been filed. Custody in such a case is not controlling; indeed, the petitioner in Massiah was not in custody. By contrast, the right to counsel at issue in the present case is based not on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, but rather on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as interpreted in the Miranda opinion. The definitions of “interrogation” under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, if indeed the term “interrogation” is even apt in the Sixth Amendment context, are not necessarily interchangeable, since the policies underlying the two constitutional protections are quite distinct. See Kamisar, Brewer v. Williams, Massiah, and Miranda: What is “Interrogation”? When Does it Matter?, 67 Geo. L. J. 1, 41-55 (1978).
By “incriminating response” we refer to any response — whether incul-patory or exculpatory — that the prosecution may seek to introduce at trial. As the Court observed in Miranda:
“No distinction can be drawn between statements which are direct confessions and statements which amount to ‘admissions’ of part or all of an offense. The privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being compelled to incriminate himself in any manner; it does not distinguish degrees of incrimination. Similarly, for precisely the same reason, no distinction may be drawn between inculpatory statements and statements alleged to be merely ‘exculpatory.’ If a statement made were in fact truly exculpatory it would, of course, never be used by the prosecution. In fact, statements merely intended to be exculpatory by the defendant are often used to impeach his testimony at trial or to demonstrate untruths in the statement given under interrogation and thus to prove guilt by implication. These statements are incriminating in any meaningful sense of the word and may not be used without the full warnings and effective waiver required for any other statement.” 384 U. S., at 476-477.
One of the dissenting opinions seems totally to misapprehend this definition in suggesting that it “will almost certainly exclude every statement [of the police] that is not punctuated with a question mark.” Post, at 312.
This is not to say that the intent of the police is irrelevant, for it may well have a bearing on whether the police should have known that their words or actions were reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response. In particular, where a police practice is designed to elicit an incriminating response from the accused, it is unlikely that the practice will not also be one which the police should have known was reasonably likely to have that effect.
Any knowledge the police may have had concerning the unusual susceptibility of a defendant to a particular form of persuasion might be an important factor in determining whether the police should have known that their words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
The record in no way suggests that the officers’ remarks were designed to elicit a response. See n. 7, supra. It is significant that the trial judge, after hearing the officers’ testimony, concluded that it was “entirely understandable that [the officers] would voice their concern [for the safety of the handicapped children] to each other.”
By way of example, if the police had done no more than to drive past the site of the concealed weapon while taking the most direct route to the police station, and if the respondent, upon noticing for the first time the proximity of the school for handicapped children, had blurted out that he would show the officers where the gun was located, it could not seriously be argued that this “subtle compulsion” would have constituted “interrogation” within the meaning of the Miranda opinion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the law of New York, appellate courts are empowered to review the size of jury verdicts and to order new trials when the jury’s award “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.” N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law and Rules (CPLR) § 5501(c) (McKinney 1995). Under the Seventh Amendment, which governs proceedings in federal court, but not in state court, “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.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 7. The compatibility of these provisions, in an action based on New York law but tried in federal court by reason of the parties’ diverse citizenship, is the issue we confront in this case. We hold that New York’s law controlling compensation awards for excessiveness or inadequacy can be given effect, without detriment to the Seventh Amendment, if the review standard set out in CPLR § 5501(c) is applied by the federal trial court judge, with appellate control of the trial court’s ruling limited to review for “abuse of discretion.”
1 — I
Petitioner William Gasperini, a journalist for CBS News and the Christian Science Monitor, began reporting on events in Central America in 1984. He earned his living primarily in radio and print media and only occasionally sold his photographic work. During the course of his seven-year stint in Central America, Gasperini took over 5,000 slide transparencies, depicting active war zones, political leaders, and scenes from daily life. In 1990, Gasperini agreed to supply his original color transparencies to The Center for Humanities, Inc. (Center) for use in an educational videotape, Conflict in Central America. Gasperini selected 300 of his slides for the Center; its videotape included 110 of them. The Center agreed to return the original transparencies, but upon the completion of the project, it could not find them.
Gasperini commenced suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1332. He alleged several state-law claims for relief, including breach of contract, conversion, and negligence. See App. 5-6. The Center conceded liability for the lost transparencies and the issue of damages was tried before a jury.
At trial, Gasperini’s expert witness testified that the “industry standard” within the photographic publishing community valued a lost transparency at $1,500. See id., at 227. This industry standard, the expert explained, represented the average license fee a commercial photograph could earn over the full course of the photographer’s copyright, i. e., in Gasperini’s case, his lifetime plus 50 years. See id., at 228; see also 17 U. S. C. § 302(a). Gasperini estimated that his earnings from photography totaled just over $10,000 for the period from 1984 through 1993. He also testified that he intended to produce a book containing his best photographs from Central America. See App. 175.
After a three-day trial, the jury awarded Gasperini $450,000 in compensatory damages. This sum, the jury foreperson announced, “is [$]1500 each, for 300 slides.” Id., at 313. Moving for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the Center attacked the verdict on various grounds, including excessiveness. Without comment, the District Court denied the motion. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict. 66 F. 3d 427 (1995). Mindful that New York law governed the controversy, the Court of Appeals endeavored to apply CPLR § 5501(c), which instructs that, when a jury returns an itemized verdict, as the jury did in this case, the New York Appellate Division “shall determine that an award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.” The Second Circuit’s application of § 5501(c) as a check on the size of the jury’s verdict followed Circuit precedent elaborated two weeks earlier in Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 64 F. 3d 781, superseded, 72 F. 3d 1003 (1995). Surveying Appellate Division decisions that reviewed damage awards for lost transparencies, the Second Circuit concluded that testimony on industry standard alone was insufficient to justify a verdict; prime among other factors warranting consideration were the uniqueness of the slides’ subject matter and the photographer’s earning level.
Guided by Appellate Division rulings, the Second Circuit held that the $450,000 verdict “materially deviates from what is reasonable compensation.” 66 F. 3d, at 431. Some of Gasperini’s transparencies, the Second Circuit recognized, were unique, notably those capturing combat situations in which Gasperini was the only photographer present. Id., at 429. But others “depicted either generic scenes or events at which other professional photojournalists were present.” Id., at 431. No more than 50 slides merited a $1,500 award, the court concluded, after “[g]iving Gasperini every benefit of the doubt.” Ibid. Absent evidence showing significant earnings from photographic endeavors or concrete plans to publish a book, the court further determined, any damage award above $100 each for the remaining slides would be excessive. Remittiturs “presen[t] difficult problems for appellate courts,” the Second Circuit acknowledged, for court of appeals judges review the evidence from “a cold paper record.” Ibid. Nevertheless, the Second Circuit set aside the $450,000 verdict and ordered a new trial, unless Gasper-ini agreed to an award of $100,000.
This case presents an important question regarding the standard a federal court uses to measure the alleged exces-siveness of a jury’s verdict in an action for damages based on state law. We therefore granted certiorari. 516 U. S. 1086 (1996).
II
Before 1986, state and federal courts in New York generally invoked the same judge-made formulation in responding to excessiveness attacks on jury verdicts: courts would not disturb an award unless the amount was so exorbitant that it “shocked the conscience of the court.” See Consorti, 72 F. 3d, at 1012-1013 (collecting cases). As described by the Second Circuit:
“The standard for determining excessiveness and the appropriateness of remittitur in New York is somewhat ambiguous. Prior to 1986, New York law employed the same standard as the federal courts, see Matthews v. CTI Container Transport Int’l Inc., 871 F. 2d 270, 278 (2d Cir. 1989), which authorized remittitur only if the jury’s verdict was so excessive that it ‘shocked the conscience of the court.’” Id., at 1012.
See also D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries C5501:10, reprinted in 7B McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York Ann., p. 25 (1995) (“conventional standard for altering the verdict was that its sum was so great or so small that it ‘shocked the conscience’ of the court”).
In both state and federal courts, trial judges made the excessiveness assessment in the first instance, and appellate judges ordinarily deferred to the trial court’s judgment. See, e. g., McAllister v. Adam Packing Corp., 66 App. Div. 2d 975, 976, 412 N. Y. S. 2d 50, 52 (3d Dept. 1978) (“The trial court’s determination as to the adequacy of the jury verdict will only be disturbed by an appellate court where it can be said that the trial court’s exercise of discretion was not reasonably grounded.”); Martell v. Boardwalk Enterprises, Inc., 748 F. 2d 740, 750 (CA2 1984) (“The trial court’s refusal to set aside or reduce a jury award will be overturned only for abuse of discretion.”).
In 1986, as part of a series of tort reform measures, New York codified a standard for judicial review of the size of jury awards. Placed in CPLR § 5501(c), the prescription reads:
“In reviewing a money judgment... in which it is contended that the award is excessive or inadequate and that a new trial should have been granted unless a stipulation is entered to a different award, the appellate division shall determine that an award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.”
As stated in Legislative Findings and Declarations accompanying New York’s adoption of the “deviates materially” formulation, the lawmakers found the “shock the conscience” test an insufficient check on damage awards; the legislature therefore installed a standard “invit[ing] more careful appellate scrutiny.” Ch. 266, 1986 N. Y. Laws 470 (McKinney). At the same time, the legislature instructed the Appellate Division, in amended §5522, to state the reasons for the court’s rulings on the size of verdicts, and the factors the court considered in complying with § 5501(c). In his signing statement, then-Governor Mario Cuomo emphasized that the CPLR amendments were meant to rachet up the review standard: “This will assure greater scrutiny of the amount of verdicts and promote greater stability in the tort system and greater fairness for similarly situated defendants throughout the State.” Memorandum on Approving L. 1986, Ch. 682, 1986 N. Y. Laws, at 3184; see also Newman & Ahmuty, Appellate Review of Punitive Damage Awards, in Insurance, Excess, and Reinsurance Coverage Disputes 1990, p. 409 (B. Ostrager & T. Newman eds. 1990) (review standard prescribed in § 5501(c) “was intended to... encourage Appellate Division modification of excessive awards”).
New York state-court opinions confirm that § 5501(c)’s “deviates materially” standard calls for closer surveillance than “shock the conscience” oversight. See, e. g., O'Connor v. Graziosi, 131 App. Div. 2d 553, 554, 516 N. Y. S. 2d 276, 277 (2d Dept. 1987) (“apparent intent” of 1986 legislation was “to facilitate appellate changes in verdicts”); Harvey v. Mazal American Partners, 79 N. Y. 2d 218, 225, 590 N. E. 2d 224, 228 (1992) (instructing Appellate Division to use, in setting remittitur, only the “deviates materially” standard, and not the “shock the conscience” test); see also Consorti, 72 F. 3d, at 1013 (“Material deviation from reasonableness is less than that deviation required to find an award so excessive as to ‘shock the conscience.’”); 7 J. Weinstein, H. Korn, & A. Miller, New York Civil Practice ¶ 5501.21, p. 55-64 (1995) (“Under [§5501(c)’s] new standard, the reviewing court is given greater power to review the size of a jury award than had heretofore been afforded....”).
Although phrased as a direction to New York’s intermediate appellate courts, §5501(c)’s “deviates materially” standard, as construed by New York’s courts, instructs state trial judges as well. See, e.g., Inya v. Ide Hyundai, Inc., 209 App. Div. 2d 1015, 619 N. Y. S. 2d 440 (4th Dept. 1994) (error for trial court to apply “shock the conscience” test to motion to set aside damages; proper standard is whether award “materially deviates from what would be reasonable compensation”); Cochetti v. Gralow, 192 App. Div. 2d 974, 975, 597 N. Y. S. 2d 234, 235 (3d Dept. 1993) (“settled law” that trial courts conduct “materially deviates” inquiry); Shurgan v. Tedesco, 179 App. Div. 2d 805, 806, 578 N. Y. S. 2d 658, 659 (2d Dept. 1992) (approving trial court’s application of “materially deviates” standard); see also Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 901 F. Supp. 166, 169 (SDNY 1995) (CPLR 5501(c)’s “materially deviates” standard “is pretty well established as applicable to [state] trial and appellate courts.”). Application of § 5501(c) at the trial level is key to this case.
To determine whether an award “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation,” New York state courts look to awards approved in similar cases. See, e. g., Leon v. J & M Peppe Realty Corp., 190 App. Div. 2d 400, 416, 596 N. Y. S. 2d 380, 389 (1st Dept. 1993) (“These awards... are not out of line with recent awards sustained by appellate courts.”); Johnston v. Joyce, 192 App. Div. 2d 1124, 1125, 596 N. Y. S. 2d 625, 626 (4th Dept. 1993) (reducing award to maximum amount previously allowed for similar type of harm). Under New York’s former “shock the conscience” test, courts also referred to analogous cases. See, e. g., Senko v. Fonda, 53 App. Div. 2d 638, 639, 384 N. Y. S. 2d 849, 851 (2d Dept. 1976). The “deviates materially” standard, however, in design and operation, influences outcomes by tightening the range of tolerable awards. See, e. g., Consorti, 72 F. 3d, at 1013, and n. 10, 1014-1015, and n. 14.
III
In cases like Gasperinis, m which New York law governs the claims for relief, does New York law also supply the test for federal-court review of the size of the verdict? The Center answers yes. The “deviates materially” standard, it argues, is a substantive standard that must be applied by federal appellate courts in diversity cases. The Second Circuit agreed. See 66 F. 3d, at 430; see also Consorti, 72 F. 3d, at 1011 (“[CPLR § 5501(c)] is the substantive rule provided by New York law.”). Gasperini, emphasizing that § 5501(c) trains on the New York Appellate Division, characterizes the provision as procedural, an allocation of decisionmaking authority regarding damages, not a hard cap on the amount recoverable. Correctly comprehended, Gasperini urges, § 5501(c)’s direction to the Appellate Division cannot be given effect by federal appellate courts without violating the Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause.
As the parties’ arguments suggest, CPLR § 5501(c), appraised under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), and decisions in Erie’s path, is both “substantive” and “procedural”: “substantive” in that §5501(c)’s “deviates materially” standard controls how much a plaintiff can be awarded; “procedural” in that § 5501(c) assigns decisionmaking authority to New York's Appellate Division. Parallel application of § 5501(c) at the federal appellate level would be out of sync with the federal system’s division of trial and appellate court functions, an allocation weighted by the Seventh Amendment. The dispositive question, therefore, is whether federal courts can give effect to the substantive thrust of § 5501(c) without untoward alteration of the federal scheme for the trial and decision of civil cases.
A
Federal diversity jurisdiction provides an alternative forum for the adjudication of state-created rights, but it does not carry with it generation of rules of substantive law. As Erie read the Rules of Decision Act: “Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State.” 304 U. S., at 78. Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.
Classification of a law as “substantive” or “procedural” for Erie purposes is sometimes a challenging endeavor. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99 (1945), an early interpretation of Erie, propounded an “outcome-determination” test: “[D]oes it significantly affect the result of a litigation for a federal court to disregard a law of a State that would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by the same parties in a State court?” 326 U. S., at 109. Ordering application of a state statute of limitations to an equity proceeding in federal court, the Court said in Guar anty Trust: “[W]here a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in a State court.” Ibid,.; see also Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U. S. 530, 533 (1949) (when local law that creates the cause of action qualifies it, “federal court must follow suit,” for “a different measure of the cause of action in one court than in the other [would transgress] the principle of Erie”). A later pathmarking case, qualifying Guaranty Trust, explained that the “outcome-determination” test must not be applied mechanically to sweep in all manner of variations; instead, its application must be guided by “the twin aims of the Erie rule: discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.” Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, 468 (1965).
Informed by these decisions, we address the question whether New York’s “deviates materially” standard, codified in CPLR § 5501(c), is outcome affective in this sense: Would “application of the [standard]... have so important an effect upon the fortunes of one or both of the litigants that failure to [apply] it would [unfairly discriminate against citizens of the forum State, or] be likely to cause a plaintiff to choose the federal court”? Id., at 468, n. 9.
We start from a point the parties do not debate. Gasper-ini acknowledges that a statutory cap on damages would supply substantive law for Erie purposes. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 2 (“[T]he state as a matter of its substantive law may, among other things, eliminate the availability of damages for a particular claim entirely, limit the factors a jury may consider in determining damages, or place an absolute cap on the amount of damages available, and such substantive law would be applicable in a federal court sitting in diversity.”); see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-5, 25; Consorti, 72 F. 3d, at 1011. Although CPLR § 5501(c) is less readily classified, it was designed to provide an analogous control.
New York’s Legislature codified in § 5501(c) a new standard, one that requires closer court review than the common-law “shock the conscience” test. See supra, at 422-423. More rigorous comparative evaluations attend application of §5501(c)’s “deviates materially” standard. See supra, at 423-425. To foster predictability, the legislature required the reviewing court, when overturning a verdict under § 5501(c), to state its reasons, including the factors it considered relevant. See CPLR § 5522(b); supra, at 423-424. We think it a fair conclusion that CPLR § 5501(c) differs from a statutory cap principally “in that the maximum amount recoverable is not set forth by statute, but rather is determined by case law.” Brief for City of New York as Amicus Curiae 11. In sum, § 5501(c) contains a procedural instruction, see supra, at 426, but the State’s objective is manifestly substantive. Cf. S. A. Healy Co. v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dist., 60 F. 3d 305, 310 (CA7 1995).
It thus appears that if federal courts ignore the change in the New York standard and persist in applying the “shock the conscience” test to damage awards on claims governed by New York law, “‘substantial’ variations between state and federal [money judgments]” may be expected. See Hanna, 380 U. S., at 467-468. We therefore agree with the Second Circuit that New York’s check on excessive damages implicates what we have called Erie’s “twin aims.” See supra, at 428. Just as the Erie principle precludes a federal court from giving a state-created claim “longer life... than [the claim] would have had in the state court,” Ragan, 337 U. S., at 533-534, so Erie precludes a recovery in federal court significantly larger than the recovery that would have been tolerated in state court.
B
CPLR § 5501(c), as earlier noted, see supra, at 425, 426, is phrased as a direction to the New York Appellate Division. Acting essentially as a surrogate for a New York appellate forum, the Court of Appeals reviewed Gasperini’s award to determine if it “deviate[d] materially” from damage awards the Appellate Division permitted in similar circumstances. The Court of Appeals performed this task without benefit of an opinion from the District Court, which had denied “without comment” the Center’s Rule 59 motion. 66 F. 3d, at 428. Concentrating on the authority § 5501(e) gives to the Appellate Division, Gasperini urges that the provision shifts fact-finding responsibility from the jury and the trial judge to the appellate court. Assigning such responsibility to an appellate court, he maintains, is incompatible with the Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause, and therefore, Gasper-ini concludes, § 5501(c) cannot be given effect in federal court. Brief for Petitioner 19-20. Although we reach a different conclusion than Gasperini, we agree that the Second Circuit did not attend to “[a]n essential characteristic of [the federal court] system,” Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Cooperative, Inc., 356 U. S. 525, 537 (1958), when it used § 5501(c) as “the standard for [federal] appellate review,” Consorti, 72 F. 3d, at 1013; see also 66 F. 3d, at 430.
That “essential characteristic” was described in Byrd, a diversity suit for negligence in which a pivotal issue of fact would have been tried by a judge were the case in state court. The Byrd Court held that, despite the state practice, the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial in federal court.
In so ruling, the Court said that the Guaranty Trust “outcome-determination” test was an insufficient guide in cases presenting countervailing federal interests. See Byrd, 356 U. S., at 537. The Court described the countervailing federal interests present in Byrd this way:
“The federal system is an independent system for administering justice to litigants who properly invoke its jurisdiction. An essential characteristic of that system is the manner in which, in civil common-law actions, it distributes trial functions between judge and jury and, under the influence — if not the command — of the Seventh Amendment, assigns the decisions of disputed questions of fact to the jury.” Ibid, (footnote omitted).
The Seventh Amendment, which governs proceedings in federal court, but not in state court, bears not only on the allocation of trial functions between judge and jury, the issue in Byrd; it also controls the allocation of authority to review verdicts, the issue of concern here. The Amendment reads:
“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.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 7.
Byrd involved the first Clause of the Amendment, the “trial by jury” Clause. This case involves the second, the “re-examination” Clause. In keeping with the historic understanding, the Reexamination Clause does not inhibit the authority of trial judges to grant new trials “for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United States.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 59(a). That authority is large. See 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.05[2], pp. 59-44 to 59-46 (2d ed. 1996) (“The power of the English common law trial courts to grant a new trial for a variety of reasons with a view to the attainment of justice was well established prior to the establishment of our Government.”); see also Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F. 2d 350, 353 (CA4 1941) (“The exercise of [the trial court’s power to set aside the jury’s verdict and grant a new trial] is not in derogation of the right of trial by jury but is one of the historic safeguards of that right.”); Blunt v. Little, 3 F. Cas. 760, 761-762 (No. 1,578) (CC Mass. 1822) (Story, J.) (“[I]f it should clearly appear that the jury have committed a gross error, or have acted from improper motives, or have given damages excessive in relation to the person or the injury, it is as much the duty of the court to interfere, to prevent the wrong, as in any other case.”). “The trial judge in the federal system,” we have reaffirmed, “has... discretion to grant a new trial if the verdict appears to [the judge] to be against the weight of the evidence.” Byrd, 356 U. S., at 540. This discretion includes overturning verdicts for excessiveness and ordering a new trial without qualification, or conditioned on the verdict winner’s refusal to agree to a reduction (remittitur). See Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 486-487 (1935) (recognizing that remittitur withstands Seventh Amendment attack, but rejecting additur as unconstitutional).
In contrast, appellate review of a federal trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside a jury’s verdict as excessive is a relatively late, and less secure, development. Such review was once deemed inconsonant with the Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause. See, e. g., Lincoln v. Power, 151 U. S. 436, 437-438 (1894); Williamson v. Osenton, 220 F. 653, 655 (CA4 1915); see also 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶59.08[6], at 59-167 (collecting cases). We subsequently recognized that, even in cases in which the Erie doctrine was not in play — cases arising wholly under federal law— the question was not settled; we twice granted certiorari to decide the unsettled issue, but ultimately resolved the cases on other grounds. See Grunenthal v. Long Island R. Co., 393 U. S. 156, 158 (1968); Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U. S. 77 (1955).
Before today, we have not “expressly [held] that the Seventh Amendment allows appellate review of a district court’s denial of a motion to set aside an award as excessive.” Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U. S. 257, 279, n. 25 (1989). But in successive reminders that the question was worthy of this Court’s attention, we noted, without disapproval, that courts of appeals engage in review of district court excessiveness determinations, applying “abuse of discretion” as their standard. See Grunenthal, 393 U. S., at 159. We noted the Circuit decisions in point, id., at 157, n. 3, and, in Browning-Ferris, we again referred to appellate court abuse-of-discretion review:
“[T]he role of the district court is to determine whether the jury’s verdict is within the confines set by state law, and to determine, by reference to federal standards developed under Rule 59, whether a new trial or remittitur should be ordered. The court of appeals should then review the district court’s determination under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” 492 U. S., at 279.
As the Second Circuit explained, appellate review for abuse of discretion is reconcilable with the Seventh Amendment as a control necessary and proper to the fair administration of justice: “We must give the benefit of every doubt to the judgment of the trial judge; but surely there must be an upper limit, and whether that has been surpassed is not a question of fact with respect to which reasonable men may differ, but a question of law.” Dagnello v. Long Island R. Co., 289 F. 2d 797, 806 (CA2 1961) (quoted in Grunenthal, 393 U. S., at 159). All other Circuits agree. See, e. g., Holmes v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern R. Co., 18 F. 3d 1393, 1396 (CA7 1994); 11 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2820, p. 209 (2d ed. 1995) (“[E]very circuit has said that there are circumstances in which it can reverse the denial of a new trial if the size of the verdict seems to be too far out of line.”); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.08[6], at 59-177 to 59-185 (same). We now approve this line of decisions, and thus make explicit what Justice Stewart thought implicit in our Grunenthal disposition: “[N]othing in the Seventh Amendment... precludes appellate review of the trial judge’s denial of a motion to set aside [a jury verdict] as excessive.” 393 U. S., at 164 (Stewart, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).
C
In Byrd, the Court faced a one-or-the-other choice: trial by judge as in state court, or trial by jury according to the federal practice. In the case before us, a choice of that order is not required, for the principal state and federal interests can be accommodated. The Second Circuit correctly recognized that when New York substantive law governs a claim for relief, New York law and decisions guide the allowable damages. See 66 F. 3d, at 430; see also Consorti, 72 F. 3d, at 1011. But that court did not take into account the characteristic of the federal court system that caused us to reaffirm: “The proper role of the trial and appellate courts in the federal system in reviewing the size of jury verdicts is... a matter of federal law.” Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., 429 U. S. 648, 649 (1977) (per curiam); see also Browning-Ferris, 492 U. S., at 279 (“[T]he role of the district court is to determine whether the jury’s verdict is within the confines set by state law.... The court of appeals should then review the district court’s determination under an abuse-of-discretion standard. ”).
New York’s dominant interest can be respected, without disrupting the federal system, once it is recognized that the federal district court is capable of performing the checking function, i. e., that court can apply the State’s “deviates materially” standard in line with New York case law evolving under CPLR § 5501(c). We recall, in this regard, that the “deviates materially” standard serves as the guide to be applied in trial as well as appellate courts in New York. See supra, at 425.
Within the federal system, practical reasons combine with Seventh Amendment constraints to lodge in the district court, not the court of appeals, primary responsibility for application of §5501(c)’s “deviates materially” check. Trial judges have the “unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context,” Taylor v. Washington Terminal Co., 409 F. 2d 145, 148 (CADC 1969), while appellate judges see only the “cold paper record,” 66 F. 3d, at 431.
District court applications of the “deviates materially” standard would be subject to appellate review under the standard the Circuits now employ when inadequacy or exces-siveness is asserted on appeal: abuse of discretion. See 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2820, at 212-214, and n. 24 (collecting cases); see 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 59.08[6], at 59-177 to 59-185 (same). In light of Erie’s doctrine, the federal appeals court must be guided by the damage-control standard state law supplies, but as the Second Circuit itself has said: “If we reverse, it must be because of an abuse of discretion.... The very nature of the problem counsels restraint.... We must give the benefit of every doubt to the judgment of the trial judge.” Dagnello, 289 F. 2d, at 806.
IV
It does not appear that the District Court checked the jury’s verdict against the relevant New York decisions demanding more than “industry standard” testimony to support an award of the size the jury returned in this case. As the Court of Appeals recognized, see 66 F. 3d, at 429, the uniqueness of the photographs and the plaintiff’s earnings as photographer — past and reasonably projected — are factors relevant to appraisal of the award. See, e. g., Blackman v. Michael Friedman Publishing Group, Inc., 201 App. Div. 2d 328, 607 N. Y. S. 2d 43, 44 (1
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents, who had been convicted by courts-martial, brought these suits for back pay. Augenblick, though charged with sodomy, was convicted of a lesser offense, an indecent act, and Juhl was convicted of selling overseas merchandise of an Air Force Exchange. Augenblick was sentenced to dismissal from the service; Juhl was sentenced to reduction in rank, partial forfeiture of pay, and confinement for six months. Each exhausted the remedies available to him and, not having obtained relief, brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover back pay, on the ground that the court-martial infringed on his constitutional rights. The Court of Claims undertook to review the judgments of the courts-martial for constitutional defects and rendered judgments for respondents. 180 Ct. Cl. 131, 377 F. 2d 586; 181 Ct. Cl. 210, 383 F. 2d 1009. The case is here on petition for writs of certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the question concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to review judgments of courts-martial. 390 U. S. 1038.
Article 76 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. § 876, provides that military review of court-martial convictions shall be “final and conclusive” and “binding upon all . . . courts ... of the United States.” The legislative history of the provision makes clear that relief by way of habeas corpus was an implied exception to that finality clause (S. Rep. No. 486, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 32; H. R. Rep. No. 491, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 35) — an' exception not available to respondent Augen-blick because he was discharged from the service, not imprisoned, and a remedy apparently not invoked by respondent Juhl during his short period of detention.
An additional remedy, apparently now available but not clearly known at the time of these court-martial convictions, is review by the Court of Military Appeals. In United States v. Bevilacgua, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 10, 11-12, 39 C. M. R. 10, 11-12, decided November 8, 1968, that court held that it has jurisdiction “to accord relief to an accused who has palpably been denied constitutional rights in any court-martial; and that an accused who has been deprived of his rights need not go outside the military justice system to find relief in the civilian courts of the Federal judiciary.”
Prior to the enactment of Article 76, the Court of Claims had entertained suits for back pay brought by servicemen who had been convicted by courts-martial. See, e. g., Keyes v. United States, 109 U. S. 336; Runkle v. United States, 122 U. S. 543; Swaim v. United States, 165 U. S. 553; United States v. Brown, 206 U. S. 240. These decisions, it is argued, were based on the theory that the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over back-pay suits where the courts-martial lacked “jurisdiction” in the traditional sense, viz., where “there is no law authorizing the court-martial, or where the statutory conditions as to the constitution or jurisdiction of the court are not observed.” Keyes v. United States, supra, at 340. From this premise it is urged that when, in review of state convictions by way of federal habeas corpus, the concept of “jurisdiction” was broadened to include deprivation by the trial tribunal of the constitutional rights of a defendant (Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458), the scope of collateral review of court-martial convictions was also broadened. That is the position of the Court of Claims which rejected the view that the adoption of Article 76 introduced a new regime and that 10 U. S. C. § 1552 which provides a remedy to correct a military record in order to “remove an injustice,” see Ashe v. McNamara, 355 F. 2d 277, is, apart from habeas corpus, the exclusive remedy.
On that issue there have been a variety of views expressed in this Court. See Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137, 149, 152-153. There is likewise unresolved the question whether, if the view of the Court of Claims is correct, the District Courts might have a like jurisdiction over suits not exceeding $10,000 under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(2). After hearing argument and studying the record of these cases we do not reach those questions. For we conclude that, even if we assume, arguendo, that a collateral attack on a court-martial judgment may be made in the Court of Claims through a back-pay suit alleging a “constitutional” defect in the military decision, these present cases on their facts do not rise to that level.
The Court of Claims gave relief to Juhl because of the provision in paragraph 153 (a) of the Manual for Courts-Martial which states that the court-martial “cannot” base a conviction “upon the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice in any case, if such testimony is self-contradictory, uncertain, or improbable.”
We do not stop to review the evidence which bears on this issue and which the Court of Claims sets forth in detail. See 181 Ct. Cl., at 215-225, 383 F. 2d, at 1012-1017.
The Manual was prescribed by the President pursuant to Article 36 of the Uniform Code, 10 U. S. C. § 836. It is a guidebook that summarizes the rules of evidence applied by court-martial review boards. See Levy v. Resor, 17 U. S. C. M. A. 135, 37 C. M. R. 399. The paragraph regarding accomplice testimony is a statutory rule of evidence. Such rules do not customarily involve constitutional questions. See Humphrey v. Smith, 336 U. S. 695; Whelchel v. McDonald, 340 U. S. 122. The Whelchel case involved various paragraphs of the Manual dealing with the defense of insanity. We did not sanction review of those paragraphs in a collateral remedy but held that only a denial of the opportunity for the military to consider the defense of insanity “goes to the question of jurisdiction”; and we added that, “[a]ny error that may be committed in evaluating the evidence tendered is beyond the reach of review by the civil courts.” 340 U. S., at 124.
Rules of evidence are designed in the interest of fair trials. But unfairness in result is no sure measure of unconstitutionality. When we look at the requirements of procedural due process, the use of accomplice testimony is not catalogued with constitutional restrictions. Of course, if knowing use of its perjured character were linked with any testimony (Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83), we would have a problem of different dimensions. But nothing of the kind is involved here.
Augenblick’s claim of constitutional defect in his court-martial concerns a phase in the discovery of evidence. He and a young airman, Hodges, were apprehended late at night in a parked car. The civilian police who arrested them turned them over to the Armed Forces Police who questioned them separately at a naval station in Washington, D. C. Hodges was then taken to an Air Force base in Maryland where he swore to a five-page written statement.
Augenblick was questioned at the naval station after Hodges. During this questioning of both men, Agent James made a tape recording of the conversations. Agent Mendelson either took some notes or wrote up some notes later.
Hodges apparently started out by denying that anything happened in the parked car and later maintained that sodomy had taken place, though, as we have said, Augenblick’s conviction was for an indecent act, not for sodomy. Hodges later received an honorable discharge; and it was the theory of the defense that he may have been induced to change his testimony on a promise that one would be given. It is indeed heavily impressed on us that Hodges was kept available for some months and left in good standing, in spite of his reprehensible conduct, and given an honorable discharge only after Augenblick was convicted.
The defense moved for the production of the notes which Mendelson had taken — or later typed up — and of the tape which James had made. As to the notes, the law officer, without examining them in camera or otherwise, denied the request. As to the tapes, the law officer ordered that they be produced or that the Government produce witnesses at an out-of-court hearing who could explain their nonexistence. The tapes were not produced; but each agent who had had contact with the recording was called, except Mendelson who was in Norfolk. James testified that there was a tape but no one knew where it was or what had happened to it. The defense urged that Mendelson, to whom the tapes had apparently once been delivered, be called; but the law officer after reading the record of Mendelson’s testimony on the tape recording at a pretrial investigation, refused.
The question of the production of Mendelson’s “notes” as well as the question of the production of the tapes bring into focus the Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3500. This Act, enacted after our decision in Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657, provides that when a witness testifies for the United States the Government may be required to produce “any statement” of the witness which relates to his testimony. §3500 (b). The term “statement” is defined in subsection (e) as:
“(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him; or
“(2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness to an agent of the Government and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement.”
There is considerable doubt if Mendelson’s “notes” fall within the definition of subsection (e). He testified at the court of inquiry that he made “rough pencil notes”; and he said at the pretrial investigation, “I did jot down a couple of rough notes.” Both the law officer and the Board of Review concluded that these “notes” were not a “substantially verbatim” statement producible under the Jencks Act.
It is difficult to tell from this record the precise nature of Mendelson’s “notes,” whether they recorded part of Hodges’ interview or whether they were merely a memorandum giving names, places, and hours. Certainly they were not a statement covering the entire interview; and if they were a truncated version, they would pose the question reserved in Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343. Since on examination of the record we are left in doubt as to the precise nature of the “notes,” we cannot say that the command of the Jencks Act was disobeyed when they were not ordered to be produced.
Moreover, we said in Palermo v. United States, supra, at 353, that the administration of the Jencks Act must be entrusted to the “good sense and experience” of the trial judges subject to “appropriately limited review of appellate courts.” We cannot conclude that when it came to the “rough notes” of Mendelson, the law officer and Board of Review abused their discretion in holding that they need not be produced under the Jencks Act.
The same is true of the rulings concerning production of the tapes. There is no doubt but that the tapes were covered by the Jencks Act; and an earnest effort was made to locate them. Their nature and existence were the subject of detailed interrogation at the pretrial hearing convened at the request of the defense. Four government agents testified concerning the interrogation of Hodges, the recording facilities used, the Navy’s routine in handling and using such recordings, and the fate of the tape containing Hodges’ testimony. The ground was covered once again at the court-martial. The tapes were not produced; the record indeed shows that they were not found; and their ultimate fate remains a mystery. The law officer properly ruled that the Government bore the burden of producing them or explaining why it could not do so.
The record is devoid of credible evidence that they were suppressed. Whether Mendelson should have been recalled is a matter of debate and perhaps doubt. But questions of that character do not rise to a constitutional level. Indeed our Jencks decision and the Jencks Act were not cast in constitutional terms. Palermo v. United States, supra, at 345, 362. They state rules of evidence governing trials before federal tribunals; and we have never extended their principles to state criminal trials. It may be that in some situations, denial of production of a Jencks Act type of a statement might be a denial of a Sixth Amendment right. There is, for example, the command of the Sixth Amendment that criminal defendants have compulsory process to obtain witnesses for their defense. Palermo v. United States, supra, at 362 (Brennan, J., concurring in result). But certain it is that this case is not a worthy candidate for consideration at the constitutional level.
The Court of Claims, in a conscientious effort to undo an injustice, elevated to a constitutional level what it deemed to be an infraction of the Jencks Act and made a denial of discovery which “seriously impeded his right to a fair trial” a violation “of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.” 180 Ct. Cl., at 166, 377 F. 2d, at 606-607. But apart from trials conducted in violation of express constitutional mandates, a constitutionally unfair trial takes place only where the barriers and safeguards are so relaxed or forgotten, as in Moore v. Dempsey, supra, that the proceeding is more a spectacle (Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723, 726) or trial by ordeal (Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, 285) than a disciplined contest.
Reversed.
Augenblick’s conviction was reviewed by a Navy Board of Review and affirmed, one member dissenting. The Court of Military Appeals denied a petition for review without opinion January 11, 1963. The Secretary of the Navy declined review on January 30, 1963. See 10 U. S. C. § 871.
Augenblick was dismissed February 5, 1963. On November 14, 1964, the Board for Correction of Records denied relief.
His suit in the Court of Claims was filed October 22, 1964.
Juhl’s conviction was reviewed by the Staff Judge Advocate. The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records also denied relief. His suit in the Court of Claims was filed October 12, 1965.
Back-pay suits are brought under 28 U. S. C. § 1491 which provides that the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to render judgment against the United States on any claim “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States . . . .” See Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 606, 372 F. 2d 1002, 1008. See Brenner, Judicial Review by Money Judgment in the Court of Claims, 21 Fed. B. J. 179, 190-191 (1961).
Habeas corpus has been the conventional way of obtaining here collateral review of conviction by military tribunals. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1; Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137; Whelchel v. McDonald, 340 U. S. 122; Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U. S. 128.
As we have noted, n. 1, supra, Augenblick sought and was denied review by the Court of Military Appeals; and Juhl in his petition to the Court of Claims alleged that “[n]o appeal was possible under law to the United States Court of Military Appeals,” an allegation admitted by the Government in its answer.
Section 1552 (a) of 10 U. S. C. provides in part:
‘'The Secretary of a military department, under procedures established by him and approved by the Secretary of Defense, and acting through boards of civilians of the executive part of that military department, may correct any military record of that department when he considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.”
180 Ct. Cl., at 140-143, 377 F. 2d, at 591-593.
For a discussion of Tucker Act jurisdiction over back-pay suits see H. R. Rep. No. 1604, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 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:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the procedure that must be followed under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure before a United States District Court may accept a guilty plea and the remedy for a failure to follow that procedure.
On April 1, 1966, petitioner was indicted on three counts in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for violating § 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code. He was charged with “wilfully and knowingly” attempting to evade tax payments of $928.74 for 1959 (count 1), $5,143.70 for 1960 (count 2), and $1,207.12 for 1961 (count 3). At his arraignment two weeks later, petitioner, who was represented by retained counsel, pleaded not guilty to each count. The court scheduled his trial for June 30; but on June 29, it granted the Government’s motion to postpone the trial because of petitioner’s illness. The trial was rescheduled for July 15.
On that day, after informing the court that he had “advised . . . [petitioner] of the consequences of a plea,” defense counsel moved to withdraw petitioner’s plea of not guilty to count 2 and to enter a plea of guilty to that count. The District Judge asked petitioner if he desired to plead guilty and if he understood that such a plea waived his right to a jury trial and subjected him to imprisonment for as long as five years and to a fine as high as $10,000. Petitioner stated that he understood these consequences and wanted to plead guilty. The Government consented to this plea change and informed the court that if petitioner’s plea of guilty to count 2 were accepted, the Government would move to dismiss counts 1 and 3. Before the plea was accepted, however, the prosecutor asked the judge to inquire whether it had been induced by any threats or promises. In response to the judge’s inquiry, petitioner replied that his plea was not the product of either. He stated that it was entered of his “own volition.” The court ordered a presentence investigation and continued the case to September 14, 1966.
At the commencement of the sentencing hearing on September 14, petitioner asserted that his failure to pay taxes was “not deliberate” and that they would have been paid if he had not been in poor health. The prosecutor stated that the “prime consideration” for the Government’s agreement to move to dismiss counts 1 and 3 was petitioner’s promise to pay all taxes, penalties, and interest. The prosecutor then requested the court to refer expressly to this agreement. After noting that petitioner possessed sufficient attachable assets to meet these obligations, the court imposed a sentence of one year and a fine of $2,500. Petitioner’s counsel immediately moved to suspend the sentence. He emphasized that petitioner, who was then 65 years of age, was in poor health and contended that his failure to pay his taxes had resulted from his “neglectful” and “inadvertent” method of bookkeeping during a period when he had been suffering from a very serious drinking problem. Consequently, asserted petitioner’s counsel, “there was never any disposition to deprive the United States of its due.” The judge, however, after indicating he had examined the presentence report, stated his opinion that “the manner in which [petitioner’s] books were kept was not inadvertent.” He declined, therefore, to suspend petitioner’s sentence.
On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, petitioner argued that his plea should be set aside because it had been accepted in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, petitioner contended (1) that the District Court had accepted his plea “without first addressing [him] . . . personally and determining that the plea [was] . . . made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge . . . ,” and (2) that the court had entered judgment without determining “that there [was] ... a factual basis for the plea.” In affirming petitioner’s conviction, the Court of Appeals held that the District Judge had complied with Rule 11. The court implied that the Rule did not require the District Judge to address petitioner personally to determine if he understood the nature of the charge. The court also concluded that the colloquy at the sentencing hearing demonstrated that the judge had satisfied himself by an examination of the presentence report that the plea had a factual basis.
Because of the importance of the proper construction of Rule 11 to the administration of criminal law in the federal courts, and because of a conflict in the courts of appeals over the effect of a district court’s failure to follow the provisions of the Rule, we granted certiorari. 390 U. S. 1038 (1968). We agree with petitioner that the District Judge did not comply with Rule 11 in this case; and in reversing the Court of Appeals, we hold that a defendant is entitled to plead anew if a United States district court accepts his guilty plea without fully adhering to the procedure provided for in Rule 11. This decision is based solely upon our construction of Rule 11 and is made pursuant to our supervisory power over the lower federal courts; we do not reach any of the constitutional arguments petitioner urges as additional grounds for reversal.
I.
Rule 11 expressly directs the district judge to inquire whether a defendant who pleads guilty understands the nature of the charge against him and whether he is aware of the consequences of his plea. At oral argument, however, counsel for the Government repeatedly conceded that the judge did not personally inquire whether petitioner understood the nature of the charge. At one point, counsel stated quite explicitly: “The subject on which he [the District Judge] did not directly address the defendant, which is raised here, is the question of the defendant’s understanding of the charges.” Nevertheless, the Government argues that since petitioner stated his desire to plead guilty, and since he was informed of the consequences of his plea, the District Court “could properly assume that petitioner was entering that plea with a complete understanding of the charge against him.” (Emphasis added.)
We cannot accept this argument, which completely ignores the two purposes of Rule 11 and the reasons for its recent amendment. First, although the procedure embodied in Rule 11 has not been held to be constitutionally mandated, it is designed to assist the district judge in making the constitutionally required determination that a defendant’s guilty plea is truly voluntary. Second, the Rule is intended to produce a complete record at the time the plea is entered of the factors relevant to this voluntariness determination. Thus, the more meticulously the Rule is adhered to, the more it tends to discourage, or at least to enable more expeditious disposition of, the numerous and often frivolous post-conviction attacks on the constitutional validity of guilty pleas.
Prior to the 1966 amendment, however, not all district judges personally interrogated defendants before accepting their guilty pleas. With an awareness of the confusion over the Rule’s requirements in this respect, the draftsmen amended it to add a provision “expressly requiring] the court to address the defendant personally.” This clarification of the judge’s responsibilities quite obviously furthers both of the Rule’s purposes. By personally interrogating the defendant, not only will the judge be better able to ascertain the plea’s voluntariness, but he also will develop a more complete record to support his determination in a subsequent post-conviction attack.
These two purposes have their genesis in the nature of a guilty plea. A defendant who enters such a plea simultaneously waives several constitutional rights, including his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers. For this waiver to be valid under the Due Process Clause, it must be “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938). Consequently, if a defendant’s guilty plea is not equally voluntary and knowing, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is therefore void. Moreover, because a guilty plea is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge, it cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.
Thus, in addition to directing the judge to inquire into the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea, Rule 11 also requires the judge to satisfy himself that there is a factual basis for the plea. The judge must determine “that the conduct which the defendant admits constitutes the offense charged in the indictment or information or an offense included therein to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.” Requiring this examination of the relation between the law and the acts the defendant admits having committed is designed to “protect a defendant who is in the position of pleading voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge.”
To the extent that the district judge thus exposes the defendant’s state of mind on the record through personal interrogation, he not only facilitates his own determination of a guilty plea’s voluntariness, but he also facilitates that determination in any subsequent post-conviction proceeding based upon a claim that the plea was involuntary. Both of these goals are undermined in proportion to the degree the district judge resorts to “assumptions” not based upon recorded responses to his inquiries. For this reason, we reject the Government’s contention that Rule 11 can be complied with although the district judge does not personally inquire whether the defendant understood the nature of the charge.
II.
Having decided that the Rule has not been complied with, we must also determine the effect of that noncompliance, an issue that has engendered a sharp difference of opinion among the courts of appeals. In Heiden v. United States, 353 F. 2d 53 (1965), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that when the district court does not comply fully with Rule 11 the defendant’s guilty plea must be set aside and his case remanded for another hearing at which he may plead anew. Other courts of appeals, however, have consistently rejected this holding, either expressly or tacitly. Instead, they have adopted the approach urged by the Government, which is to place upon the Government the burden of demonstrating from the record of the Rule 11 hearing that the guilty plea was voluntarily entered with an understanding of the charge. See, e. g., Halliday v. United States, 380 F. 2d 270 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1967); Lane v. United States, 373 F. 2d 570 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1967). In these circuits, if volun-tariness cannot be determined from the record, the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. See, e. g., Kennedy v. United States, 397 F. 2d 16 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1968); Halliday v. United States, supra.
We are persuaded that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has adopted the better rule. From the defendant’s perspective, the efficacy of shifting the burden of proof to the Government at a later voluntariness hearing is questionable. In meeting its burden, the Government will undoubtedly rely upon the defendant’s statement that he desired to plead guilty and frequently a statement that the plea was not induced by any threats or promises. This prima facie case for voluntariness is likely to be treated as irrebuttable in cases such as this one, where the defendant’s reply is limited to his own plaintive allegations that he did not understand the nature of the charge and therefore failed to assert a valid defense or to limit his guilty plea only to a lesser included offense. No matter how true these allegations may be, rarely, if ever, can a defendant corroborate them in a post-plea voluntariness hearing.
Rule 11 is designed to eliminate any need to resort to a later fact-finding proceeding “in this highly subjective area.” Heiden v. United States, supra, at 55. The Rule “contemplates that disputes as to the understanding of the defendant and the voluntariness of his action are to be eliminated at the outset . . . .” Ibid. As the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explained in discussing what it termed the “persuasive rationale” of Heiden: “When the ascertainment is subsequently made, greater uncertainty is bound to exist since in the resolution of disputed contentions problems of credibility and of reliability of memory cannot be avoided . . . .” Waddy v. Heer, 383 F. 2d 789, 794 (1967). There is no adequate substitute for demonstrating in the record at the time the plea is entered the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charge against him.
The wisdom of Rule ll’s requirements and the difficulty of achieving its purposes through a post-conviction voluntariness hearing are particularly apparent in this case. Petitioner, who was 65 years old and in poor health at the time he entered his plea, had been suffering from a serious drinking problem during the time he allegedly evaded his taxes. He pleaded guilty to a crime that requires a “knowing and willful” attempt to defraud the Government of its tax money; yet, throughout his sentencing hearing, he and his counsel insisted that his acts were merely “neglectful,” “inadvertent,” and committed without “any disposition to deprive the United States of its due.” Remarks of this nature cast considerable doubt on the Government’s assertion that petitioner pleaded guilty with full awareness of the nature of the charge. Nevertheless, confronted with petitioner’s statement that he entered his plea of his “own volition,” his counsel’s statement that he explained the nature of the charges, and evidence that petitioner did owe the Government back taxes, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner’s guilty plea was voluntary.
Despite petitioner’s inability to convince the courts below that he did not fully understand the charge against him, it is certainly conceivable that he may have intended to acknowledge only that he in fact owed the Government the money it claimed without necessarily admitting that he committed the crime charged; for that crime requires the very type of specific intent that he repeatedly disavowed. See Sansone v. United States, 380 U. S. 343 (1965). Moreover, since the elements of the offense were not explained to petitioner, and since the specific acts of tax evasion do not appear of record, it is also possible that if petitioner had been adequately informed he would have concluded that he was actually guilty of one of two closely related lesser included offenses, which are mere misdemeanors.
On the other hand, had the District Court scrupulously complied with Rule 11, there would be no need for such speculation. At the time the plea was entered, petitioner’s own replies to the court’s inquiries might well have attested to his understanding of the essential elements of the crime charged, including the requirement of specific intent, and to his knowledge of the acts which formed the basis for the charge. Otherwise, it would be apparent to the court that the plea could not be accepted. Similarly, it follows that, if the record had been developed properly, and if it demonstrated that petitioner entered his plea freely and intelligently, his subsequent references to neglect and inadvertence could have been summarily dismissed as nothing more than overzealous supplications for leniency.
We thus conclude that prejudice inheres in a failure to comply with Rule 11, for noncompliance deprives the defendant of the Rule’s procedural safeguards that are designed to facilitate a more accurate determination of the voluntariness of his plea. Our holding that a defendant whose plea has been accepted in violation of Rule 11 should be afforded the opportunity to plead anew not only will insure that every accused is afforded those procedural safeguards, but also will help reduce the great waste of judicial resources required to process the frivolous attacks on guilty plea convictions that are encouraged, and are more difficult to dispose of, when the original record is inadequate. It is, therefore, not too much to require that, before sentencing defendants to years of imprisonment, district judges take the few minutes necessary to inform them of their rights and to determine whether they understand the action they are taking.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX A TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
The relevant portion of the colloquy at the Rule 11 hearing on July 15 is as follows:
“Mr. Sokol [petitioner’s counsel]: ... If the Court please, I have advised Mr. McCarthy of the consequences of a plea. At this time, in his behalf I would like to withdraw the plea of not guilty heretofore entered to Count 2, and enter a plea of guilty to Count 2. There are three Counts.
“The Court: Is that satisfactory to the government?
“Mr. Hughes [Government counsel]: Satisfactory to the government, your Honor. The government will move to dismiss Counts 1 and 3.
“The Court: There will be a disposition in regard to the other Count?
“Mr. Sokol: He has just moved to dismiss Counts 1 and 3.
“The Court: Not until the plea is accepted and there is a judgment thereon.
“Mr. Hughes: Correct.
“The Court: This is tax evasion, five and ten?
“Mr. Hughes: Yes, your Honor, a maximum penalty of five years and $10,000.
“The Court: Mr. McCarthy, your lawyer tells me that you want to enter a plea of guilty to this second Count of this indictment; is that true?
“Defendant McCarthy: Yes, your Honor.
“The Court: You understand on your plea of guilty to the second Count of this indictment, you are waiving your right to a jury trial?
“Defendant McCarthy: Yes, your Honor.
“The Court: You understand on your plea of guilty you may be incarcerated for a term not to exceed five years?
“Defendant McCarthy: Yes, your Honor.
“The Court: You understand you may be fined in an amount not in excess of $10,000?
“Defendant McCarthy: Yes, your Honor.
“The Court: Knowing all that, you still persist in your plea of guilty?
“Defendant McCarthy: Yes, your Honor.
“The Court: The record will show that this defendant, after being advised of the consequences of his plea to Count 2 of this indictment, persists in his plea. The plea will be accepted. There will be a finding of guilty in the manner and form as charged in Count 2 of this indictment, judgment on that finding.
“Now, in regard to Counts 1 and 3?
“Mr. Hughes: Your Honor, the government will move to dismiss them. I would also request the Court to ask whether or not any promises or threats have been made.
“Mr. Sokol: No, no promises or threats.
“The Court: I am going to ask the defendant himself. Have any promises been made to you for entering a plea of guilty?
“Defendant McCarthy: No, your Honor.
“The Court: Has anybody threatened you that if you didn’t enter a plea of guilty something would happen to you?
“Defendant McCarthy: I beg your pardon?
“The Court: Has anybody threatened you to enter a plea of guilty?
“Defendant McCarthy: That’s right, of my own volition, your Honor.
“The Court: All right. Enter a pre-trial investigation order and continue the matter until the 14th day of September. Same bond may stand.”
APPENDIX B TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
The colloquy at the September 14 sentencing hearing included the following:
“Mr. Sokol [petitioner’s counsel]: ... If the Court please, apart from the wrecking of his physical health that has attended a number of the problems that relate to the drinking in this case, this man has experienced a kind of punishment, self-inflicted, which almost is a categorical listing of how he flees, actually, and I use that word advisedly, flees from consequence to punishment to additional consequence. It is a sad thing when at the age of sixty-five a man who has been able to rear, with the help of his wife, a fine family, has to leave a legacy such as this. I submit to the Court that he needs no deterrent. I cannot imagine a man — apart from the conventional contrition, he has actively sought out help in order to overcome what has become a very, very serious physical and psychological problem.
“When I spoke with Mr. Sanculius [the probation officer], I knew that we had given to him some reference to the fact and some attestations of the facts, supported the facts, that there had been a very, very serious psychological problem here.
“With respect to the tax case itself, he never took one single step to delude the investigating officer from the very, very start, and this was before Counsel was in the matter. He extended — in other words, he was open and he answered all questions readily.
“The Court: Yes, but his books were in such shape that it made it very difficult to — and that, in my opinion, was not inadvertent.
“Mr. Sokol: . . . When a man is neglectful and adopts a kind of a devious way of secreting himself from the government, that is one thing, and we are mindful they are kind of indicia of fraud. But where a man’s pattern is neglect of not only something like this — he is sloppy with respect to that, but in gross, in gross, unaccountable, so to speak.
“There was no direct relationship to the conse-squences of taxation. Now, I would like to point out in that connection that when the investigation commenced it zeroed in, and very, very properly, there was a disclosure made from the very, very first that in the case of the Blue Cross check, the matter of depositing that in a second account actually had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the government. At that time he had been very, very deeply involved in a protracted drinking situation and had been in the hospital for several weeks. His family, in order to avoid the matter of him really needing somebody to lead him around by the nose said, and his wife said, ‘You have to put yourself under the jurisdiction of your brother,’ and there was some indication that he was supposed to deposit this and he would not have disposition over his own assets. They did not feel that he could look out for himself. He was oppressed, and there is no sense in going over how people become so. In this particular case with a history after sixty-five years of this kind of a situation, one can perhaps guess without going into Freudian terms he was oppressed, and in order to free himself — and this had nothing to do with the government — in order to free himself from what he felt was a trap situation where he, at the age of sixty-two or sixty-three was being treated like a little boy, he put it in a different bank account. But there was never any disposition to deprive the United States of its due.
“He has never acted, actually, in what you would call normal consequence, because an interview with this man, even once, indicates that if he has — and it is like a little boy — if he has the consequence lying before him he says, ‘Oh, yes.’
“Mr. Sokol: He did not act in contemplation of avoiding taxation. That was a natural consequence of what can best be described as gross neglect, and criminal neglect, if you please.
“I could not have, in good conscience, recommended that he go into a plea if I did not feel that neglect has become criminal when it reaches a certain stage. But this was not a part of any elaborate scheme or any devious course of conduct where he was acting in contemplation of a tax return that—
“The Court: It took place over a series of four years, didn’t it, Counsel?
“Mr. Sokol: No, your Honor, because the real problem related to the matter of his avoiding the accountability not to his government but to the matter of the spending money.
“The Court: Well, I am sure that if the government had not stepped in, why, it would have lasted over a period of eight years.
“Mr. Sokol: No, he had already done this, apart from the fact that he had sought help with respect to the drinking, apart from the fact that he had sought help with respect to the psychiatric problem, and apart from the fact that he had already, so to speak, contained himself, he did, in addition, seek out the help of Mr. Abraham Angram, my associate counsel in the case, who was guiding him and he was on the right path. No, he had — I want to point out to the Court that this has occurred. This is fait accompli.”
The relevant portion of the colloquy at this hearing is quoted in Appendix A.
Defense counsel's account of petitioner’s personal problems during the period he allegedly evaded his income taxes is quoted in Appendix B.
Fed. Rule Grim. Proc. 11.
Ibid. Both of these provisions were added by the 1966 amendment to Rule 11. The amendment became effective on July 1, 1966. It is italicized on the next page in the following quotation of the Rule:
“A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea or a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. If a defendant refuses to plead or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or if a defendant corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.”
387 F. 2d 838 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1968).
The Advisory Committee suggests three methods of determining that a factual basis exists for a guilty plea: (1) inquiring of the defendant; (2) inquiring of the prosecutor; (3) examining the pre-sentence report. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, Notes of Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules.
During 1968 approximately 86% (22,055 out of 25,674) of all convictions obtained in the United States district courts were pursuant to a plea of guilty or its substantial equivalent, a plea of nolo contendere. 1968 Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts Ann. Rep. 261.
See nn. 22 and 23, infra.
The Government agrees with the Court of Appeals that the record of the September 14 sentencing hearing demonstrates that the District Judge satisfied himself by examining the presentence report that there was a factual basis for the plea. However, because of the Government's concession at oral argument that the judge did not inquire whether petitioner understood the nature of the charge, and because of our holding that any noncompliance with Rule 11 is reversible error, we need not consider the Government’s contention that the record adequately supports the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the district judge satisfied himself that there was a factual basis for the plea.
See Waddy v. Heer, 383 F. 2d 789 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1967).
See, e. g., Machibroda v. United States, 368 U. S. 487, 493 (1962); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708 (1948); Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101 (1942).
See Stephens v. United States, 376 F. 2d 23 (C. A. 10th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 881 (1967); Rimanich v. United States, 357 F. 2d 537 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1966); Kadwell v. United States, 315 F. 2d 667, 669 n. 6 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1963); Orfield, Pleas in Federal Criminal Procedure, 35 Notre Dame Law. 1, 31-32 (1959).
Chief Judge Walter E. Hoffman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has stated that “[t]he multitude of questions presented by the arraignment and plea under Rules 10 and 11 furnish the most frequent basis for attack in the popular post-conviction remedy available to federal prisoners.” Hoffman, What Next in Federal Criminal Rules?, 21 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1, 8 (1964).
See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, Notes of Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules.
Ibid.
See L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules § 11:12 (1966); A. Enker, Perspectives on Plea Bargaining, President’s Comm’n on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Courts, Appendix A, 116 (1967); Note, Guilty Plea Bargaining: Compromises by Prosecutors to Secure Guilty Pleas, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 865, 871-872 (1964).
See n. 11, supra.
See D. Newman, Conviction, The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial 23 (1966); ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice: Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty § 1.4 (a), commentary (Tent. Draft 1967).
Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, Notes of Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules.
Ibid.
The nature of the inquiry required by Rule 11 must necessarily vary from ease to case, and, therefore, we do not establish any general guidelines other than those expressed in the Rule itself. As our discussion of the facts in this particular case suggests, however, where the charge encompasses lesser included offenses, personally addressing the defendant as to his understanding of the essential elements of the charge to which he pleads guilty would seem a necessary prerequisite to a determination that he understands the meaning of the charge. In all such inquiries, “[m]atters of reality, and not mere ritual, should be controlling.” Kennedy v. United States, 397 F. 2d 16, 17 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1968).
After two separate panels had applied Heiden retroactively without discussion in Geter v. United States, 353 F. 2d 208 (1965), and Freeman v. United States, 350 F. 2d 940, 943 (1965), in a subsequent en banc decision the Ninth Circuit held that it would not apply Heiden to cases in which the guilty plea was accepted before the date on which Heiden was decided. Castro v. United States, 396 F. 2d 345 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1968).
Kennedy v. United States, 397 F. 2d 16 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1968) ; Halliday v. United States, 380 F. 2d 270 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1967) (“at least with respect to [pre-amended] Rule 11”); Stephens v. United States, 376 F. 2d 23 (C. A. 10th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 881 (1967); Brokaw v. United States, 368 F. 2d 508 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 996 (1967) (at least where the defendant raises only the factual issues of voluntariness).
United States v. Del Piano, 386 F. 2d 436 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 392 U. S. 936 (1968); Lane v. United States, 373 F. 2d 570 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1967); United States v. Kincaid, 362 F. 2d 939 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1966); Bartlett v. United States, 354 F. 2d 745 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1966).
See 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 11.03 [1], at 11-22 (2d ed. 1968). But see United States v. Pate, 357 F. 2d 911 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1966).
Sansone v. United States, 380 U. S. 343 (1965).
Willfully filing a fraudulent or false return is a misdemeanor under § 7207 of the Internal Revenue Code, and willfully failing to pay taxes is a misdemeanor under § 7203 of the Code. The close interrelationship between these two offenses and the felony for which petitioner was convicted under § 7201 is explained in detail in Sansone.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 question in this qualified immunity case is whether two police officers violated clearly established law when they forcibly apprehended a man at the scene of a reported domestic violence incident.
The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows the following. In April 2013, Escondido police received a 911 call from Maggie Emmons about a domestic violence incident at her apartment. Emmons lived at the apartment with her husband, her two children, and a roommate, Ametria Douglas. Officer Jake Houchin responded to the scene and eventually helped take a domestic violence report from Emmons about injuries caused by her husband. The officers arrested her husband. He was later released.
A few weeks later, on May 27, 2013, at about 2:30 p.m., Escondido police received a 911 call about another possible domestic disturbance at Emmons' apartment. That 911 call came from Ametria Douglas' mother, Trina Douglas. Trina Douglas was not at the apartment, but she was on the phone with her daughter Ametria, who was at the apartment. Trina heard her daughter Ametria and Maggie Emmons yelling at each other and heard her daughter screaming for help. The call then disconnected, and Trina Douglas called 911.
Officer Houchin again responded, along with Officer Robert Craig. The dispatcher informed the officers that two children could be in the residence and that calls to the apartment had gone unanswered.
Police body-camera video of the officers' actions at the apartment is in the record.
The officers knocked on the door of the apartment. No one answered. But a side window was open, and the officers spoke with Emmons through that window, attempting to convince her to open the door to the apartment so that they could conduct a welfare check. A man in the apartment also told Emmons to back away from the window, but the officers said they could not identify the man. At some point during this exchange, Sergeant Kevin Toth, Officer Joseph Leffingwell, and Officer Huy Quach arrived as backup.
A few minutes later, a man opened the apartment door and came outside. At that point, Officer Craig was standing alone just outside the door. Officer Craig told the man not to close the door, but the man closed the door and tried to brush past Officer Craig. Officer Craig stopped the man, took him quickly to the ground, and handcuffed him. Officer Craig did not hit the man or display any weapon. The video shows that the man was not in any visible or audible pain as a result of the takedown or while on the ground. Within a few minutes, officers helped the man up and arrested him for a misdemeanor offense of resisting and delaying a police officer.
The man turned out to be Maggie Emmons' father, Marty Emmons. Marty Emmons later sued Officer Craig and Sergeant Toth, among others, under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He raised several claims, including, as relevant here, a claim of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The suit sought money damages for which Officer Craig and Sergeant Toth would be personally liable. The District Court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest Marty Emmons for the misdemeanor offense. The Ninth Circuit did not disturb that finding, and there is no claim presently before us that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Marty Emmons. The only claim before us is that the officers used excessive force in effectuating the arrest.
The District Court rejected the claim of excessive force. 168 F.Supp.3d 1265, 1274 (S.D.Cal.2016). The District Court stated that the "video shows that the officers acted professionally and respectfully in their encounter" at the apartment. Id ., at 1275. Because only Officer Craig used any force at all, the District Court granted summary judgment to Sergeant Toth on the excessive force claim.
Applying this Court's precedents on qualified immunity, the District Court also granted summary judgment to Officer Craig. According to the District Court, the law did not clearly establish that Officer Craig could not take down an arrestee in these circumstances. The court explained that the officers were responding to a domestic dispute, and that the encounter had escalated when the officers could not enter the apartment to conduct a welfare check. The District Court also noted that when Marty Emmons exited the apartment, none of the officers knew whether he was armed or dangerous, or whether he had injured any individuals inside the apartment.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial on the excessive force claims against both Officer Craig and Sergeant Toth. 716 Fed.Appx. 724 (C.A.9 2018). The Ninth Circuit's entire relevant analysis of the qualified immunity question consisted of the following: "The right to be free of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the events in question. Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir.2013)." Id ., at 726.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to Sergeant Toth, and vacate and remand as to Officer Craig.
With respect to Sergeant Toth, the Ninth Circuit offered no explanation for its decision. The court's unexplained reinstatement of the excessive force claim against Sergeant Toth was erroneous-and quite puzzling in light of the District Court's conclusion that "only Defendant Craig was involved in the excessive force claim" and that Emmons "fail[ed] to identify contrary evidence." 168 F.Supp.3d, at 1274, n. 4.
As to Officer Craig, the Ninth Circuit also erred. As we have explained many times: "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1148, 1152, 200 L.Ed.2d 449 (2018) (per curiam ) (internal quotation marks omitted); see District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct. 577, 593, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018) ; White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct. 548, 551, 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017) (per curiam ); Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (per curiam ).
Under our cases, the clearly established right must be defined with specificity. "This Court has repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Kisela, 584 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1152 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is particularly important in excessive force cases, as we have explained:
"Specificity is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context, where the Court has recognized that it is sometimes difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal doctrine, here excessive force, will apply to the factual situation the officer confronts. Use of excessive force is an area of the law in which the result depends very much on the facts of each case, and thus police officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts at issue....
"[I]t does not suffice for a court simply to state that an officer may not use unreasonable and excessive force, deny qualified immunity, and then remit the case for a trial on the question of reasonableness. An officer cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right's contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was violating it." Id ., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 1153 (quotation altered).
In this case, the Court of Appeals contravened those settled principles. The Court of Appeals should have asked whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from stopping and taking down a man in these circumstances. Instead, the Court of Appeals defined the clearly established right at a high level of generality by saying only that the "right to be free of excessive force" was clearly established. With the right defined at that high level of generality, the Court of Appeals then denied qualified immunity to the officers and remanded the case for trial. 716 Fed. Appx., at 726.
Under our precedents, the Court of Appeals' formulation of the clearly established right was far too general. To be sure, the Court of Appeals cited the Gravelet-Blondin case from that Circuit, which described a right to be "free from the application of non-trivial force for engaging in mere passive resistance...." 728 F.3d, at 1093. Assuming without deciding that a court of appeals decision may constitute clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity, see City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1776, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015), the Ninth Circuit's Gravelet-Blondin case law involved police force against individuals engaged in passive resistance. The Court of Appeals made no effort to explain how that case law prohibited Officer Craig's actions in this case. That is a problem under our precedents:
"[W]e have stressed the need to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.... While there does not have to be a case directly on point, existing precedent must place the lawfulness of the particular [action] beyond debate.... Of course, there can be the rare obvious case, where the unlawfulness of the officer's conduct is sufficiently clear even though existing precedent does not address similar circumstances.... But a body of relevant case law is usually necessary to clearly establish the answer...." Wesby, 583 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 581 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court of Appeals failed to properly analyze whether clearly established law barred Officer Craig from stopping and taking down Marty Emmons in this manner as Emmons exited the apartment. Therefore, we remand the case for the Court of Appeals to conduct the analysis required by our precedents with respect to whether Officer Craig is entitled to qualified immunity.
The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Petitioners were convicted of various counts under a 28-count indictment charging mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1341, 1343, and conspiracy, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 371. The United States claimed, and the jury apparently found, that petitioners conspired to defraud, and did defraud, the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, with the prime objective of financially rehabilitating Sun Valley, Inc., a real estate enterprise in which certain of the petitioners had important interests. For reasons which follow, we do not reach, one way or the other, any of the contentions urged by petitioners in support of their petition for a writ of certiorari.
In response to the petition, the Solicitor General sua sponte has advised the Court that on December 2, 1963, some six months after the indictment in this case, a conversation between petitioner Burris and one Benjamin Sigelbaum, not a defendant in this prosecution, was overheard by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a result of electronic eavesdropping. The eavesdropping equipment had been installed in Sigel-baum’s office, by trespass, some 12 months before this conversation, and thereafter had been maintained in operation. We are informed by the Solicitor General that the recorded conversation was concerned both with the proposed transfer to Sigelbaum of Burris’ interest in Sun Valley, and with the conduct of the defense to this prosecution. The Solicitor General has indicated that the contents of the recording were available to government attorneys involved in this prosecution, but adds that the recording was only “peripherally relevant to the charges underlying [Burris’] conviction.” We are, moreover, advised by him that the information obtained through this electronic eavesdropping was not introduced into evidence at trial, that it was never the basis of any investigative lead, and that it was in part already known, through Burris’ own statements, to government attorneys. Unlike the situations in Black v. United States, 385 U. S. 26, and O’Brien v. United States, 386 U. S. 345, there was apparently no direct intrusion here into attorney-client discussions. In these circumstances, we find no “adequate justification,” Black v. United States, supra, at 29, now to require a new trial of Burris or of any of the other petitioners; the more orderly and appropriate procedure is instead to remand the case to the District Court for a hearing, findings, and conclusions on the nature and relevance to these convictions of the recorded conversation, and of any other conversations that may be shown to have been overheard through similar eavesdropping. United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U. S. 233.
We do not accept the Solicitor General’s suggestion that such an inquiry should be confined to the conviction of Burris. We consider it more appropriate that each of these petitioners be provided an opportunity to establish, if he can, that the interception of this particular conversation, or of other conversations, vitiated in some manner his conviction. We do not intend by this to suggest that any or all of the petitioners might, under the circumstances described by the Solicitor General, be entitled to a new trial; we decide only that further proceedings must be held, and findings and conclusions made, to determine the content and pertinence to this case of any such recorded conversations.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of cer-tiorari as to each of the petitioners, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In such proceedings, the District Court will confine the evidence presented by both sides to that which is material to questions of the content of this and any other electronically eavesdropped conversations, and of the relevance of any such conversations to petitioners’ subsequent convictions. The District Court will make such findings of fact on these questions as may be appropriate in light of the further evidence and of the entire existing record. If the District Court decides, on the basis of such findings, that the conviction of any of the petitioners was not tainted by the use of evidence thus improperly obtained, it will enter new final judgments as to such petitioners based on the existing record as supplemented by its further findings, thereby preserving to all affected parties the right to seek further appropriate appellate review. If, on the other hand, the District Court concludes after such further proceedings that the conviction of any of the petitioners was tainted, it would then become its duty to accord any such petitioner a new trial. See United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., supra, at 245-246; see also Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U. S. 341.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black would grant certiorari and set the case for argument. He dissents from the vacation of the judgment of the Court of Appeals and from the remand of the case to the District Court.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Brief for the United States in Opposition 70.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question before us is whether the Board of Public Education for the School District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when the Board, purporting to act under the Pennsylvania Public School Code, discharged a public school teacher on the ground of “incompetency,” evidenced by the teacher’s refusal of his Superintendent’s request to confirm or refute information as to the teacher’s loyalty and his activities in certain allegedly subversive organizations. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it did not.
On June 25, 1952, Herman A. Beilan, the petitioner, who had been a teacher for about 22 years in the Philadelphia Public School System, presented himself at his Superintendent’s office in response to the latter’s request. The Superintendent said he had information which reflected adversely on petitioner’s loyalty and he wanted to determine its truth or falsity. In response to petitioner’s suggestion that the Superintendent do the questioning, the latter said he would ask one question and petitioner could then determine whether he would answer it and others of that type. The Superintendent, accordingly, asked petitioner whether or not he had been the Press Director of the Professional Section of the Communist Political Association in 1944. Petitioner asked permission to consult counsel before answering and the Superintendent granted his request.
On October 14, 1952, in response to a similar request, petitioner again presented himself at the Superintendent’s office. Petitioner stated that he had consulted counsel and that he declined to answer the question as to his activities in 1944. He announced he would also decline to answer any other “questions similar to it,” “questions of this type,” or “questions about political and religious beliefs . . . .” The Superintendent warned petitioner that this “was a very serious and a very important matter and that failure to answer the questions might lead to his dismissal.” The Superintendent made it clear that he was investigating “a real question of fitness for ■ [petitioner] to be a teacher or to continue in the teaching work.” These interviews were given no publicity and were attended only by petitioner, his Superintendent and the Assistant Solicitor of the Board.
On November 25, 1953, the Board instituted dismissal proceedings against petitioner under § 1127 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949. The only specification which we need consider charged that petitioner’s refusal to answer his Superintendent’s questions constituted “incompetency” under § 1122 of that Code. The Board conducted a formal hearing on the charge. Petitioner was present with counsel but did not testify. Counsel for each side agreed that petitioner’s loyalty was not in issue, and that evidence as to his disloyalty would be irrelevant. On January 7, 1954, the Board found that the charge of incompetency had been sustained and, by a vote of fourteen to one, discharged petitioner from his employment as a teacher.
On an administrative appeal, the Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania sustained the local Board. However, on petitioner’s appeal to the County Court of Common Pleas, that court set aside petitioner’s discharge and held that the Board should have followed the procedure specified by the Pennsylvania Loyalty Act, rather than the Public School Code. Finally, on the Board’s appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, with two justices dissenting, reversed the Court of Common Pleas and reinstated petitioner’s discharge. 386 Pa. 82, 98, 110, 125 A. 2d 327, 334, 340. We granted certiorari. 353 U. S. 964.
In addition to the Public School Code, Pennsylvania has a comprehensive Loyalty Act which provides for the discharge of public employees on grounds of disloyalty or subversive conduct. Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1941 (Cum. Ann. Pocket Pt., 1957), Tit. 65, §§ 211-225. Petitioner stresses the fact that the question asked of him by his Superintendent related to his loyalty. He contends that he was discharged for suspected disloyalty and that his discharge is invalid because of failure to follow the Loyalty Act procedure. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Board was not limited to proceeding under the Loyalty Act, even though the questions asked of petitioner related to his loyalty. We are bound by the interpretation thus given to the Pennsylvania statutes by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U. S. 442, 448; Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Risty, 276 U. S. 567, 570. The only question before us is whether the Federal Constitution prohibits petitioner’s discharge for statutory “incompetency” based on his refusal to answer the Superintendent’s questions.
By engaging in teaching in the public schools, petitioner did not give up his right to freedom of belief, speech or association. He did, however, undertake obligations of frankness, candor and cooperation in answering inquiries made of him by his employing Board examining into his fitness to serve it as a public school teacher.
“A teacher works in a sensitive area in a schoolroom. There he shapes the attitude of young minds towards the society in which they live. In this, the state has a vital concern. It must preserve the integrity of the schools. That the school authorities have the right and the duty to screen the officials, teachers, and employees as to their fitness to maintain the integrity of the schools as a part of ordered society, cannot be doubted.” Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 485, 493.
As this Court stated in Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U. S. 716, 720, “We think that a municipal employer is not disabled because it is an agency of the State from inquiring of its employees as to matters that may prove relevant to their fitness and suitability for the public service.”
The question asked of petitioner by his Superintendent was relevant to the issue of petitioner’s fitness and suitability to serve as a teacher. Petitioner is not in a position to challenge his dismissal merely because of the remoteness in time of the 1944 activities. It was apparent from the circumstances of the two interviews that the Superintendent had other questions to ask. Petitioner’s refusal to answer was not based on the remoteness of his 1944 activities. He made it clear that he would not answer any question of the same type as the one asked. Petitioner blocked from the beginning any inquiry into his Communist activities, however relevant to his present loyalty. The Board based its dismissal upon petitioner’s refusal to answer any inquiry about his relevant activities — not upon those activities themselves. It took care to charge petitioner with incompetency, and not with disloyalty. It found him insubordinate and lacking in frankness and candor — it made no finding as to his loyalty.
We find no requirement in the Federal Constitution that a teacher’s classroom conduct be the sole basis for determining his fitness. Fitness for teaching depends on a broad range of factors. The Pennsylvania tenure provision specifies several disqualifying grounds, including immorality, intemperance, cruelty, mental derangement and persistent and willful violation of the school laws, as well as “incompetency.” However, the Pennsylvania statute, unlike those of many other States, contains no catch-all phrase, such as “conduct unbecoming a teacher,” to cover disqualifying conduct not included within the more specific provisions. Consequently, the Pennsylvania courts have given “incompetency” a broad interpretation. This was made clear in Horosko v. Mt. Pleasant School District, 335 Pa. 369, 371, 374-375, 6 A. 2d 866, 868, 869-870:
“If the fact be that she 'now commands neither the respect nor the good will of the community’ and if the record shows that effect to be the result of her conduct within the clause quoted, it will be conclusive evidence of incompetency. It has always been the recognized duty of the teacher to conduct himself in such way as to command the respect and good will of the community, though one result of the choice of a teacher’s vocation may be to deprive him of the same freedom of action enjoyed by persons in other vocations. Educators have always regarded the example set by the teacher as of great importance ....
“The term 'incompetency’ has a ‘common and approved usage’. The context does not limit the meaning of the word to lack of substantive knowl-edgé of the subjects to be taught. Common and approved usage give a much wider meaning. For example, in 31 C. J., with reference to a number of supporting decisions, it is defined: ‘A relative term without technical meaning. It may be employed as meaning disqualification; inability; incapacity; lack of ability, legal qualifications, or fitness to discharge the required duty.’ In Black’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition) page 945, and in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, (3rd revision) p. 1528, it is defined as ‘Lack of ability or fitness to discharge the required duty.’ Cases construing the word to the same effect are found in Words and Phrases, 1st series, page 3510, and 2nd series, page 1013. Webster’s New International Dictionary defines it as ‘want of physical, intellectual, or moral ability; insufficiency; inadequacy; specif., want of legal qualifications or fitness.’ Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary defines it as ‘General lack of capacity of fitness, or lack of the special qualities required for a particular purpose.’ ”
In the Horosko case, a teacher was discharged for “incompetency” because of her afterhours activity in her husband’s beer garden, serving as a bartender and waitress, occasionally drinking beer, shaking dice with the customers for drinks and playing the pinball machine. Cf. Schwer’s Appeal, 36 Pa. D. & C. 531, 536.
In the instant case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that “incompetency” includes petitioner’s “deliberate and insubordinate refusal to answer the questions of his administrative superior in a vitally important matter pertaining to his fitness.” 386 Pa., at 91, 125 A. 2d, at 331. This interpretation is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution.
Petitioner complains that he was denied due process because he was not sufficiently warned of the consequences of his refusal to answer his Superintendent. The record, however, shows that the Superintendent, in his second interview, specifically warned petitioner that his refusal to answer “was a very serious and a very important matter and that failure to answer the questions might lead to his dismissal.” That was sufficient warning to petitioner that his refusal to answer might jeopardize his employment. Furthermore, at petitioner’s request, his Superintendent gave him ample opportunity to consult counsel. There was no element of surprise.
Our recent decisions in Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551, and Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 353 U. S. 252, are distinguishable. In each we envisioned and distinguished the situation now before us. In the Slochower case, at 558, the Court said :
“It is one thing for the city authorities themselves to inquire into Slochower’s fitness, but quite another for his discharge to be based entirely on events occurring before a federal committee whose inquiry was announced as not directed at ‘the property, affairs, or government of the city, or . . . official conduct of city employees.’ In this respect the present case differs materially from Garner [341 U. S. 716], where the city was attempting to elicit information necessary to determine the qualifications of its employees. Here, the Board had possessed the pertinent information for 12 years, and the questions which Professor Slochower refused to answer were admittedly asked for a purpose wholly unrelated to his college functions. On such a record the Board cannot claim that its action was part of a bona fide attempt to gain needed and relevant information.”
In the Konigsberg case, supra, at 259-261, this Court stressed the fact that the action of the State was not based on the mere refusal to answer relevant questions— rather, it was based on inferences impermissibly drawn from the refusal. In the instant case, no inferences at all were drawn from petitioner’s refusal to answer. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court merely equated refusal to answer the employing Board’s relevant questions with statutory “incompetency.”
Inasmuch as petitioner’s dismissal did not violate the Federal Constitution, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is
Affirmed.
The Communist Political Association was the predecessor organization of the Communist Party of the United States. See Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 304, n. 5.
Pa. Laws 1949, No. 14, Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1950, Tit. 24, § 11-1127.
Petitioner’s refusal to answer his Superintendent was also charged as persistent and willful violation of the school laws, another statutory ground for dismissal. See note 4, infra.
On November 18, 1953, petitioner had been called to testify as a witness in a Philadelphia hearing of a Subcommittee of the United States House Committee on Un-American Activities. There he was asked to confirm or refute several reports as to his alleged subversive activities in 1949 and earlier years. He declined to answer, relying upon the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. That invocation of the Fifth Amendment was specified by the Board as a further ground of “incompetency.” All charges were sustained on the administrative level.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that petitioner’s refusal to answer his Superintendent evidenced a statutory “incompetency” sufficient to support his dismissal and, therefore, found it unnecessary to pass on the other grounds for dismissal. 386 Pa. 82, 94, 125 A. 2d 327, 333. It is suggested that petitioner has a right to the initial judgment of the administrative authorities on whether refusal to answer the Superintendent, independent of the other, charges, would support the dismissal. Under the Pennsylvania Public School Code, Common Pleas Courts exercise de novo review of dismissals. Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1950 (Cum. Ann. Pocket Pt., 1957), Tit. 24, § 11-1132 (b). A dismissal can be sustained if the court finds support for any one of the multiple grounds relied upon by the dismissing school board. Cf. Brown Case, 347 Pa. 418, affirming 151 Pa. Super. 522, 30 A. 2d 726, reported sub nom. Appeal of School District of City of Bethlehem, 32 A. 2d 565. This allocation of functions between the Pennsylvania courts and administrative agencies does not violate due process. Accordingly, it is necessary for us to consider only the one ground relied upon by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. As a matter of jurisdiction, our only jurisdiction is over the Pennsjdvania Supreme Court, as the highest court of the State.
Section 1122 of that Code, in 1952 and 1953, provided that “The only valid causes for termination of a contract heretofore or hereafter entered into with a professional employe shall be immorality, incompetency, intemperance, cruelty, persistent negligence, mental derangement, persistent and wilful violation of the school laws of this Commonwealth on the part of the professional employe.” (Emphasis supplied.) Pa. Laws 1949, No. 14, as amended, Pa. Laws 1951, No. 463, § 16; Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1950 (Cum. Ann. Pocket Pt., 1957), Tit. 24, §11-1122.
As enacted in 1949, § 1122 had contained, after the words “mental derangement,” the clause, “advocation of or participating in un-American or subversive doctrines.” Pa. Laws 1949, No. 14. That clause, however, was deleted by § 16 of the Pennsylvania Loyalty Act, approved December 22,1951, effective March 1, 1952. Pa. Laws 1951, No. 463.
Counsel for the Board, at the outset of the hearing, stated:
“It is my contention, and it has been the thought of your counsel since these proceedings were initiated, that these are not proceedings brought against these respondents charging them with disloyalty. If that were the situation we would have a completely different record, a completely different set of facts, a completely different section under which the charges would be made, if made at all.
“Now, so far as I am concerned, sir, and so far as my presentation of testimony is concerned, I don’t think whether this man is loyal or disloyal has anything to do with this case. And if your counsel’s advice were being asked in the matter, I should say that any testimony directed toward present loyalty or disloyalty is completely out of this case.
“So far as this case is concerned, we are not delving into present or past loyalty.”
Counsel for petitioner stated: “Mr. President, if you please, I have no intention of seeing this proceeding become a loyalty hearing. Mr. Rhoads [counsel for the Board] has stated that it is not. I agree with him completely.”
There is no showing that the statute was discriminatorily applied. Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268.
See note 4, supra.
E. g., Baldwin’s Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann., 1955, § 161.790 (1), “conduct unbecoming a teacher,” “during good behavior.”
Mass. Ann. Laws, 1953 (Cum. Supp., 1957), c. 71, §42, “conduct unbecoming a teacher,” “or other good cause.”
West’s Ann. Cal. Code, Education, § 13521 (a), (e), “unprofessional conduct,” “Evident unfitness for service.”
Smith-Hurd’s Ill. Ann. Stat., 1946 (Cum. Ann. Pocket Pt., 1957), c. 122, § 6-36, “other sufficient cause.”
Burns’ Ann. Ind. Stat., 1948 Replacement Vol., § 28-4308, “other good and just cause.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the ■ Court.
The petitioner brought this suit against the respondent to recover damages sustained by him allegedly as a consequence of a shipboard accident while serving as a crew-member on the respondent’s vessel in the Caribbean. As the vessel encountered a heavy sea, petitioner was pitched into the air and fell back to the deck, where, upon landing, a wave washed him a considerable distance. Shortly after the accident, the petitioner became quite ill and was hospitalized and treated for a serious case of tuberculosis. The respondent’s liability for the accident was predicated on fault under the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688, and alternatively on breach of the maritime duty .to furnish a seaworthy vessel. The petitioner’s theory was that the accident activated or aggravated a previously latent tubercular condition. The case was submitted to a jury in the District Court, where a verdict was returned for the petitioner, and judgment entered thereon. In the Court of Appeals, the respondent did not argue that the jury could not have with reason found it liable for the accident, but contended solely that the evidence did not justify the jury’s conclusion that the- accident caused the serious illness that followed it. The Court of Appeals-agreed with the respondent’s contention and reversed, 256 F. 2d 156. We granted certiorari on a petition in which it was asserted that the Cou,rt of Appeals had applied. an improper standard in reviewing the medical evidence and in examining the judgment rendered on the jury’s verdict. 359 U. S. 923.
There was evidence that petitioner (whose medical history was an active one) had been examined several times by his regular physician in the year preceding the accident, as recently as two months before it, with no appearance of tuberculosis being then noted. During the petitioner’s acute tuberculosis subsequent to the accident, a specialist re-examined X-ray pictures taken in the years preceding the accident, and concluded that they- did in fact reveal a pulmonary lesion, at first involving a “small scarred inactive area.” “In retrospect,” the specialist felt that the lesion had been tubercular. In response to a hypothetical question as to the effect of an accident like pétitioner’s on the aggravation or activation of a pre-existing, dormant tubercular condition, the specialist gave an opinion that “acute dissemination of the tuberculosis” might be a consequence of the accident. Another specialist, who had treated petitioner during his hospitalization after the accident, posited the trauma and petitioner’s pre-existing diabetic condition as the most likely causes of the aggravation of the tuberculosis, though he was not able to state “which of the two it is more likely was responsible in this instance.” Another medical expert, who had' not personally examined petitioner, when questioned hypothetically, was of opinion that the accident “probably aggravated his condition,” though he would not say definitely: “We don’t éver select one item and say that is the cause of any particular aggravation.”
The jury’s power to draw the inference that the aggravation of petitioner’s tubercular, condition, evident so shortly after the' accident, was in fact caused by that accident, was not impaired by the failure of any medical witness to testify that it was in fact the cause. Neither can it be impaired by the lack, of medical unanimity as-to the respective likelihood of the potential causes of the aggravation, or by the fact that other potential causes of the aggravation existed and were not conclusively negated by the proofs. The matter does riot turn on the use of a particular form of words by the physicians in giving their testimony. The members of the jury, not the medical witnesses, were sworn to maké a legal determination of the question of causation. They were entitled to take all the circumstances, including the medical testimony, into consideration. See Sullivan v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 185 Mass. 602, 71 N. E. 90; Miami Coal Co. v. Luce, 76 Ind. App. 245, 131 N. E. 824. Though this case involves a medical issue, it is no exception to the admonition that, “It is not the function of a court to search the record for conflicting circumstantial evidence in order to take the case away from the jury on a theory that the proof gives equal support to inconsistent and uncertain inferences. The focal point of judicial review is the reasonableness of the particular inference or conclusion drawn by the jury. .... The Very essence of its function is to select from among conflicting inferences and conclusions that which it considers most reasonable. . . . Courts are not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable.” Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union R. Co., 321 U. S. 29, 35. The proofs here justified with reason the conclusion of the jury that the accident caused the petitioner’s serious subsequent illness. See Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Whittaker, finding in the record direct medical testimony expressing the opinion that petitioner’s 'latent tubercular condition actually was activated by the , trauma complained of, concürs.
Maintenance and cure in respect of the illness were also claimed ; this was viewed as. presenting a causation problem similar to that posed by the claim for indemnity damages.
For a discussion of the reluctance of medical opinion to assign traupia as the cause of disease, and of the varying medical and legal . concepts of causation, see Small, Gaffing at a Thing Called Cause: Médica-Legal Conflicts in the Concept of-Causation, 31 Tex. L. Rev. 630: • •\ ■ ■
The medical testimony in the case last cited, moved the court to say: “Indeed, if jt-were not for the’ saving ;grace'of what we call common sense, justice would be defeated iri almost, every cáse, where opinion evidence is admitted.” Id., at 249, 131 N. E., at 826.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case presents the issue whether a federal court sitting in diversity should apply state or federal law in adjudicating a motion to transfer a case to a venue provided in a contractual forum-selection clause.
I
The dispute underlying this case grew out of a dealership agreement that obligated petitioner company, an Alabama corporation, to market copier products of respondent, a nationwide manufacturer with its principal place of business in New Jersey. The agreement contained a forum-selection clause providing that any dispute arising out of the contract could be brought only in a court located in Manhattan. Business relations between the parties soured under circumstances that are not relevant here. In September 1984, petitioner brought a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The core of the complaint was an allegation that respondent had breached the dealership agreement, but petitioner also included claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and antitrust violations.
Relying on the contractual forum-selection clause, respondent moved the District Court either to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York under 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a) or to dismiss the case for improper venue under 28 U. S. C. § 1406. The District Court denied the motion. Civ. Action No. 84-AR-2460-S (Jan. 29, 1985). It reasoned that the transfer motion was controlled by Alabama law and that Alabama looks unfavorably upon contractual forum-selection clauses. The court certified its ruling for interlocutory appeal, see 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) (1982 ed., Supp. IV), and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit accepted jurisdiction.
On appeal, a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court. The panel concluded that questions of venue in diversity actions are governed by federal law, and that the parties’ forum-selection clause was enforceable as a matter of federal law. 779 F. 2d 643 (1986). The panel therefore reversed the order of the District Court and remanded with instructions to transfer the case to a Manhattan court. After petitioner successfully moved for rehearing en banc, 785 F. 2d 896 (1986), the full Court of Appeals proceeded to adopt the result, and much of the reasoning, of the panel opinion. 810 F. 2d 1066 (1987). The en banc court, citing Congress’ enactment or approval of several rules to govern venue determinations in diversity actions, first determined that “[v]enue is a matter of federal procedure.” Id., at 1068. The Court of Appeals then applied the standards articulated in the admiralty case of The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1 (1972), to conclude that “the choice of forum clause in this contract is in all respects enforceable generally as a matter of federal law . . . .” 810 F. 2d, at 1071. We now affirm under somewhat different reasoning.
I I — I
Both the panel opinion and the opinion of the full Court of Appeals referred to the difficulties that often attend “the sticky question of which law, state or federal, will govern various aspects of the decisions of federal courts sitting in diversity.” 779 F. 2d, at 645. A district court’s decision whether to apply a federal statute such as § 1404(a) in a diversity action, however, involves a considerably less intricate analysis than that which governs the “relatively unguided Erie choice.” Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, 471 (1965) (referring to Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938)). Our cases indicate that when the federal law sought to be applied is a congressional statute, the first and chief question for the district court’s determination is whether the statute is “sufficiently broad to control the issue before the Court.” Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U. S. 740, 749-750 (1980); Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U. S. 1, 4-5 (1987). This question involves a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation to determine if the statute covers the point in dispute. See Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., supra, at 750, and n. 9. See also Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods, supra, at 7 (identifying inquiry as whether a Federal Rule “occupies [a state rule’s] field of operation”).
If the district court determines that a federal statute covers the point in dispute, it proceeds to inquire whether the statute represents a valid exercise of Congress’ authority under the Constitution. See Hanna v. Plumer, supra, at 471 (citing Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, at 77-79). If Congress intended to reach the issue before the district court, and if it enacted its intention into law in a manner that abides with the Constitution, that is the end of the matter; “[fjederal courts are bound to apply rules enacted by Congress with respect to matters . . . over which it has legislative power.” Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395, 406 (1967); cf. Hanna v. Plumer, supra, at 471 (“When a situation is covered by one of the Federal Rules . . . the court has been instructed to apply the Federal Rule, and can refuse to do so only if the Advisory Committee, this Court, and Congress erred in their prima facie judgment that the Rule in question transgresses neither the terms of the Enabling Act nor constitutional restrictions”). Thus, a district court sitting in diversity must apply a federal statute that controls the issue before the court and that represents a valid exercise of Congress’ constitutional powers.
III
Applying the above analysis to this case persuades us that federal law, specifically 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a), governs the parties’ venue dispute.
A
At the outset we underscore a methodological difference in our approach to the question from that taken by the Court of Appeals. The en banc court determined that federal law controlled the issue based on a survey of different statutes and judicial decisions that together revealed a significant federal interest in questions of venue in general, and in choice-of-forum clauses in particular. The Court of Appeals then proceeded to apply the standards announced in our opinion in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1 (1972), to determine that the forum-selection clause in this case was enforceable. But the immediate issue before the District Court was whether to grant respondent’s motion to transfer the action under § 1404(a), and as Judge Tjoflat properly noted in his special concurrence below, the immediate issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the District Court’s denial of the § 1404(a) motion constituted an abuse of discretion. Although we agree with the Court of Appeals that the Bremen case may prove “instructive” in resolving the parties’ dispute, 810 F. 2d, at 1069; but cf. Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U. S. 630, 641-642 (1981) (federal common law developed under admiralty jurisdiction not freely transferable to diversity setting), we disagree with the court’s articulation of the relevant inquiry as “whether the forum selection clause in this case is unenforceable under the standards set forth in The Bremen.” 810 F. 2d, at 1069. Rather, the first question for consideration should have been whether § 1404(a) itself controls respondent’s request to give effect to the parties’ contractual choice of venue and transfer this case to a Manhattan court. For the reasons that follow, we hold that it does.
B
Section 1404(a) provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” Under the analysis outlined above, we first consider whether this provision is sufficiently broad to control the issue before the court. That issue is whether to transfer the case to a court in Manhattan in accordance with the forum-selection clause. We believe that the statute, fairly construed, does cover the point in dispute.
Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U. S. 612, 622 (1964). A motion to transfer under § 1404(a) thus calls on the district court to weigh in- the balance a number of case-specific factors. The presence of a forum-selection clause such as the parties entered into in this case will be a significant factor that figures centrally in the district court’s calculus. In its resolution of the § 1404(a) motion in this case, for example, the District Court will be called on to address such issues as the convenience of a Manhattan forum given the parties’ expressed preference for that venue, and the fairness of transfer in light of the forum-selection clause and the parties’ relative bargaining power. The flexible and individualized analysis Congress prescribed in § 1404(a) thus encompasses consideration of the parties’ private expression of their venue preferences.
Section 1404(a) may not be the only potential source of guidance for the District Court to consult in weighing the parties’ private designation of a suitable forum. The premise of the dispute between the parties is that Alabama law may refuse to enforce forum-selection clauses providing for out-of-state venues as a matter of state public policy. If that is so, the District Court will have either to integrate the factor of the forum-selection clause into its weighing of considerations as prescribed by Congress, or else to apply, as it did in this case, Alabama’s categorical policy disfavoring forum-selection clauses. Our cases make clear that, as between these two choices in a single “field of operation,” Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U. S., at 7, the instructions of Congress are supreme. Cf. ibid, (where federal law’s “discretionary mode of operation” conflicts with the nondiscretionary provision of Alabama law, federal law applies in diversity).
It is true that § 1404(a) and Alabama’s putative policy regarding forum-selection clauses are not perfectly coextensive. Section 1404(a) directs a district court to take account of factors other than those that'bear solely on the parties’ private ordering of their affairs. The district court also must weigh in the balance the convenience of the witnesses and those public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to private concerns, come under the heading of “the interest of justice.” It is conceivable in a particular case, for example, that because of these factors a district court acting under § 1404(a) would refuse to transfer a case notwithstanding the counterweight of a forum-selection clause, whereas the coordinate state rule might dictate the opposite result. See 15 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3847, p. 371 (2d ed. 1986). But this potential conflict in fact frames an additional argument for the supremacy of federal law. Congress has directed that multiple considerations govern transfer within the federal court system, and a state policy focusing on a single concern or a subset of the factors identified in § 1404(a) would defeat that command. Its application would impoverish the flexible and multifaceted analysis that Congress intended to govern motions to transfer within the federal system. The forum-selection clause, which represents the parties’ agreement as to the most proper forum, should receive neither dispositive consideration (as respondent might have it) nor no consideration (as Alabama law might have it), but rather the consideration for which Congress provided in § 1404(a). Cf. Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U. S. 29, 32 (1955) (§ 1404(a) accords broad discretion to district court, and plaintiff’s choice of forum is only one relevant factor for its consideration). This is thus not a case in which state and federal rules “can exist side by side . . . each controlling its own intended sphere of coverage without conflict.” Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U. S., at 752.
Because § 1404(a) controls the issue before the District Court, it must be applied if it represents a valid exercise of Congress’ authority under the Constitution. The constitutional authority of Congress to enact § 1404(a) is not subject to serious question. As the Court made plain in Hanna, “the constitutional provision for a federal court system . . . carries with it congressional power to make rules governing the practice and pleading in those courts, which in turn includes a power to regulate matters which, though falling within the uncertain area between substance and procedure, are rationally capable of classification as either.” 380 U. S., at 472. See also id., at 473 (“Erie and its offspring cast no doubt on the long-recognized power of Congress to prescribe housekeeping rules for federal courts”). Section 1404(a) is doubtless capable of classification as a procedural rule, and indeed, we have so classified it in holding that a transfer pursuant to § 1404(a) does not carry with it a change in the applicable law. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U. S., at 636-637 (“[B]oth the history and purposes of § 1404(a) indicate that it should be regarded as a federal judicial housekeeping measure”). It therefore falls comfortably within Congress’ powers under Article III as augmented by the Necessary and Proper Clause. See Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Woods, supra, at 5, n. 3.
We hold that federal law, specifically 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a), governs the District Court’s decision whether to give effect to the parties’ forum-selection clause and transfer this case to a court in Manhattan. We therefore affirm the Eleventh Circuit order reversing the District Court’s application of Alabama law. The case is remanded so that the District Court may determine in the first instance the appropriate effect under federal law of the parties’ forum-selection clause on respondent’s § 1404(a) motion.
It is so ordered.
Specifically, the forum-selection clause read: “Dealer and Ricoh agree that any appropriate state or federal district court located in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any case or controversy arising under or in connection with this Agreement and shall be a proper forum in which to adjudicate such case or controversy.” App. 38-39.
Judge Tjoflat, in a special concurrence joined by two other judges, argued that the District Court should have taken account of, and ultimately should have enforced, the forum-selection clause in its evaluation of the factors of justice and convenience that govern the transfer of cases under 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a). 810 F. 2d, at 1071-1076. There also was a dissenting opinion by five members of the Eleventh Circuit, who argued that state law should govern the dispute and warned that the application of federal law would encourage forum shopping and improperly undermine Alabama policy. Id., at 1076-1077.
Respondent points out that jurisdiction in this case was alleged to rest both on the existence of an antitrust claim, see 28 U. S. C. § 1337, and diversity of citizenship, see 28 U. S. C. § 1332. Respondent does not suggest how the presence of a federal claim should affect the District Court’s analysis of applicable law. The Court of Appeals plurality likewise did not address this issue, and indeed characterized this case simply as a diversity breach-of-contract action. See 810 F. 2d 1066, 1067, 1068 (1987). Our conclusion that federal law governs transfer of this case, see. Part III, infra, makes this issue academic for purposes of this case, because the presence of a federal question could cut only in favor of the application of federal law. We therefore are not called on to decide, nor do we decide, whether the existence of fedei'al-question as well as diversity jurisdiction necessarily alters a district court’s analysis of applicable law.
Our cases at times have referred to the question at this stage of the analysis as an inquiry into whether there is a “direct collision” between state and federal law. See, e. g., Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U. S., at 749; Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, 472 (1965). Logic indicates, however, and a careful reading of the relevant passages confirms, that this language is not meant to mandate that federal law and state law be perfectly coextensive and equally applicable to the issue at hand; rather, the “direct collision” language, at least where the applicability of a federal statute is at issue, expresses the requirement that the federal statute be sufficiently broad to cover the point in dispute. See Hanna v. Plumer, supra, at 470. It would make no sense for the supremacy of federal law to wane precisely because there is no state law directly on point.
Hanna v. Plumer, supra, identifies an additional inquiry where the applicability of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is in question. Federal Rules must be measured against the statutory requirement of the Rules Enabling Act that they not “abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right_” 28 U. S. C. §2072.
If no federal statute or Rule covers the point in dispute, the district court then proceeds to evaluate whether application of federal judge-made law would disserve the so-called “twin aims of the Erie rule:, discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.” Hanna v. Plumer, supra, at 468. If application of federal judge-made law would disserve these two policies, the district court should apply state law. See Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., supra, at 752-753.
In The Bremen, this Court held that federal courts sitting in admiralty generally should enforce forum-selection clauses absent a showing that to do so “would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” 407 U. S., at 15.
The parties do not dispute that the District Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the case for improper venue under 28 U. S. C. § 1406(a) because respondent apparently does business in the Northern District of Alabama. See 28 U. S. C. § 1391(c) (venue proper in judicial district in which corporation is doing business).
In its application of the standards set forth in The Bremen to this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Alabama policy against the enforcement of forum-selection clauses is intended to apply only to protect the jurisdiction of the state courts of Alabama and therefore would not come into play in this case, in which case this dispute might be much ado about nothing. See 810 F. 2d, at 1069-1070. Our determination that § 1404(a) governs the parties’ dispute notwithstanding any contrary Alabama policy makes it unnecessary to address the contours of state law. See n. 4, supra.
The dissent does not dispute this point, but rather argues that if the forum-selection clause would be unenforceable under state law, then the clause cannot be accorded any weight by a federal court. See post, at 35. Not the least of the problems with the dissent’s analysis is that it makes the applicability of a federal statute depend on the content of state law. See n. 4, supra. If a State cannot pre-empt a district court’s consideration of a forum-selection clause by holding that the clause is automatically enforceable, it makes no sense for it to be able to do so by holding the clause automatically void.
Because a validly enacted Act of Congress controls the issue in dispute, we have no occasion to evaluate the impact of application of federal judge-made law on the “twin aims” that animate the Erie doctrine.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Securities Investor Protection Corp. (SIPC) was established by Congress as a nonprofit membership corporation for the purpose, inter alia, of providing financial relief to the customers of failing broker-dealers with whom they had left cash or securities on deposit. The question presented by this case is whether such customers have an implied private right of action under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (Act or SIPA), 84 Stat. 1636, 15 U. S. C. § 78aaa et seg., to compel the SIPC to exercise its statutory authority for their benefit.
I
In December 1970 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a complaint in District Court against Guaranty Bond and Securities Corp., a registered broker-dealer, to enjoin continued violation of the Commission’s net capital and other rules. On January 6, 1971, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction, and on January 29 it granted the Commission’s motion for appointment of a receiver to wind up the affairs of Guaranty Bond. James C. Barbour (hereafter respondent) was appointed receiver.
On April 6, 1972, respondent, alleging that customers of Guaranty Bond would sustain a loss at least equal to the costs of administering the receivership, obtained from the court an order directing the SEC and SIPC to show cause “why the remedies afforded by the [SIPA] should not be made available in this proceeding.” In its answer the SEC took the position that respondent had not demonstrated that Guaranty’s customers would in fact sustain any loss since it appeared that the receiver would have a cause of action for damages or restitution against Guaranty’s parent company and principals. The SIPC, on the other hand, challenged the receiver’s standing to maintain an action to compel its intervention and, in direct opposition to the position of the SEC, argued that Guaranty’s insolvency prior to the December 30, 1970, date on which the SIPA took effect meant that application of the Act to this case would give it an unlawful retroactive effect.
The District Court upheld the receiver’s right of action, but denied relief on the ground that Guaranty’s hopeless insolvency prior to the effective date of the SIPA rendered the Act inapplicable. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Since Guaranty had conducted 101 transactions after December 30, and the SEC did not move to prevent its carrying on business as a broker-dealer until January 6, it held that Guaranty qualified as a broker-dealer on the effective date of the Act. The court then rejected the SIPC’s argument that the provision for SEC enforcement actions to compel the SIPC to perform its functions was meant to be exclusive of such actions by protected customers or their representative, and remanded the case for further proceedings. We granted certiorari, limited to the questions whether customers have an implied right of action to compel the SIPC to act and, if so, whether a receiver has standing to maintain it. 419 U. S. 894 (1974). Since we now reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground that no implied right of action exists, we do not address the second question.
II
Following a period of great expansion in the 1960’s, the securities industry experienced a business contraction that led to the failure or instability of a significant number of brokerage firms. Customers of failed firms found their cash and securities on deposit either dissipated or tied up in lengthy bankruptcy proceedings. In addition to its disastrous effects on customer assets and investor confidence, this situation also threatened a “domino effect” involving otherwise solvent brokers that had substantial open transactions with firms that failed. Congress enacted the SIPA to arrest this process, restore investor confidence in the capital markets, and upgrade the financial responsibility requirements for registered brokers and dealers. S. Rep. No. 91-1218, pp. 2-4 (1970); H. R. Rep. No. 91-1613, pp. 2-4 (1970).
The Act apportions responsibility for these tasks among the SEC, the securities industry self-regulatory organizations, and the SIPC, a nonprofit, private membership corporation to which most registered brokers and dealers are required to belong. 15 U. S. C. § 78ccc. Most important for present purposes, the Act creates a new form of liquidation proceeding, applicable only to member firms, designed to accomplish the completion of open transactions and the speedy return of most customer property.
To this end, the SIPC is required to establish and maintain a fund for customer protection by laying assessments on the annual gross revenues of its members. The SEC and the securities industry self-regulatory organizations are required to notify the SIPC whenever it appears that a member is in or approaching financial difficulty. If the SIPC determines that a member has failed or is in danger of failing to meet its obligations to customers, and finds any one of five specified conditions suggestive of financial irresponsibility, then it “may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction ... for a decree adjudicating that customers of such member are in need of the protection provided by [the Act].” § 78eee (a) (2).
The mere filing of an SIPC application gives the court in which it is filed exclusive jurisdiction over the member and its property, wherever located, and requires the court to stay “any pending bankruptcy, mortgage foreclosure, equity receivership, or other proceeding to reorganize, conserve, or liquidate the [member] or its property and any other suit against any receiver, conservator, or trustee of the [member] or its property.” § 78eee (b) (2). If the SEC has pending any action against the member, it may, with the Commission’s consent, be combined with the SIPC proceeding. If no such action is pending, the SEC may intervene as a party to the SIPC proceeding.
If the court finds any of the five conditions on which an SIPC application may be based, it must grant the application and issue the decree, and appoint as trustee for the liquidation of the business and as attorney for the trustee, “such persons as SIPC shall specify.” §§ 78eee (b)(1), (3).
The trustee is empowered and directed by the Act to return customer property, complete open transactions, enforce rights of subrogation, and liquidate the business of the member, § 78fff (a); he is not empowered to reorganize or rehabilitate the business. The SIPC is required to advance him such sums as are necessary to complete open transactions, and to accomplish the return of customer property up to a value of $50,000. § 78fff (f).
The role of the SEC in this scheme’ insofar as relevant to the present case, is one of “plenary authority” to supervise the SIPC. S. Rep. No. 91-1218, supra, at 1; see H. R. Rep. No. 91-1613, supra, at 12. For example, it may disapprove in whole or in part any bylaw or rule adopted by the Board of Directors of the SIPC, or require the adoption of any rule it deems appropriate, in order to promote the public interest and the purposes of the Act. 15 U. S. C. § 78ccc (e). It may inspect and examine the SIPC’s records and require that any information it deems appropriate be furnished to it, and it receives the corporation’s annual report for inspection and transmission, with its comments, to the President and Congress. §78ggg(c). It may participate in any liquidation proceeding initiated by the SIPC, but even more important, § 7 (b) of the Act, § 78ggg (b), provides: “Enforcement of actions. — In the event of the refusal of SIPC to commit its funds or otherwise to act for the protection of customers of any member of SIPC, the Commission may apply to the district court of the United States in which the principal office of SIPC is located for an order requiring SIPC to discharge its obligations under [the Act] and for such other relief as the court may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of [the Act].”
It is against this background relationship between the SIPC and the SEC that we must approach the question whether, in addition to the Commission, a member’s customers or their representative may seek in district court to compel the SIPC “to commit its funds or otherwise to act for the protection” of such customers.
Ill
The respondent contends that since the SIPA does not in terms preclude a private cause of action at the instance of a member broker’s customers, and since such customers are the intended beneficiaries of the Act, the Court should imply a right of action by which customers can compel the SIPC to discharge its obligations to them. As we said only last Term in analyzing a similar contention: “It goes without saying . . . that the inference of such a private cause of action not otherwise authorized by the statute must be consistent with the evident legislative intent and, of course, with the effectuation of the purposes intended to be served by the Act.” Passenger Corp. v. Passengers Assn., 414 U. S. 453, 457-458 (1974) (hereinafter Amtrak).
In Amtrak itself the petitioner was a corporation created by Congress to assume from private railroads certain intercity rail passenger service responsibilities. The respondent passenger association brought an action to enjoin the discontinuance of a particular service as announced by the corporation pursuant to its authority under § 404 (b) (2) of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Amtrak Act), 45 U. S. C. § 564 (b)(2). That Act made express provision for suits against Amtrak to enforce its duties and obligations only “upon petition of the Attorney General of the United States or, in a case involving a labor agreement, upon petition of any employee affected” by the agreement. 45 U. S. C. § 547 (a). There, as here, the plaintiff-respondent argued that statutory authorization for one type of action against the congressionally created corporation did not preclude another at the instance of the intended beneficiaries of the law.
The Court’s analysis of the claim in Amtrak began with the observation that express statutory provision for one form of proceeding ordinarily implies that no other means of enforcement was intended by the Legislature. That implication would yield, however, to “clear contrary evidence of legislative intent,” 414 U. S., at 458, for which we turned to the legislative history and the overall structure of the Amtrak Act.
Inspection revealed that the legislative history of the Amtrak Act was entirely consonant with the implication of the statutory language that no private right of action was intended. The general structure and purpose of the Act gave further support to that conclusion. Congress had expected that, in creating an economically viable rail passenger system, some rail service would have to be discontinued by Amtrak; it had provided an efficient and expeditious means to that end, which seemed incompatible with an intent to allow a private action by any passenger affected by a discontinuance decision. Nor would the absence of a private right of action leave Amtrak free to disregard the public interest in its decisionmaking. In addition to investing the Attorney General with “authority to police the Amtrak system and to enforce the various duties and obligations imposed by the Act” by court action, Congress provided for “substantial scrutiny” over Amtrak’s operations by requiring it to make periodic reports to Congress and the President and to open its books to the Comptroller General for auditing. 414 U. S., at 464.
The similarities between the present case and Amtrak are undeniable and for the respondent, we think, insurmountable. As with Amtrak, so with the SIPC, Congress has created a corporate entity to solve a public problem; it has provided for substantial supervision of its operations by an agency charged with protection of the public interest — here the SEC — and for enforcement by that agency in court of the obligations imposed upon the corporation. The corporation is required to report to Congress and the President, and to open its books and records to the SEC and the Comptroller General. Farther, Congress has chartered the SIPC, unlike Amtrak, as a nonprofit corporation, and it has put its direction in the hands of a publicly chosen board of directors.
Beyond the inference to be drawn from the structure of the SIPC, there is no extrinsic evidence that Congress intended to allow an action such as that before us. As the respondent concedes, there is no indication in the legislative history of the SIPA that Congress ever contemplated a private right of action parallel to that expressly given to the SEC. Additionally, as in Amtrak, it is clear that the overall structure and purpose of the SIPC scheme are incompatible with such an implied right.
Congress’ primary purpose in enacting the SIPA and creating the SIPC was, of course, the protection of investors. It does not follow, however, that an implied right of action by investors who deem themselves to be in need of the Act’s protection, is either necessary to or indeed capable of furthering that purpose.
The SIPC properly treats an application for the appointment of a receiver and liquidation of a brokerage firm as a last resort. It maintains an early-warning system and monitors the affairs of any firm that it is given reason to believe may be in danger of failure. Its experience to date demonstrates that more often than not an endangered firm will avoid collapse by infusion of new capital or merger with a stronger firm. Even failing those alternatives, a firm may be able to liquidate under the supervision of one of the self-regulatory organizations, or the district court, without danger of loss to customers. The SIPC’s policy, therefore, is to defer intervention “until there appear[s] to be no reasonable doubt that customers would need the protection of the Act.” SIPC 1973 Annual Report 7 (1974). By this policy, the SIPC avoids unnecessarily engendering the costs of precipitate liquidations — the costs not only of administering the liquidation, but also of customer illiquidity and additional loss of confidence in the capital markets — without sacrifice of any customer protection that may ultimately prove necessary. A customer, by contrast, cannot be expected to consider, or have adequate information to consider, these public interests in timing his decision to apply to the courts.
The respondent in this case does not, of course, claim any right to make the decision that a firm should be liquidated; the Act makes that a judicial decision. He seeks only the right to ask the District Court to make that decision when both the SIPC and the SEC have refused or simply failed to do so. In practical effect, however, the difference is slight. Except with respect to the solidest of houses, the mere filing of an action predicated upon allegations of financial insecurity might often prove fatal. Other customers could not be expected to leave their cash and securities on deposit, nor other brokers to initiate new transactions that the firm might not be able to cover when due if a receiver is appointed, nor would suppliers be likely to continue dealing with such a firm. These consequences are too grave, and when unnecessary, too inimical to the purposes of the Act, for the Court to impute to Congress an intent to grant to every member of the investing public control over their occurrence. On the contrary, they seem to be the very sorts of considerations that motivated Congress to put the SIPC in the hands of a public board of directors, responsible to an agency experienced in regulation of the securities markets.
We need not pause long over the distinctions between this case and those, such as J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 (1964), and Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 (1969), in which the Court held that an implied private cause of action was maintainable.
In J. I. Case a stockholder sought damages against his corporation for its alleged misrepresentations, violative of § 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in soliciting proxy votes for the approval of a merger. In light of the “broad remedial purposes” of the Act and the SEC’s representation that private enforcement was necessary to effectuate those purposes, the Court held that the action for damages could be maintained.
The Court first concluded that it was “clear that private parties have a right under § 27 [of the Act] to bring suit for violation of § 14 (a),” since § 27 specifically granted the district courts jurisdiction over “ ‘all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created’ ” under the Act. 377 U. S., at 430-431. The more difficult question was whether the private parties, once in court, could seek damages as well as equitable relief. On this point, the Court agreed with the SEC that private enforcement of the proxy rules was a necessary supplement to SEC enforcement. Since there was no contrary indication from Congress, the Court so held, relying on the statement from Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 684 (1946), that “where legal rights have been invaded, and a federal statute provides for a general right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done.”
Unlike the Securities Exchange Act, the SIPA contains no standards of conduct that a private action could help to enforce, and it contains no general grant of jurisdiction to the district courts. As in Amtrak, a private right of action under the SIPA would be consistent neither with the legislative intent, nor with the effectuation of the purposes it is intended to serve.
The Allen case arose under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The question there was whether a private citizen could sue to set aside a state or local election law on the ground of its repugnancy to the Act. The federal statute provided that the Attorney General may bring such suits, but was silent as to the rights of others. It was clear to the Court — and to the Attorney General — that the Act would be practically unenforceable against the many local governments subject to its strictures if only the Attorney General were authorized to sue. We thus found it “consistent with the broad purpose of the Act to allow the individual citizen standing to insure that his city or county government complies with” its requirements. 393 U. S., at 557.
There is not the slightest reason to think that, the SIPA, in contrast to the Voting Rights Act, imposes such burdens on the parties charged with its administration that Congress must either have intended their efforts to be supplemented by those of private investors or enacted a statute incapable of achieving its purpose. Instead of enlisting the aid of investors in achieving that purpose, Congress imposed upon the SEC, the exchanges, and the self-regulatory organizations the obligation to report to the SIPC any situation that might call for its intervention.
For these reasons we are unable to agree with the proposition that the customers of a member broker may sue to compel the SIPC to perform its statutory functions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions that the receiver’s petition for an order to show cause be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Mb. Justice Douglas dissents.
Both the Secretary of Transportation, who was given primary responsibility for implementing the law, and spokesmen for organized labor had interpreted the bill as enacted to preclude private actions other than those specifically authorized. The drafting subcommittee to which these views had been expressed found nothing in them to correct.
See 414 U. S., at 462:
“If, however, [the Act] were to be interpreted as permitting private lawsuits to prevent the discontinuance of passenger trains, then the only effect of . the Act in this regard would have been to substitute the federal district courts for the state or federal administrative bodies formerly required to pass upon proposed discontinuances.”
Respondent argues that because Congress provided that the SIPC can “sue and be sued, complain and defend, in its corporate name and through its own counsel, in any court, State, or Federal,” 15 U. S. C. §78cce (b)(1), it must have contemplated occasions when an aggrieved customer of a member firm would be able to sue. In light of the specific terms of the more relevant section governing suits to compel the SIPC to act for the benefit of investors, that conclusion is unwarranted. It is also incompatible with the limitation of SEC actions “to the district court of the United States in which the principal office of SIPC is located.” 15 U. S. C. § 78ggg (b). It would be anomalous for Congress to have centralized SEC suits for the apparent convenience of the SIPC while exposing the corporation to substantively identical suits by investors “in any court, State or Federal.”
Of the 266 firms brought to the attention of the SIPC by the exchanges, self-regulatory organizations, and the SEC between the effective date of the SIPA and the end of 1973, only 32 were subjected to SIPC liquidation as of December 31, 1973. Sixty-six withdrew from the business of carrying customer accounts, 26 self-liquidated, 20 became inactive without customer loss, 11 merged with other firms, 62 corrected their problems, and 49 remained under surveillance. SIPC 1973 Annual Report 17 (1974).
See Freeman, Administrative Procedures, 22 Bus. Law. 891, 897 (1967): “The moment you bring a public proceeding against a broker-dealer who depends upon public confidence in his reputation, he is to all intents and purposes out of business.” See sources collected at Freedman, Summary Action by Administrative Agencies, 40 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 33 n. 162 (1972), and Gellhorn, Adverse Publicity by Administrative Agencies, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 1380, 1394-1397 (1973). There may, of course, be less reason for public reaction to a private, as opposed to an SEC, suit to compel the SIPC’s protective measures, but there is little reason to think that the investing public, with its assets at risk, would be interested in the distinction.
The sequence of events giving rise to this case provided no opportunity for a run on Guaranty because the attempt to compel the SIPC’s intervention occurred after the firm had ceased doing business and had come within the jurisdiction of the District Court for liquidation, at the instance of the SEC. In these limited circumstances Congress could reasonably have provided for a private action by a receiver against the SIPC, but it did not and we are not at liberty to do so. There is, after all, a real difference between a court’s implying a right of action to effectuate the purposes of a statute and its cutting a code of procedure out of whole cloth.
The SEC suggests in its brief that a determination by it not to proceed against the SIPC with respect to a member broker-dealer whose customers have incurred a loss of the type against which the SIPA is directed might be reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act for an abuse of discretion. We need express no opinion on that matter today.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by this ease is whether the common-law in pari delicto defense bars a private damages action under the federal securities laws against corporate insiders and broker-dealers who fraudulently induce investors to purchase securities by misrepresenting that they are conveying material nonpublic information about the issuer.
I
The respondent investors filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that they incurred substantial trading losses as a result of a conspiracy between Charles Lazzaro, a registered securities broker employed by the petitioner Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. (Bateman Eichler), and Leslie Neadeau, President of T. O. N. M. Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation (TONM), to induce them to purchase large quantities of TONM over-the-counter stock by divulging false and materially incomplete information about the company on the pretext that it was accurate inside information. Specifically, Lazzaro is alleged to have told the respondents that he personally knew TONM insiders and had learned, inter alia, that (a) “[v]ast amounts of gold had been discovered in Surinam, and TONM had options on thousands of acres in gold-producing regions of Surinam”; (b) the discovery was “not publically known, but would subsequently be announced”; (c) TONM was currently engaged in negotiations with other companies to form a joint venture for mining the Surinamese gold; and (d) when this information was made public, “TONM stock, which was then selling from $1.50 to $3.00/share, would increase in value from $10 to $15/share within a short period of time, and . . . might increase to $100/share” within a year. Complaint ¶¶ 16-17, App. 10-12. Some of the respondents aver that they contacted Neadeau and inquired whether Laz-zaro’s tips were accurate; Neadeau stated that the information was “not public knowledge” and “would neither confirm nor deny those claims,” but allegedly advised that “Lazzaro was a very trustworthy and a good man.” Id. ¶ 19, App. 12.
The respondents admitted in their complaint that they purchased TONM stock, much of it through Lazzaro, “on the premise that Lazzaro was privy to certain information not otherwise available to the general public.” Id. ¶ 15, App. 10. Their shares initially increased dramatically in price, but ultimately declined to substantially below the purchase price when the joint mining venture fell through. Id. ¶¶ 22-26, App. 13-14.
Lazzaro and Neadeau are alleged to have made the representations set forth above knowing that the representations “were untrue and/or contained only half-truths, material omissions of fact and falsehoods,” intending that the respondents would rely thereon, and for the purpose of “influ-enc[ing] and manipulating] the price of TONM stock” so as “to profit themselves through the taking of commissions and secret profits.” Id. ¶¶23, 30, 38, App. 13, 15-16. The respondents contended that this scheme violated, inter alia, § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. § 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (1984). They sought capital losses and lost profits, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees. App. 26.
The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that “trading on insider information is itself a violation of rule 10b-5” and that the allegations in the complaint demonstrated that the respondents themselves had “violated the particular statutory provision under which recovery is sought.” App. to Pet. for Cert. C-2. Thus, the court concluded, the respondents were in pari delicto with Lazzaro and Neadeau and absolutely barred from recovery. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Berner v. Lazzaro, 730 F. 2d 1319 (1984). Although it assumed that the respondents had violated the federal securities laws, id., at 1324, the court nevertheless concluded that “securities professionals and corporate officers who have allegedly engaged in fraud should not be permitted to invoke the in pari delicto doctrine to shield themselves from the consequences of their fraudulent misrepresentation,” id., at 1320. The Court of Appeals noted that this Court had sharply restricted the availability of the in pari delicto defense in antitrust actions, see Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U. S. 134 (1968), and concluded that, essentially for three reasons, there was no basis “for creating a different rule for private actions initiated under the federal securities laws,” 730 F. 2d, at 1322. First, the court reasoned that, in cases such as this, defrauded tippees are not in fact “equally responsible” for the violations they allege. Ibid. Second, the court believed that allowing the defense in these circumstances would be “totally incompatible with the overall aims of the securities law” because the threat of a private damages action is necessary to deter “insider-tipster[s]” from defrauding the public. Id., at 1323. Finally, the court noted the availability of means other than an outright preclusion of suit to deter tippees from trading on inside information. Id., at 1324, n. 3.
The lower courts have divided over the proper scope of the in pari delicto defense in securities litigation. We granted certiorari. 469 U. S. 1105 (1985). We affirm.
1 — I HH
The common-law defense at issue in this case derives from the Latin, in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis: “In a case of equal or mutual fault. . . the position of the [defending] party ... is the better one.” The defense is grounded on two premises: first, that courts should not lend their good offices to mediating disputes among wrongdoers; and second, that denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer is an effective means of deterring illegality. In its classic formulation, the in pari delicto defense was narrowly limited to situations where the plaintiff truly bore at least substantially equal responsibility for his injury, because “in cases where both parties are in delicto, concurring in an illegal act, it does not always follow that they stand in pari delicto; for there may be, and often are, very different degrees in their guilt.” 1 J. Story, Equity Jurisprudence 304-305 (13th ed. 1886) (Story). Thus there might be an “inequality of condition” between the parties, id., at 305, or “a confidential relationship between th[em]” that determined their “relative standing” before a court, 3 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence §942a, p. 741 (5th ed. 1941) (Pomeroy). In addition, the public policy considerations that undergirded the in pari delicto defense were frequently construed as precluding the defense even where the plaintiff bore substantial fault for his injury: “[TJhere may be on the part of the court itself a necessity of supporting the public interests or public policy in many cases, however reprehensible the acts of the parties may be.” 1 Story 305. Notwithstanding these traditional limitations, many courts have given the in pari delicto defense a broad application to bar actions where plaintiffs simply have been involved generally in “the same sort of wrongdoing” as defendants. Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U. S., at 138.
In Perma Life, we emphasized “the inappropriateness of invoking broad common-law barriers to relief where a private suit serves important public purposes.” Ibid. That case involved a treble-damages action against a Midas Muffler franchisor by several of its dealers, who alleged that the franchise agreement created a conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The lower courts barred the action on the grounds that the dealers, as parties to the agreement, were in pari delicto with the franchisor. In reversing that determination, the opinion for this Court emphasized that there was no indication that Congress had intended to incorporate the defense into the antitrust laws, which “are best served by insuring that the private action will be an ever-present threat to deter anyone contemplating [illegal] business behavior.” Id., at 139. Accordingly, the opinion concluded that “the doctrine of in pari delicto, with its complex scope, contents, and effects, is not to be recognized as a defense to an antitrust action.” Id., at 140. The opinion reserved the question whether a plaintiff who engaged in “truly complete involvement and participation in a monopolistic scheme” — one who “aggressively supported] and further[ed] the monopolistic scheme as a necessary part and parcel of it” — could be barred from pursuing a damages action, finding that the muffler dealers had relatively little bargaining power and that they had been coerced by the franchisor into agreeing to many of the contract’s provisions. Ibid.
In separate opinions, five Justices agreed that the concept of “equal fault” should be narrowly defined in litigation arising under federal regulatory statutes. “[B]ecause of the strong public interest in eliminating restraints on competition, . . . many of the refinements of moral worth demanded of plaintiffs by . . . many of the variations of in pari delicto should not be applicable in the antitrust field.” Id., at 151 (Marshall, J., concurring in result). The five Justices concluded, however, that where a plaintiff truly bore at least substantially equal responsibility for the violation, a defense based on such fault — whether or not denominated in pari delicto — should be recognized in antitrust litigation.
Bateman Eichler argues that Perma Life — with its emphasis on the importance of analyzing the effects that fault-based defenses would have on the enforcement of congressional goals — is of only marginal relevance to a private damages action under the federal securities laws. Specifically, Bateman Eichler observes that Congress expressly provided for private antitrust actions — thereby manifesting a “desire to go beyond the common law in the antitrust statute in order to provide substantial encouragement to private enforcement and to help deter anticompetitive conduct” — whereas private rights of action under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are merely implied from that provision — thereby, apparently, supporting a broader application of the in pari delicto defense. Brief for Petitioner 32. Bateman Eichler buttresses this argument by observing that, unlike the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the securities laws contain savings provisions directing that “[t]he rights and remedies provided by [those laws] shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity” — again, apparently, supporting a broader scope for fault-based defenses than recognized in Perma Life.
We disagree. Nothing in Perma Life suggested that public policy implications should govern only where Congress expressly provides for private remedies; the classic formulation of the in pari delicto doctrine itself required a careful consideration of such implications before allowing the defense. See supra, at 307. Moreover, we repeatedly have emphasized that implied private actions provide “a most effective weapon in the enforcement” of the securities laws and are “a necessary supplement to Commission action.” J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 432 (1964); see also Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 730 (1975). In addition, we have eschewed rigid common-law barriers in construing the securities laws. See, e. g., Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U. S. 375, 388-389 (1983) (common-law doctrines are sometimes of “questionable pertinence” in applying the securities laws, which were intended “to rectify perceived deficiencies in the available common-law protections by establishing higher standards of conduct in the securities industry”); A. C. Frost & Co. v. Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp., 312 U. S. 38, 43 (1941) (rejecting the unclean-hands defense on the facts of the case because it would “seriously hinder rather than aid the real purpose” of the securities laws). We therefore conclude that the views expressed in Perma Life apply with full force to implied causes of action under the federal securities laws. Accordingly, a private action for damages in these circumstances may be barred on the grounds of the plaintiff’s own culpability only where (1) as a direct result of his own actions, the plaintiff bears at least substantially equal responsibility for the violations he seeks
The investors named Lazzaro, Neadeau, TONM, and Bateman Eichler as defendants. Complaint ¶¶ 5-8, App. 7-8. The investors charged that Neadeau and TONM had “directly and indirectly participated with, aided and abetted, and conspired with” Lazzaro in the scheme. Id. ¶ 9, App. 8; see also id. ¶ 40, App. 17. Bateman Eichler’s liability was premised on its status as a “controlling person” of Lazzaro within the meaning of § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 899, 15 U. S. C. § 78t(a). Complaint ¶¶ 5, 39, App. 7, 16-17. See n. 25, infra.
Although Lazzaro, Neadeau, and TONM also are respondents in this Court, see this Court’s Rule 19.6, we shall use “respondents” to refer exclusively to the investor plaintiffs, who are defending the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this Court.
Gold exploration has been conducted in Surinam for more than 100 years, but production has declined dramatically since early in this century. Complaint ¶ 11, App. 9. The areas in which TONM had been engaged in exploration “were historically mined by Surinamese natives using primitive methods,” and were accessible to the outside world “primarily by motorized canoes and helicopter.” Id. ¶12, App. 9. Lazzaro allegedly told the investors that TONM’s discovery “compared favorably to, if not better than, those in South Africa,” and that development “would not require deep mining” because “[g]eologists in Surinam were finding gold nuggets in dry creek beds.” Id. ¶ 16, App. 11.
Lazzaro also allegedly told the investors that, after the announcement, TONM shareholders “would automatically receive” additional stock in TONM’s subsidiary, International Gold and Diamond Exploration Corp., Inc., “without the payment of any additional monies.” Ibid, (emphasis in original).
The respondents purchased the stock in late 1979 and early 1980 for between $1.50 and $3 per share, and the price of the stock rose to $7 per share by the fourth quarter of 1980. Id. ¶ 22, App. 13. “[S]ome or all” of the respondents claim to have told Lazzaro at this time that they wanted to sell their shares, but “Lazzaro stated that he would let the plaintiffs know when to sell the TONM stock, and that they should not sell just because the stock had reached $7.00/share because it would go higher still.” Ibid. The stock then plummeted “to approximately $1.00 per share” by the end of 1980, and fell to “less than ... $1.00 a share” early the next year. Id. ¶¶ 24-25, App. 14.
In the alternative, Lazzaro and Neadeau are alleged to have made these representations “recklessly with wanton disregard for the truth.” Id. ¶32, App. 15.
Neadeau is alleged to have owned approximately 100,000 shares of the outstanding common stock of TONM, and Lazzaro is alleged to have “controlled over a million shares of TONM stock through stock purchased by himself and his clients.” Id. ¶¶ 8, 23, App. 8, 13. See also id. ¶ 16, App. 12 (“Lazzaro and his relatives owned a large block of TONM stock”). The investors charged that “Lazzaro could thereby and did influence and manipulate the price of TONM stock through purchases and sales thereof, and through the dissemination of false information to plaintiffs and others.” Id. ¶23, App. 13.
That section provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange—
“(b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
That Rule provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
“(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
“(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
“(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
In addition, the respondents sought recovery pursuant to § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 84, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 77q(a), see Complaint ¶¶ 48-50, App. 20, which the parties and the courts below have treated as comparable to § 10(b) for purposes of applying the in pari delicto defense. We express no view as to whether a private right of action exists under § 17(a). Compare Keys v. Wolfe, 709 F. 2d 413, 416 (CA5 1983), with Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd., 652 F. 2d 808, 815 (CA9 1981). The respondents also alleged various other federal claims and pendent state-law claims that are not before us.
See, e. g., Tarasi v. Pittsburgh National Bank, 555 F. 2d 1152 (CA3) (allowing defense), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 965 (1977); Malamphy v. Real-Tex Enterprises, Inc., 527 F. 2d 978 (CA4 1975) (per curiam) (sustaining submission of defense tó jury); Woolf v. S. D. Cohn & Co., 515 F. 2d 591, 601-605 (CA5 1975) (rejecting defense on facts of case), on rehearing, 521 F. 2d 225, vacated and remanded on other grounds, 426 U. S. 944 (1976); Kuehnert v. Texstar Corp., 412 F. 2d 700 (CA5 1969) (allowing defense); Kirkland v. E. F. Hutton & Co., 564 F. Supp. 427, 433-437 (ED Mich. 1983) (rejecting defense on motion for summary judgment); Grumet v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 336 (NJ 1983) (allowing defense); Xaphes v. Shearson, Hayden, Stone, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 882, 884-887 (SD Fla. 1981) (rejecting defense on motion to dismiss); Moholt v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 478 F. Supp. 451 (DC 1979) (rejecting defense on motion for summary judgment); In re Haven Industries, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 172, 177-180 (SDNY 1978) (allowing defense); Nathanson v. Weis, Voisin, Cannon, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 50 (SDNY 1971) (rejecting defense); Wohl v. Blair & Co., 50 F. R. D. 89 (SDNY 1970) (denying motion to strike defense). Cf. Silverberg v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 710 F. 2d 678, 691 (CA11 1983); Mallis v. Bankers Trust Co., 615 F. 2d 68, 76 (CA2 1980), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1123 (1981); Can-Am Petroleum Co. v. Beck, 331 F. 2d 371, 373 (CA10 1964).
Black’s Law Dictionary 711 (5th ed. 1979).
See, e. g., Higgins v. McCrea, 116 U. S. 671, 685 (1886); Austin’s Adm’x v. Winston’s Ex’x, 11 Va. 33, 47 (1806) (“He who comes here for relief must draw his justice from pure fountains”). See also Holman v. Johnson, 1 Cowp. 341, 343, 98 Eng. Rep. 1120, 1121 (K. B. 1775):
“The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed .... The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio [out of fraud no action arises].... It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.”
See, e. g., McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 639, 669-670 (1899):
“To refuse to grant either party to an illegal contract judicial aid for the enforcement of his alleged rights under it tends strongly towards reducing the number of such transactions to a minimum. The more plainly parties understand that when they enter into contracts of this nature they place themselves outside the protection of the law, so far as that protection consists in aiding them to enforce such contracts, the less inclined will they be to enter into them. In that way the public secures the benefit of a rigid adherence to the law.”
See also Tarasi v. Pittsburgh National Bank, 555 F. 2d, at 1157; L. Loss, Fundamentals of Securities Regulation 1197 (1983); Comment, Availability of an In Pari Delicto Defense in Rule 10b-5 Tippee Suits, 77 Colum. L. Rev. 1084, 1086, n. 15 (1977).
Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209 et seq., as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1 et seq.; Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730 et seq., as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 12 et seq.
See 392 U. S., at 145 (White, J., concurring); id., at 147-148 (Fortas, J., concurring in result); id., at 148-149, 151 (Marshall, J., concurring in result); id., at 154-155 (Harlan, J., joined by Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Justice White concluded that “the in pari delicto defense in its historic formulation is not a useful concept” in antitrust law, but emphasized that he “would deny recovery where plaintiff and defendant bear substantially equal responsibility for injury resulting to one of them.” Id., at 143, 146. The other four Justices would have allowed explicit, though limited, use of the in pari delicto defense itself. Id., at 147 (Fortas, J., concurring in result); id., at 148-149 (Marshall, J., concurring in result); id., at 153 (Harlan, J., joined by Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 730 (1975); Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U. S. 6, 13, n. 9 (1971).
See § 16 of the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. § 77p; § 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,48 Stat. 903, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78bb(a).
In Frost, we quoted approvingly from an SEC memorandum arguing that “ Tilt appears to us to be entirely immaterial whether in such a case, the agreement is labelled “void” or the parties are held to be “in pari delicto.” There, labels, as often is the case, merely state the conclusion reached, but do not aid in solution of the problem. The ultimate issue is whether the result in the particular case would effectuate or frustrate the purposes of the Act.’” 312 U. S., at 44, n. 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.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide today whether United States Postal Service employees may, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(1), remove to Federal District Court state criminal prosecutions brought against them for traffic violations committed while on duty.
I
In the summer of 1985 petitioners Kathryn Mesa and Shabbir Ebrahim were employed as mailtruck drivers by the United States Postal Service in Santa Clara County, California. In unrelated incidents, the State of California issued criminal complaints against petitioners, charging Mesa with misdemeanor-manslaughter and driving outside a laned roadway after her mailtruck collided with and killed a bicyclist, and charging Ebrahim with speeding and failure to yield after his mailtruck collided with a police car. Mesa and Ebrahim were arraigned in the San Jose Municipal Court of Santa Clara County on September 16 and October 2, 1985, respectively. The Municipal Court set a pretrial conference in Mesa’s case for November 4, 1985, and set trial for Ebrahim on November 7, 1985.
On September 24 and October 4, 1985, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California filed petitions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for removal to that court of the criminal complaints brought against Ebrahim and Mesa. The petitions alleged that the complaints should properly be removed to the Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(1) because Mesa and Ebrahim were federal employees at the time of the incidents and because “the state charges arose from an accident involving defendant which occurred while defendant was on duty and acting in the course and scope of her employment with the Postal Service.” Mesa Petition for Removal of Criminal Action ¶3, App. 5. See also Ebrahim Petition for Removal of Criminal Action ¶ 3, App. 10 (“[T]he state charges arose from an accident involving defendant which occurred while defendant was on duty”)- The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed responsive motions to remand, contending that the State’s actions against Mesa and Ebrahim were not removable under § 1442(a)(1). The District Court granted the United States Government’s petitions for removal and denied California’s motions for remand.
California thereupon petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to remand the cases to the state court. The Court of Appeals consolidated the petitions, and a divided panel held that “federal postal workers may not remove state criminal prosecutions to federal court when they raise no col-orable claim of federal immunity or other federal defense.” 813 F. 2d 960, 967 (1987). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus ordering the District Court to deny the United States’ petitions for removal and remand the prosecutions for trial in the California state courts. We granted the United States’ petition for certiorari on behalf of Mesa and Ebrahim, 486 U. S. 1021 (1988), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals concerning the proper interpretation of § 1442(a)(1). We now affirm.
h-4
The removal provision at issue in this case, 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a), provides:
“A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
“(1) Any officer of the United States or any agency thereof, or person acting under him, for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
“(2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States.
“(3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties;
“(4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.”
The United States and California agree that Mesa and Ebrahim, in their capacity as employees of the United States Postal Service, were “person[s] acting under” an “officer of the United States or any agency thereof” within the meaning of § 1442(a)(1). Their disagreement concerns whether the California criminal prosecutions brought against Mesa and Ebrahim were “for act[s] under color of such office” within the meaning of that subsection. The United States, largely adopting the view taken by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania v. Newcomer, 618 F. 2d 246 (1980), would read “under color of office” to permit removal “whenever a federal official is prosecuted for the manner in which he has performed his federal duties . . . .” Brief for Petitioners 8. California, following the Court of Appeals below, would have us read the same phrase to impose a requirement that some federal defense be alleged by the federal officer seeking removal.
A
On numerous occasions in the last 121 years we have had the opportunity to examine § 1442(a) or one of its long line of statutory forebears. In Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U. S. 402, 405 (1969), we traced the “long history” of the federal officer removal statute from its origin in the Act of February 4, 1815, §8, 3 Stat. 198, as a congressional response to New England’s opposition to the War of 1812, through its expansion in response to South Carolina’s 1833 threats of nullification, and its further expansion in the Civil War era as the need to enforce revenue laws became acute, to enactment of the Judicial Code of 1948 when the removal statute took its present form encompassing all federal officers. 395 U. S., at 405-406. “The purpose of all these enactments,” we concluded, “is not hard to discern. As this Court said ... in Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 263 (1880), the Federal Government
“ ‘can act only through its officers and agents, and they must act within the States. If, when thus acting, and within the scope of their authority, those officers can be arrested and brought to trial in a State court, for an alleged offense against the law of the State, yet warranted by the Federal authority they possess, and if the general government is powerless to interfere at once for their protection, — if their protection must be left to the action of the State court, — the operations of the general government may at any time be arrested at the will of one of its members.’” Id., at 406.
Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257 (1880), involved a state murder prosecution brought against a revenue collector who claimed that, while he was in the act of seizing an illegal distillery under the authority of the federal revenue laws, “he was assaulted and fired upon by a number of armed men, and that in defence of his life he returned the fire,” killing one of the assailants. Id., at 261. Davis sought to remove the prosecution to federal court and Tennessee challenged the constitutionality of the removal statute. Rev. Stat. §643. Justice Strong framed the question presented thus:
“Has the Constitution conferred upon Congress the power to authorize the removal, from a State court to a Federal court, of an indictment against a revenue officer for an alleged crime against the State, and to order its removal before trial, when it appears that a Federal question or a claim to a Federal right is raised in the case, and must be decided therein?” 100 U. S., at 262 (emphasis added).
Justice Strong’s emphasis on the presence of a federal defense unifies the entire opinion. He thought it impossible that the Constitution should so weaken the Federal Government as to prevent it from protecting itself against unfriendly state legislation which “may affix penalties to acts done under the immediate direction of the national government, and in obedience to its laws [or] may deny the authority conferred by those laws.” Id., at 263.
Despite these references to a federal defense requirement, the United States argues that Davis justified the killing solely on grounds of self-defense and that the question whether Davis’ act of self-defense was actually justified is purely a question of state law, there being no “federal common law of ‘justification’ applicable to crimes committed by federal employees in the performance of their duties . . . .” Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 7. Thus, the Government concludes, despite much contrary language in the opinion, the fact that we approved the removal of Davis’ prosecution demonstrates that no federal defense is necessary to effect removal.
What the Government fails to note is that the successful legal defensé of “self-defense” depends on the truth of two distinct elements: that the act committed was, in a legal sense, an act of self-defense, and that the act was justified, that is, warranted under the circumstances. In Davis’ case, the truth of the first element depended on a question of federal law: was it Davis’ duty under federal law to seize the distillery? If Davis had merely been a thief attempting to steal his assailants’ property, returning their fire would simply not have been an act of self-defense, pretermitting any question of justification. Proof that Davis was not a thief depended on the federal revenue laws and provided the necessary predicate for removal. See In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 94 (1890) (Lamar, J., dissenting) (“In Tennessee v. Davis . . . [t]he homicide, for which the petitioner was prosecuted, was committed by him while executing his duties, as a revenue officer, in pursuance of the express requirements of the revenue laws, and in defence of his own life, upon a party offering unlawful resistance”) (emphasis added); Maryland v. Soper (No. 2), 270 U. S. 36, 42 (1926) (“Thus removals of prosecutions on account of acts done in enforcement of the revenue or prohibition laws or under color of them properly include those acts committed by a federal officer in defense of his life, threatened while enforcing or attempting to enforce the law. Such acts of defense are really part of the exercise of his official authority. They are necessary to make the enforcement effective”). Accordingly, as Justice Strong’s conclusion in Davis makes clear, we upheld the constitutionality of the federal officer removal statute precisely because the statute predicated removal on the presence of a federal defense:
“It ought, therefore, to be considered as settled that the constitutional powers of Congress to authorize the removal of criminal cases for alleged offences against State laws from State courts to the circuit courts of the United States, when there arises a Federal question in them, is as ample as its power to authorize the removal of a civil case.” 100 U. S., at 271 (emphasis added).
Prior to Davis, we had considered the scope of congressional power to authorize the removal of a civil case in The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247 (1868), and again focused on the presence of a federal defense. Cooper sued the mayor and aldermen of Nashville, Tennessee, for trespasses on real estate and the asportation and conversion of chattels occurring during or shortly after the Civil War. The city officials sought to remove the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. Act of Mar. 3, 1863, ch. 81, § 5, 12 Stat. 756. They contended that at the time of the alleged trespasses, the mayor and aldermen of Nashville were appointees of the Military Governor of Tennessee and that the trespasses were committed under the order of a Union general. Cooper contended that the removal statute was unconstitutional. In upholding the statute’s constitutionality, we observed: “Nor is it any objection that questions are involved which are not all of a Federal character. If one of the latter exist, if there be a single such ingredient in the mass, it is sufficient. That element is decisive upon the subject of jurisdiction.” 6 Wall., at 252 (emphasis added). For purposes of removal, we only required the mayor and aldermen to allege a colorable defense under federal law; “[t]he validity of the defence authorized to be made is a distinct subject. It involves wholly different inquiries. ... It has no connection whatever with the question of jurisdiction.” Id., at 254.
Although we have not always spoken with the same clarity that these early decisions evince, we have not departed from the requirement that federal officer removal must be predicated on the allegation of a colorable federal defense. The United States argues that Cleveland, C., C. & I. R. Co. v. McClung, 119 U. S. 454 (1886), stands for the proposition that a federal defense is not a prerequisite to removal. In McClung a railroad brought suit in state court for recovery of a lien, alleging that a collector of customs had a federal duty under § 10 of 21 Stat. 175 to notify the carrier claiming the lien before delivering merchandise to its ultimate consignees even if the consignees had paid over the lien to the collector. The collector sought to remove the suit to federal court, setting up as his defense that he had no duty to notify the carrier under the federal statute. Despite the obvious presence of a federal question — the proper interpretation of § 10 of the statute — the United States argues that, because the collector’s defense was the absence of a federally created duty under the statute, his was not a federal defense. The argument is unavailing. Apart from the fact that the carrier itself could have brought suit in federal court based on “arising under” jurisdiction, the collector’s defense was clearly based on the statute's determination of the scope of his duties. To assert that a federal statute does not impose certain obligations whose alleged existence forms the basis of a civil suit is to rely on the statute in just the same way as asserting that the statute does impose other obligations that may shield the federal officer against civil suits. Both are equally defensive and equally based in federal law.
A later railroad case, Gay v. Ruff, 292 U. S. 25 (1934), points more definitively to our continuing understanding that federal officer removal must be predicated on a federal defense. Gay was a civil action but with facts remarkably similar to those in the criminal complaint brought against Mesa. Ruff filed suit in state court against Gay, the receiver of a railroad appointed by a Federal District Court, for the wrongful death of his son as a result of the negligent operation of a train by employees of the receiver. Gay sought to remove the action to federal court pursuant to § 33 of the Judicial Code, Act of Aug. 23, 1916, ch. 399, 39 Stat. 532, the then-current version of the federal officer removal statute. Much of Justice Brandéis’ opinion is devoted to determining whether railroad receivers were “officer[s] of the courts of the United States” for purposes of a recent amendment to the removal statute which provided that such an officer could remove to federal court civil or criminal actions against him brought “for or on account of any act done under color of his office or in the performance of his duties as such officer.” Cf. 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a)(3). In the course of his examination of the history of Judicial Code §33, Justice Brandéis concluded that “it applied . . . only when the person defending caused it to appear that his defense was that in doing the acts charged he was doing no more than his duty under those [revenue] laws or orders [of either House of Congress].” 292 U. S., at 33. Applying this understanding to the recent amendment concerning court officers, Justice Brandéis observed that “[t]he defendant receiver does not justify under any judgment or order of a federal court. Nor does the suit present otherwise any federal question. Its only relation to the federal law is that the receiver sued was appointed by a federal court. . . Id., at 34. This, “in harmony with the trend of legislation providing that the federal character of the litigant should not alone confer jurisdiction upon a federal court,” id., at 35, was not enough to sustain the receiver’s petition for removal. “The receiver here sued, although an officer of the court operating the railroad pursuant to the order appointing him, is not an officer engaged in enforcing an order of a court. . . . Nor is there reason to assume that he will in this case rest his defense on his duty to cause the train to be operated.” Id., at 39.
Finally, the Government relies on Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9 (1926), a decision in which we rejected the removal petitions of federal officers. This prohibition era decision involved prohibition agents charged with murder' and rejected the federal officers’ removal petitions on the grounds that the averments in the petitions themselves were “not sufficiently informing and specific to make a case for removal . . . .” Id., at 34. In Soper (No. 1), unlike any prior removal case we had adjudicated, the prohibition agents were only able to assert that they neither committed nor had any knowledge of the murder for which they were charged. They had simply come upon a wounded and dying man in the vicinity of an illegal still which they had destroyed after unsuccessfully giving chase to bootleggers. While rejecting the agents’ petition as “not sufficiently informing,” ibid., Chief Justice Taft also rejected Maryland’s contention that a federal officer can successfully remove a criminal prosecution only “by admitting that he did the act for which he is prosecuted.” Id., at 32. Rather, the Chief Justice enunciated the following test:
“There must be a causal connection between what the officer has done under asserted official authority and the state prosecution. It must appear that the prosecution of him, for whatever offense, has arisen out of the acts done by him under color of federal authority and in enforcement of federal law, and he must by direct averment exclude the possibility that it was based on acts or conduct of his not justified by his federal duty. But the statute does not require that the prosecution must be for the very acts which the officer admits to have been done by him under federal authority. It is enough that his acts or his presence at the place in performance of his official duty constitute the basis, though mistaken or false, of the state prosecution.” Id., at 33.
Unlike the Government, we do not understand the causal connection test of Soper (No. 1) to have eliminated the general requirement that federal officer removal be predicated on the existence of a federal defense. Soper (No. 1) presented a unique criminal prosecution, markedly unlike those before us today, where a federal officer pleaded by traverse and sought removal. While we rejected the removal petition at issue in that case, the decision assumed that a situation could arise in which a petition that pleaded by traverse might warrant removal. Under such circumstances, we suggested that careful pleading, demonstrating the close connection between the state prosecution and the federal officer’s performance of his duty, might adequately replace the specific averment of a federal defense. We are not today presented with such a pleading by traverse and need not decide whether removal on the grounds suggested in Soper (No. 1) would be permissible under either the statute or the Constitution.
Similarly, we do not understand Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U. S. 402 (1969), to have been such a case. In Willing-ham, the petitioner sued federal prison officials in state court on state tort law grounds for injuries he allegedly had received while imprisoned. The officials sought removal on official immunity grounds. See Barr v. Matteo, 360 U. S. 564 (1959); Howard v. Lyons, 360 U. S. 593, 597 (1959) (the validity of a claim of official immunity to state tort actions “must be judged by federal standards, to be formulated by the courts in the absence of legislative action by Congress”); see also Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U. S. 292, 295 (1988). The central question at issue in Willingham was whether the defense of official immunity was sufficient to support removal under § 1442(a)(1). We held that the removal statute “is broad enough to cover all cases where federal officers can raise a colorable defense arising out of their duty to enforce federal law. ... In fact, one of the most important reasons for removal is to have the validity of the defense of official immunity tried in a federal court.” 395 U. S., at 406-407.
In Willingham we adverted to the causal connection test of Soper (No. 1), not as a substitute for the averment of an official immunity defense, but as a means of delimiting the pleading requirements for establishing a colorable defense of that nature. Id., at 409 (“In this case, once petitioners had shown that their only contact with respondent occurred inside the penitentiary, while they were performing their duties, we believe that they had demonstrated the required ‘causal connection.’ The connection consists, simply enough, of the undisputed fact that petitioners were on duty, at their place of federal employment, at all the relevant times”). Despite the Government’s suggestion, we decline to divorce the federal official immunity defense from the pleadings required to allege it and transform those pleading requirements into an independent basis for jurisdiction. Mesa and Ebrahim have not and could not present an official immunity defense to the state criminal prosecutions brought against them. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 429 (1976) (“This Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law”). Accordingly, the liberal pleadings sufficient to allege an official immunity defense which we permitted in Willingham are inapplicable to removal of the prosecutions before us today.
In sum, an unbroken line of this Court’s decisions extending back nearly a century and a quarter have understood all the various incarnations of the federal officer removal statute to require the averment of a federal defense.
B
In the face of all these decisions, the Government defends the proposition that § 1442(a)(1) permits removal without the assertion of a federal defense. It does so based on the plain language of the removal statute and on the substantial federal interests that would be protected by permitting universal removal of all civil actions and criminal prosecutions brought against any federal official “for the manner in which he has performed his federal duties . . . .” Brief for Petitioners 8.
The critical phrase “under color of office” first appeared in the Act of July 13, 1866, ch. 184, §67, 14 Stat. 171, and has remained in every version of the removal statute that we have interpreted since we decided Tennessee v. Davis in 1880. Nevertheless, the Government contends that “under color of office” cannot bear the weight of a federal defense requirement. We agree with the Government that the specialized grants of jurisdiction in the last clause of subsection (1) concerning the apprehension of criminals and the collection of revenue and subsections (2) — (4) of § 1442(a) are largely the “residue” of the pre-1948, more limited removal statutes now entirely encompassed by the general removal provision of the first clause of subsection (1). See P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1057 (3d ed. 1988). The Government, however, derives from consideration of subsection (3) — “[a]ny officer of the courts of the United States, for any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties” — support for its argument that the removal statute “is not limited to cases in which the federal employee raises a federal defense.” Brief for Petitioners 26. The Government argues that “in the performance of his duties” must mean something besides “under color of office” in subsection (3). Nonetheless, by hypothesis, the disjunction in subsection (3) means no more than “under color of such office” in subsection (1). Therefore, the Government concludes, the controlling provision in subsection (1) must be construed broadly to permit removal of any civil actions or criminal prosecutions brought against a federal officer for acts done during the performance of his duties regardless of whether that officer raises a federal defense.
The court officers provision of subsection (3) was added to Judicial Code §33 — the removal statute superseded by the 1948 enactment — by the Act of August 23, 1916, ch. 399, 39 Stat. 532. We considered this provision in Gay v. Ruff, and explicitly rejected the argument the United States makes today. First, we recognized that the purpose of the 1916 amendment was “ ‘to extend the provisions of section 33 uniformly to officers of the courts of the United States, not only in cases arising under the revenue laws, but in all cases, giving to them the same protection in all cases now given to officers acting under the revenue laws, and to officers of Congress.’” 292 U. S., at 38, quoting H. R. Rep. 776, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1916). Second, we also recognized that “[t]here is no expression in the Act of 1916, or in the proceedings which led to its enactment, of an intention to repeal any existing law or to depart from the long-existing policy of restricting the federal jurisdiction.” 292 U. S., at 37. Third, as discussed earlier, we noted that the “existing law” which “restriet[ed] the federal jurisdiction” was precisely the requirement that the federal officer predicate removal on the averment of a federal defense. Id., at 33-35, 39; see also supra, at 130-131. Accordingly, we concluded that “in the performance of his duties” meant no more than “under color of office,” and that Congress meant by both expressions to preserve the pre-existing requirement of a federal defense for removal. Again, we see no reason to depart from this longstanding interpretation of Congress’ intent in enacting the removal statute.
c
The Government’s view, which would eliminate the federal defense requirement, raises serious doubt whether, in enacting § 1442(a), Congress would not have “expanded] the jurisdiction of the federal courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution.” Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U. S. 480, 491 (1983). In Verlinden, we discussed the distinction between “jurisdictional statutes” and “the federal law under which [an] action arises, for Art. Ill purposes,” and recognized that pure jurisdictional statutes which seek “to do nothing more than grant jurisdiction over a particular class of cases” cannot support Art. Ill “arising under” jurisdiction. Id., at 496, citing The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443, 451-543 (1852); Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12 (1800). In Verlinden we held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. § 1330, is a “comprehensive scheme” comprising both pure jurisdictional provisions and federal law capable of supporting Art. Ill “arising under” jurisidiction. 461 U. S., at 496.
Section 1442(a), in our view, is a pure jurisdictional statute, seeking to do nothing more than grant district court jurisdiction over cases in which a federal officer is a defendant. Section 1442(a), therefore, cannot independently support Art. Ill “arising under” jurisdiction. Rather, it is the raising of a federal question in the officer’s removal petition that constitutes the federal law under which the action against the federal officer arises for Art. Ill purposes. The removal statute itself merely serves to overcome the “well-pleaded complaint” rule which would otherwise preclude removal even if a federal defense were alleged. See Verlinden, supra, at 494; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U. S. 804, 808 (1986) (under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule “[a] defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction”); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149 (1908). Adopting the Government’s view would eliminate the substantive Art. Ill foundation of § 1442(a)(1) and unnecessarily present grave constitutional problems. We are not inclined to abandon a longstanding reading of the officer removal statute that clearly preserves its constitutionality and adopt one which raises serious constitutional doubt. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 693 (1979) (“[I]f ‘a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which [a serious doubt of constitutionality] may be avoided,’ Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), a court should adopt that construction”) (brackets in original).
At oral argument the Government urged upon us a theory of “protective jurisdiction” to avoid these Art. Ill difficulties. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. In Willingham, we recognized that Congress’ enactment of federal officer removal statutes since 1815 served “to provide a federal forum for cases where federal officials must raise defenses arising from their official duties . . . [and] to protect federal officers from interference by hostile state courts.” 395 U. S., at 405. The Government insists that the full protection of federal officers from interference by hostile state courts cannot be achieved if the averment of a federal defense must be a predicate to removal. More important, the Government suggests that this generalized congressional interest in protecting federal officers from state court interference suffices to support Art. Ill “arising under” jurisdiction.
We have, in the past, not found the need to adopt a theory of “protective jurisdiction” to support Art. Ill “arising under” jurisdiction, Verlinden, supra, at 491, n. 17, and we do not see any need for doing so here because we do not recognize any federal interests that are not protected by limiting removal to situations in which a federal defense is alleged. In these prosecutions, no state court hostility or interference has even been alleged by petitioners and we can discern no federal interest in potentially forcing local district attorneys to choose between prosecuting traffic violations hundreds of miles from the municipality in which the violations occurred or abandoning those prosecutions.
The Santa Clara County Municipal Court, as it happens, is located in San Jose, as is a Federal District Court of the Northern District of California. As California observes, however, other of its county seats may be located up to 350 miles from the nearest Federal District Court. Brief for Respondent 47, n. 25. In other of our Nation’s large but less populous States the distances and accompanying burdens on state prosecutors may be even more acute. For example, the distance from Barrow, Alaska, the seat of that State’s Second Judicial District, to Nome, where the nearest Federal District Court sits, is over 500 miles. We have emphasized:
“[U]nder our federal system, it goes without saying that preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government. Because the regulation of crime is pre-eminently a matter for the States, we have identified a strong judicial policy against federal interference with state criminal proceedings.” Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U. S. 232, 243 (1981) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
It is hardly consistent with this “strong judicial policy” to permit removal of state criminal prosecutions of federal officers and thereby impose potentially extraordinary burdens on the States when absolutely no federal question is even at issue in such prosecutions. We are simply unwilling to credit the Government’s ominous intimations of hostile state prosecutors and collaborationist state courts interfering with federal officers by charging them with traffic violations and other crimes for which they would have no federal defense in immunity or otherwise. That is certainly not the case in the prosecutions of Mesa and Ebrahim, nor was it the case in the removal of the state prosecutions of federal revenue agents that confronted us in our early decisions. In those cases where true state hostility may have existed, it was specifically directed against federal officers’ efforts to carry out their federally mandated duties. E. g., Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257 (1880). As we said in Maryland v. Soper (No. 2), 270 U. S., at 43-44, with respect to Judicial Code §33:
“In answer to the suggestion that our construction of § 33 and our failure to sustain the right of removal in the case before us will permit evilly minded persons to evade the useful operations of §33, we can only say that, if prosecutions of this kind come to be used to obstruct seriously the enforcement of federal laws, it will be for Congress in its discretion to amend §33 so that the words . . . shall be enlarged to mean that any prosecution of a federal officer for any state offense which can be shown by evidence to have had its motive in a wish to hinder him in the enforcement of federal law, may be removed for trial to the proper federal court. We are not now considering or intimating whether such an enlargement would be valid; but what we wish to be understood as deciding is that the present language of § 33 can not be broadened by fair construction to give it such a meaning. These were not prosecutions, therefore, commenced on account of acts done by these defendants solely in pursuance of their federal authority. With the statute as it is, they can not have the protection of a trial in the federal court . . . .”
Chief Justice Taft’s words of 63 years ago apply equally well today; the present language of § 1442(a) cannot be broadened by fair construction to give it the meaning which the Government seeks. Federal officer removal under 28 U. S. C. § 1442(a) must be predicated upon averment of a federal defense. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
So ordered.
The “Arising Under” Clause provides: “The judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” U. S. Const., Art. III, §2, el. 1.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co., 340 U. S. 179, decided this date. Appellant is a producer in the Guymon-Hugoton Field, owning leases on approximately 183,000 acres, but unlike Cities Service it does not purchase from other producers in this field. It has its own gathering system through which gas is transported to a central point in Hansford County, Texas. There the gas is processed for the extraction of gasoline and other liquid hydrocarbons. These by-products are either utilized or sold, and the residue of natural gas is sold to pipe-line companies. Appellant’s first appearance before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission in connection with the Peerless proceedings was on January 17, 1947, after the entry of the order setting a minimum price on all natural gas taken from the Guy-mon-Hugoton Field. Phillips moved that the Commission either vacate the order insofar as applicable to it, or clarify the application of the order to gas not actually sold at the wellhead. On February 4, 1947, the Commission issued Order No. 19702, refusing to vacate or further clarify its general minimum price order. The Commission concluded that Phillips had no standing to complain of the general order since the company was currently complying with it by realizing on the average, from sale and utilization of by-products and sale of gas, the minimum price set.
On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court consolidated the two cases and with respect to Phillips stated:
“Our discussion of the Cities Service appeal is here applicable. We find no basis in the due process and equal protection clause of the Federal and State Constitutions for condemning the orders appealed from in their application to Phillips.” 203 Okla. 35, 48, 220 P. 2d 279, 292 (1950).
It is apparent from this opinion that the court below took jurisdiction and passed upon the constitutional issues raised. We assumed therefore that the court, noting the evidence of injury contained in the record, found no technical defects in the pleadings before the Commission which would deprive Phillips of standing to appeal. We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal to this Court in order to secure a complete picture of the issues at stake.
Appellant does not argue that the orders violate the Commerce Clause. In other respects, the appeal presents only minor variations of the issues raised by Cities Service. Phillips argues that it is not a purchaser but merely a producer; that unlike the situation in Cities Service, the order as applied to it lacks any connection with correlative rights, the interest of the public, monopolistic practices or discrimination. The distinction is without a difference: the connection between realized price and conservation applies to all production in the field, whether owners purchase from others or not, and whether they own pipe lines or not. In a field which constitutes a common reservoir of gas, the Commission must be able to regulate the operations of all producers or there is little point in regulating any.
Phillips also relies heavily on the contention that the orders are unreasonably vague. In substance, this argument is nothing more than that the determination by an integrated company of proceeds realized from gas at the wellhead involves complicated problems in cost accounting. These problems are common to a host of valid regulations. There is nothing to indicate that Phillips will be penalized for reasonable and good faith efforts to solve them.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that the alleged federal constitutional questions are frivolous and that the appeal therefore should be dismissed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
This case presents the question whether the Secretary of Energy violated §5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U. S. C. §825s, or his contractual obligations by putting rates for hydroelectric power generated at federally owned dams into effect on an interim basis pending further review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Court of Claims held that the Secretary’s actions exceeded his contractual and statutory authority, and granted summary judgment to respondents. 230 Ct. Cl. 635, 680 F. 2d 115 (1982). After further proceedings, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the Court of Claims’ decision was the law of the case and correct on the merits. 751 F. 2d 1255 (1985). We granted certiorari, 473 U. S. 903 (1985), and we now reverse.
I
A
In the Flood Control Act, Congress authorized the construction of a number of dam and reservoir projects, operated by the Army Corps of Engineers and producing large blocks of hydroelectric power. Congress had granted authority for several such projects before 1944, but had enacted no “general law governing the sale and distribution of power” so generated. S. Rep. No. 1030, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1944). Intending “to place by law the responsibility for disposal of such power in an existing Federal agency,” ibid., Congress provided:
“Electric power and energy generated at reservoir projects under the control of the War Department and in the opinion of the Secretary of War not required in the operation of such projects shall be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior, who shall transmit and dispose of such power and energy in such manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles, the rate schedules to become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Federal Power Commission. Rate schedules shall be drawn having regard to the recovery (upon the basis of the application of such rate schedules to the capacity of the electric facilities of the projects) of the cost of producing and transmitting such electric energy, including the amortization of the capital investment allocated to power over a reasonable period of years. ...” Ch. 665, § 5, 58 Stat. 887, 890 (emphasis added) (codified as amended at 16 U. S. C. § 825s).
In order to sell the hydroelectric power turned over to him under that statute, the Secretary of the Interior created what eventually became five regional Power Marketing Administrations (PM As). The PM A Administrators were assigned the responsibility of preparing rate schedules and the supporting accounting and cost allocation studies. There were no formal procedures for public participation in PMA preparation of rate schedules, although some of the PMAs (not including the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), immediately concerned in this suit) began to adopt such procedures starting in late 1977. See 45 Fed. Reg. 86976 (1980).
When determining whether to approve a PMA’s proposed rates, the Federal Power Commission utilized its “special expertise” and its “independent judgment” in measuring the proposal against the statutory standards. Bonneville Power Administration, 34 F. P. C. 1462, 1465 (1965). Because the Flood Control Act imposed no particular procedures for Commission review of rate proposals, the Commission was largely free to design its own. See Southeastern Power Administration, 54 F. P. C. 1631, 1632, n. (1975). It developed a practice of affording notice and comment to customers and other affected parties when the Secretary submitted a rate schedule, and granting requests for oral argument or public hearing on a case-by-case basis.
The parties differ as to the degree to which Commission practice included the use of interim rates. The Solicitor General cites several instances in which the Commission did implement such rates; respondents answer that those instances were both isolated and unrepresentative. Our own examination of the historical record reveals that beginning in the 1970’s, the Commission announced its intention to examine PMA rate proposals “on the basis of evidentiary records which are developed during the course of [adjudicatory] public hearings,” Bonneville Power Administration, 54 F. P. C. 808, 810 (1975). It provided for full administrative hearings with cross-examination of witnesses. At the same time, the Commission adopted, in some cases, the practice of examining rates submitted to it by the Secretary and, if the rates appeared to lie within the statutory boundaries, approving them on an interim basis pending the formal hearing. It required that the PMA refund any overcharges with interest if the Commission found after a hearing that an approved interim rate had been too high. See Southeastern Power Administration, 54 F. P. C. 3 (1975); Bonneville Power Administration, 52 F. P. C. 1912 (1974); see also Bonneville Power Administration, 58 F. P. C. 2498 (1977) (Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act). The Department of the Interior initially took the view that full evidentiary hearings were inappropriate under the Flood Control Act, and that if such hearings were to be held the Commission had no power to approve rates on an interim basis. The Commission, however, explicitly rejected that position. Southeastern Power Administration, supra, at 1632-1633; see also Bonneville Power Administration, 59 F. P. C. 1194, 1195 (1977) (Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act). The Interior Department then acquiesced in the Commission’s view. See ibid.
B
This regulatory scheme was upset in 1977, with the passage of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7101 et seq. (DOE Act). That statute, designed to “assur[e] coordinated and effective administration of Federal energy policy and programs,” §7112, eliminated the Secretary of the Interior’s role in hydroelectric power rate regulation, and abolished the Federal Power Commission entirely. The Interior Secretary’s rate-proposing function was transferred to the new Secretary of Energy, “acting by and through [the] Administrators” of the PMAs. § 7152(a)(2). The Federal Power Commission’s rate approval function was transferred to the Secretary of Energy as well.
The Secretary of Energy institutionalized an interim rate-approval process for hydroelectric rates. He delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Resource Applications “the authority to develop, acting by and through the [PMA] administrators, and to confirm, approve, and place in effect on an interim basis, power and transmission rates for the five power marketing administrations.” 43 Fed. Reg. 60636 (1978) (emphasis added). He simultaneously delegated to the new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “the authority to confirm and approve on a final basis, or to disapprove, rates developed by the Assistant Secretary.” Ibid. Under the new regulatory scheme, the PMAs give extensive public notice of proposed rates. 10 CFR § 903.13 (1985). They provide all interested persons the opportunity to consult with and obtain information from the PMAs, to examine backup data, and to comment on the proposed rates. § 903.14. In most cases, the PMAs hold one or more “public information forums” and “public comment forums” regarding the rate proposal. §§903.15, 903.16. Following this consultation and comment period, the PMA Administrator must develop rates which, in the Assistant Secretary’s judgment, should be confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis. The Assistant Secretary must prepare a statement explaining the principal factors on which his decision to confirm and approve the rates was based. §903.21.
The Assistant Secretary, after his interim confirmation and approval, submits the proposed rates to FERC for final confirmation and approval. FERC views its role in this process as “in the nature of an appellate body,” 45 Fed. Reg. 79545, 79547 (1980); its function is to determine from the record before it whether “due process requirements have been met and [whether] the Administrator’s program of rate schedules and the decision of the [Assistant Secretary] are rational and consistent with the statutory standards.” Ibid. In exercising that appellate function, FERC relies on the record before it, remanding for supplementation if necessary. If it disapproves the interim rates confirmed and approved by the Assistant Secretary, the Assistant Secretary has the responsibility to submit acceptable substitute rates. Overcharges attributable to excessive interim rates must be refunded with interest to affected customers. 10 CFR § 903.22 (1985).
II
The dispute in this case involves the price charged for the sale of hydroelectric power by the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) to respondent cities of Lamar, Fulton, and Thayer, Missouri. Respondents and the United States first signed power purchase contracts in 1952, 1956, and 1963 respectively; the Lamar and Fulton contracts were renewed in early 1977. The language of the 1977 contract is typical:
“It is understood and agreed that the rates and/or terms and conditions set forth in the said Rate Schedule ‘F-l,’ with the confirmation and approval of the Federal Power Commission, may be increased, decreased, modified, superseded, or supplemented, at any time, and from time to time, and that if so increased, decreased, modified, superseded, or supplemented, the new rates and/or terms and conditions shall thereupon become effective and applicable to the purchase and sale of Firm Power and Firm Energy under this Contract in accordance with and on the effective date specified in the order of the Federal Power Commission containing such confirmation and approval.” 230 Ct. CL, at 638, 680 F. 2d, at 117 (emphasis by Court of Claims deleted).
Provisions for rate increases under the contracts at issue in this case went unused for a long time. SWPA did not increase its basic rate between 1957 and 1977. 44 Fed. Reg. 13068, 13069 (1979). Unfortunately, SWPA’s costs did not also remain constant. As a result, FERC found by 1979 that SWPA’s annual revenues fell about $20 million short of covering costs and repaying investment. Ibid.
After considerable congressional and Commission prodding, see H. R. Rep. No. 95-1247, p. 59 (1978); S. Rep. No. 95-1067, p. 53 (1978); Southwestern Power Administration, 58 F. P. C. 2170 (1977); see also Energy and Water Development Appropriations for 1980: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the House Committee on Appropriations, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 2995-2998 (1979), SWPA in April 1978 finally issued notice of a proposed 42% rate increase. 43 Fed. Reg. 16545 (1978). After the close of the public participation period, SWPA developed new studies scaling down its estimate of necessary revenues, and developed new proposed rate schedules increasing basic rates only 33%. On March 1, 1979, the Assistant Secretary confirmed and approved the rates and placed them into effect on an interim basis, effective April 1, 1979. 44 Fed. Reg., at 13073.
In June 1981, FERC disapproved the rates as insufficiently supported, finding them likely to be too low. 46 Fed. Reg. 30877 (1981). On reconsideration in January 1982, however, FERC concluded that the rates, while “on the low side,” were nonetheless reasonable; it confirmed and approved the rates through September 30, 1982. 47 Fed. Reg. 4562, 4563 (1982).
Respondents paid the increased rates assessed by SWPA. They then filed suit, seeking to recover money paid pursuant to the interim rate increase between April 1979 and January 1982. The Court of Claims ruled for respondents on the question of liability, 230 Ct. Cl. 635, 680 F. 2d 115 (1982), the Claims Court entered a $954,816 judgment in their favor, App. to Pet. for Cert. 19a-21a, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, 751 F. 2d 1255 (1985).
H — I 1 — I 1 — I
Respondents contend that interim approval of rate increases by the Assistant Secretary violates the Flood Control Act and their power purchase contracts. They predicate their argument on the statutory direction that rate increases shall “become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Federal Power Commission,” and on the similar contractual language quoted supra, at 659. That language, according to respondents, by its terms precludes interim rate increases.
It is important to note what questions are not before this Court. Respondents do not contest that the DOE Act transferred the FPC’s rate-approval function to the Secretary of Energy. See Brief for Respondents 39. They agree that the Secretary could properly confirm and approve the rates on a final basis, without any further procedures or FERC involvement, id., at 43-45, and that he could “delegate and divide that function amongst subordinate officials and agencies,” id., at 44. Further, respondents concede that the contractual language must be read, to some extent, in the light of the DOE Act: they do not argue that the contractual language, providing for rate increases “with the confirmation and approval of the Federal Power Commission,” precludes any rate increase now that that body no longer exists. Rather, respondents’ sole claim is that the statute and the contracts preclude the Secretary from making hydroelectric power rates effective before rendering ajfinal determination that those rates satisfy all statutory requirements. A rate increase, they argue, can become effective only after the entire administrative review process has been completed.
A
We turn first to respondents’ statutory contention. Section 5 of the Flood Control Act, on its face, says little about the appropriate method of rate implementation under that Act. The relevant federal agencies, however, at least since the mid-1970’s, have interpreted the statute to allow interim rate increases. See supra, at 661-663. We must uphold that interpretation if the statute yields up no definitive contrary legislative command and if the agencies’ approach is a reasonable one. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-845 (1984).
The statutory language, providing only that “the rate schedules [shall] become effective upon confirmation and approval by the [Secretary],” does not definitively speak to the question of interim rates. Respondents argue that the requirement that rate schedules become effective “upon” confirmation and approval precludes the Secretary from making rates effective before all confirmation and approval are completed. The Court of Claims agreed. We can find, however, no such unambiguous meaning in the wording of the statute. The agency’s practice of allowing rates to become effective after interim “confirmation and approval,” even though the rates are subject to further examination, is as consistent with the bare statutory language as is respondents’ preferred arrangement.
Nor does the legislative history of the Flood Control Act resolve the ambiguity. Respondents draw on that legislative history in arguing that the drafters of § 5 of the Flood Control Act (like the drafters of § 6 of the Bonneville Project Act of 1937, on which § 5 of the Flood Control Act was based) intended to “protec[t] the power consumers.” 90 Cong. Rec. 9283 (1944) (statement of Rep. Rankin). Respondents point out that during the pendency of an interim rate increase, power consumers pay more than they would have paid otherwise, and perhaps more than they should pay. Yet as we shall discuss more extensively below, the goal of protecting power customers is not the only policy embodied in the Flood Control Act. The existence of that policy, without more, hardly supplies an unambiguous legislative command barring any imposition of interim rates. Respondents rely on a statement by Secretary Ickes that the Federal Power Commission would have final yes-or-no authority over rates under the Bonneville Project Act, Columbia River (Bonneville Dam), Oregon and Washington: Hearings on H. R. 7642 before the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 150 (1937), but that statement is not particularly helpful in determining Congress’ intent regarding interim rates.
In the absence of a clear legislative command, we must consider whether the Secretary’s choice “ ‘represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency’s care by the statute.’” Chevron, supra, at 845, quoting United States v. Shimer, 367 U. S. 374, 383 (1961). The Secretary has a dual obligation under the Flood Control Act. He is required to protect consumers by ensuring that power is sold “at the lowest possible rates . . . consistent with sound business principles.” See United States v. Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc., 693 F. 2d 392, 399-400 (CA5 1982). He is also, however, required by the plain language of the statute to protect the public fisc by ensuring that federal hydroelectric programs recover their own costs and do not require subsidies from the federal treasury. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2051, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1944); see also S. Rep. No. 2280, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1936) (Bonneville Project Act); H. R. Rep. No. 2955, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1936) (same).
Interim ratesetting appears well suited to accommodating that dual goal. That process protects consumers by subjecting proposed rates to initial review before they are made effective, and by allowing for refunds if the rates are ultimately disapproved. It protects the Government by allowing it to collect rate increases that are necessary for recovery of its costs, without having to wait for time-consuming final review. It helps eliminate the possibility that delay in implementation of rate increases, particularly in a period of high inflation, will cause the Government constantly to be playing catchup in its attempt to secure an appropriate rate.
Respondents argue that the Secretary’s plan is inconsistent with the congressional scheme because it allows the implementation of rates that may not meet the statutory standards, and that may ultimately be found to be too high. Congress, respondents argue, intended to eliminate just such a possibility when it interposed the requirement of FPC “confirmation and approval” in the ratesetting process. The refund process, they contend, offers insufficient protection because while excessive charges are immediately passed on to the ultimate consumers, refunds of those charges may not successfully trickle down to those same consumers. Yet ratesetting agencies charged with protecting the public commonly have the power to allow rates to go into effect prior to the completion of administrative review. See, e. g., Natural Gas Act, § 4(e), 15 U. S. C. § 717c(e); Federal Power Act, § 205(e), 16 U. S. C. § 824d(e); Federal Communications Act, §204, 47 U. S. C. §204; Interstate Commerce Act, § 15(7), 49 U. S. C. § 10708. See generally W. Jones, Cases and Materials on Regulated Industries 122-126 (2d ed. 1976). Congress plainly has not found that practice necessarily incompatible with the goal of consumer protection.
Respondents rely on FPC v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., 371 U. S. 145 (1962), for the proposition that refunds are an inadequate remedy for excessive rates. In Tennessee Gas, the Commission was faced with a statutory scheme under which a private utility could put a rate increase into effect, after an initial suspension period, without any governmental review of the legality of the increase. The utility argued that once an increased rate went into effect, it should be allowed to collect that rate until the completion of all Commission proceedings on the legality of the rate, since any illegal charges ultimately would be subject to refund. We rejected that position, holding that the Commission did not have to rely solely on its refund procedure to protect consumers and could instead order an interim reduction of the increased rate.
Tennessee Gas does not support respondents’ argument. Where the Government seeks to implement an increase under the Flood Control Act, there is no danger of unre-viewed illegal rates, as in Tennessee Gas. The rate when implemented has already been the subject of extensive public participation and review by the Assistant Secretary. The Secretary does not rely solely on the refund procedure to protect consumers, and thus the concerns that led the Tennessee Gas Court to find that process inadequate are not present. Instead, Tennessee Gas illustrates the authority this Court repeatedly has given regulatory agencies to do precisely what respondents claim they should not be able to do— to issue interim rate orders prior to final determinations whether proposed rates meet statutory requirements.
Respondents argue that the Secretary should be barred from setting interim rates absent explicit congressional authorization. The Secretary, they contend, cannot create a complex regulatory structure out of thin air. The provisions of the Flood Control Act, however, are general, and are in all respects less complex than the analogous provisions of the Federal Power Act governing regulation of private utility charges. Congress, in declining to set out a detailed mandatory procedural scheme, apparently intended to leave the agency substantial discretion as to how to structure its review. There is no support in the legislative history for the proposition that Congress intended to bar the Secretary from taking all steps regarding power rate regulation not explicitly set out in the general terms of § 5 of the Flood Control Act, and Congress may reasonably have intended to allow more administrative discretion with regard to this federal proprietary activity than with regard to control of private rates. Limiting the agency as respondents suggest would thus dis-serve Congress’ goal of establishing “a convenient and practical method of disposing of power at [federal hydroelectric] projects.” S. Rep. No. 1030, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1944).
Indeed, this Court has in other contexts allowed agencies to set interim rates even though their governing statutes did not explicitly so provide. In the Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases, 436 U. S. 631 (1978), we held that it was “an intelligent and practical exercise of [the agency’s rate] suspension power,” id., at 653, for the Interstate Commerce Commission to set out, without a hearing, interim rates that it would allow to go into effect. We further held that the Commission had authority to condition such an action on the carriers’ promise to refund charges ultimately found to be too high. That refund scheme, although nowhere explicitly approved in the statute, was a “‘legitimate, reasonable, and direct adjunct to the Commission’s explicit statutory power to suspend rates pending investigation.”’ Id., at 655, quoting United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 426 U. S. 500, 514 (1976). The Trans Alaska Pipeline Rate Cases were decided under a quite different statutory scheme from the one at issue today, and analogies between the two statutory schemes are loose at best. We see no reason, however, why we should take a narrower approach to the Secretary’s powers under the Flood Control Act than we took to the ICC’s under its enabling statute.
We therefore hold that the procedures established by the Secretary to exercise his powers under the Flood Control Act both are within his delegated authority and constitute a reasonable accommodation of the policies underlying that Act. At bottom, respondents seek to strike down the Secretary’s scheme on the ground that it gives power customers too much process. They concede that there could be no objection to a scheme under which rate review was simply cut off after the Assistant Secretary’s examination, but contend that the administrative plan must be invalidated because the Secretary has allowed still another layer of review. We would not be disposed to accept such a claim absent particularly compelling argument in its favor. Respondents have not supplied such argument here.
B
Respondents also argue that interim rate increases violate the terms of their power purchase contracts. Respondents make no claim that the contracts must be read literally, to bar any rate increase absent approval by a nonexistent Federal Power Commission. They nonetheless argue that the contractual language unambiguously bars the imposition of interim rates. We can detect no such absolute bar.
Respondents have presented no evidence demonstrating that the parties intended the contractual language, which tracks that of the statute, to do anything other than incorporate the statute’s procedural requirements. The Court of Claims based its acceptance of respondents’ position on its desire to construe the contracts “in harmony with” its interpretation of the statutory language, which, it noted, “is incorporated into the contract terms”; on its conclusion that there was no significant administrative practice of interim rate increases; and on its conclusion that the plain meaning of the contractual language unambiguously bars such rate increases. 230 Ct. CL, at 641-645, 680 F. 2d, at 119-121. The first premise is no longer helpful to respondents, since we have determined that the statute allows the imposition of interim rate increases. We have also rejected the second premise, see supra, at 661-663. We now reject the third. The contractual provision that rate increases will become effective “on the effective date specified in the order of the Federal Power Commission containing such confirmation and approval” is, by its terms, no more of a bar to rate increases becoming effective upon interim “confirmation and approval” than is the parallel statutory language. If the Government had meant by that contractual language to bind itself with restrictions going beyond those contained in the statute, we believe that such restrictions would have been set out more explicitly.
IV
We conclude that nothing in the Flood Control Act or the power purchase contracts at issue in this case precludes the Secretary from making hydroelectric power rates effective upon interim confirmation and approval, even though further review is still pending. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, accordingly, is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The cited proceeding arose under both the Flood Control Act and the Bonneville Project Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 731, codified as amended at 16 U. S. C. §§ 832-832L The relevant provisions of the two statutes are essentially identical, however, and the Commission and Secretary have treated them interchangeably. See 34 F. P. C., at 1465-1470; infra, at 667.
See Southeastern Power Administration, 54 F. P. C. 3 (1975), citing 18 CFR § 1.20 (1975) (superseded in 1978); Bonneville Power Administration, 52 F. P. C. 1912, 1912-1913 (1974). But see Southwestern Power Administration, 56 F. P. C. 795 (1976) (confirming new rate schedule without adjudicatory hearing, where SWPA had held on-the-record proceedings before proposing new rate).
42 U. S. C. § 7151(b) (transferring to the Secretary of Energy all FPC functions not explicitly transferred in Subchapter IV of the Act to the new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). The Court of Claims’ suggestion that FERC, rather than the Secretary, inherited the FPC’s rate approval function has been abandoned by respondents, see infra, at 665, and is unsupported by the statutory language. See United States v. Tex-La Electric Cooperative, Inc., 693 F. 2d 392, 395 (CA5 1982).
The Assistant Secretary of Resource Applications’ interim rate approval and implementation responsibilities were later transferred to the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy. See 47 Fed. Reg. 4562, and n. 1 (1982). We shall refer to both of those officers as the “Assistant Secretary” throughout this opinion.
After FERC’s final approval of the rates at issue in this case, the Secretary further modified the delegation order in certain respects. 48 Fed. Reg. 55664 (1983). The propriety of the administrative plan as modified in 1983, however, is not now before us.
Respondents finally point to § 501(a)(1) of the DOE Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7191(a)(1), which provides that that Act was not intended to abrogate “administrative procedure requirements” imposed by other statutes, including the Flood Control Act. Because we find in the Flood Control Act no “administrative procedure requirement” barring interim rates, this provision adds nothing to respondents’ 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.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of a statute authorizing closure of a premises found to be used as a place for prostitution and lewdness because the premises are also used as an adult bookstore.
I
A
Respondents own and operate'"-the “Village Books and News Store” in Kenmore, New York. The establishment characterizes itself as an “adult” bookstore and'sells sexually explicit books and magazines with booths available for the viewing of sexually explicit movies. No issue is presented with respect to whether the movies or other materials available at respondents’ store are obscene pornographic materials.
During September and October 1982, the Erie County Sheriff’s Department conducted an undercover investigation into reported illicit sexual activities occurring on respondents’ premises. A Deputy Sheriff personally observed instances of masturbation, fondling, and fellatio by patrons on the premises of the store, all within the observation of the proprietor. He also observed instances of solicitation of prostitution, and was himself solicited on at least four occasions by men who offered to perform sexual acts in exchange for money. The Deputy Sheriff reported that the management of the “Village Books and News Store” was fully aware of the sexual activity on the premises. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-54, A-56, A-57, A-58.
B
The results of the undercover investigation formed the basis of a civil complaint against respondents seeking closure of the premises under §2321 of the New York Public Health Law. Section 2320 of the New York Public Health Law defines places of prostitution, lewdness, and assignation as public health nuisances:
“1. Whoever shall erect, establish, continue, maintain, use, own, or lease any building, erection, or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution is guilty of maintaining a nuisance.
“2. The building, erection, or place, or the ground itself, in or upon which any lewdness, assignation, or prostitution is conducted, permitted, or carried on, continued, or exists, and the furniture, fixtures, musical instruments, and movable property used in conducting or maintaining such nuisance, are hereby declared to be a nuisance and shall be enjoined and abated as hereafter provided.” N. Y. Pub. Health Law §2320 (McKinney 1985).
Section 2329 provides for the closure of any building found to be a public health nuisance under § 2320:
“1. If the existence of the nuisance be admitted or established in an action as provided in this article, or in a criminal proceeding in any court, an order of abatement shall be entered as part of the judgment in the case, which order . . . shall direct the effectual closing of the building, erection or place against its use for any purpose, and so keeping it closed for a period of one year . . . N. Y. Pub. Health Law §2329 (McKinney 1985).
Section 2321 of the statute authorizes a suit by the district attorney, among others, to enforce its provisions.
Respondents answered the complaint by denying the allegations of the Deputy Sheriff that sexual activities occurred on the premises with respondents’ knowledge, and also by asserting that a closure of the premises would impermissibly interfere with their First Amendment right to sell books on the premises. Respondents moved for partial summary judgment on these First Amendment grounds, and also advanced an argument that the statute was not intended to reach establishments other than houses of prostitution in the traditional sense. The Trial Division of the New York Supreme Court, Special Term, denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that the statute was applicable to respondents; it rejected respondents’ First Amendment claims as well, reasoning that the closure order sought did not involve a prior restraint of materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment. It also held that respondents’ book-selling activities could not be employed as “a curtain behind which illegal activity can be freely encouraged and conducted.”
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed. People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 101 App. Div. 2d 163, 475 N. Y. S. 2d 173 (1984). The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court that the statute applied to the premises in which respondents’ bookstore was operated; closure of the premises would not violate the First Amendment since the admittedly unlawful conduct and activities giving rise to the abatement action were not presumptively protected expressive conduct, and respondents’ sales of books on the premises did not shield it from enforcement of the closure statute. The Appellate Division granted respondents’ motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and certified both the statutory question whether the statute reached establishments other than houses of prostitution and the First Amendment issue.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed. People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 65 N. Y. 2d 324, 480 N. E. 2d 1089 (1985). That court agreed that the Public Health Law applied to establishments other than houses of prostitution, but reversed on First Amendment grounds. The court relied on cases from other jurisdictions which analogized an order closing a bookstore or movie theater based upon previous distribution of obscene materials to an unconstitutional prior restraint. E. g., Gayety Theatres, Inc. v. City of Miami, 719 F. 2d 1550 (CA11 1983); General Corp. v. State ex rel. Sweeton, 294 Ala. 657, 320 So. 2d 668 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 904 (1976); People ex rel. Busch v. Projection Room Theater, 17 Cal. 3d 42, 550 P. 2d 600, cert. denied sub nom. Van de Kamp v. Projection Room Theater, 429 U. S. 922 (1976).
The New York Court of Appeals relied on the impact of the closure order upon respondents’ protected bookselling activities, and concluded that that circumstance required scrutiny under this Court’s First Amendment analysis of regulations aimed at nonspeech activity but having an incidental effect on speech. Purporting to apply the four-part test of United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968), the New York Court of Appeals determined that the closure remedy fell within the constitutional power of the State; that the closure remedy furthered a substantial state interest in thwarting prostitution; and that the purpose of the closure remedy was unrelated to the suppression of speech.
Notwithstanding that analysis, the court determined that the closure remedy failed the fourth part of the O’Brien test, which requires that the statute incidentally restricting speech be no broader than necessary to achieve its purpose. The court reasoned that upon the summary judgment record before it, an order closing the premises for a year was much broader than necessary to achieve the restriction against illicit commercial sexual activities and that an injunction against continuing the admittedly illegal activity on the premises could achieve the same effect without restricting respondents’ bookselling activities.
We granted certiorari. 474 U. S. 978 (1985). We reverse.
I — I
This Court has applied First Amendment scrutiny to a statute regulating conduct which has the incidental effect of burdening the expression of a particular political opinion. United States v. O’Brien, supra. In O’Brien, the Court considered the First Amendment ramifications of a statute which imposed criminal sanctions on one who “knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes” a draft registration certificate. 50 U. S. C. App. § 462(b). The O’Brien Court noted that on its face the statute did not regulate conduct that was necessarily expressive, since the destruction of a draft card is not ordinarily expressive conduct. The defendant in O’Brien had, as respondents here do not, at least the semblance of expressive activity in his claim that the otherwise unlawful burning of a draft card was to “carry a message” of the actor’s opposition to the draft. As the Court noted in O’Brien:
“This Court has held that when ‘speech’ and ‘non-speech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. To characterize the quality of the governmental interest which must appear, the Court has employed a variety of descriptive terms: compelling; substantial; subordinating; paramount; cogent; strong. Whatever imprecision inheres in these terms, we think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.” 391 U. S., at 376-377 (footnotes omitted).
The Court determined that the prohibition against mutilation of draft cards met these requirements and could constitutionally be applied against one who publicly burned his draft card as a symbolic protest.
We have applied O’Brien to other cases involving governmental regulation of conduct that has an expressive element. In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288 (1984), we considered the application of a ban on camping and sleeping in Lafayette Park and on the Mall in Washington, D. C., to demonstrators who sought to sleep overnight in these parks as a protest of the plight of homeless people. Again in United States v. Albertini, 472 U. S. 675, (1985), we considered a protester’s conviction for reentering a military base after being subject to an order barring him from entering that establishment based on his previous improper conduct on the base. In each of these cases we considered the expressive element of the conduct regulated and upheld the regulations as constitutionally permissible.
We have also applied First Amendment scrutiny to some statutes which, although directed at activity with no expressive component, impose a disproportionate burden upon those engaged in protected First Amendment activities. In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575 (1983), we struck down a tax imposed on the sale of large quantities of newsprint and ink because the tax had the effect of singling out newspapers to shoulder its burden. We imposed a greater burden of justification on the State even though the tax was imposed upon a non-expressive activity, since the burden of the tax inevitably fell disproportionately — in fact, almost exclusively — upon the shoulders of newspapers excercising the constitutionally protected freedom of the press. Even while striking down the tax in Minneapolis Star, we emphasized:
“Clearly, the First Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of the press. It is beyond dispute that the States and the Federal Government can subject newspapers to generally applicable economic regulations without creating constitutional problems. See, e. g., Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U. S. 131, 139 (1969) (antitrust laws); Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U. S. 143, 155-156 (1951) (same); Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622 (1951) (prohibition of door-to-door solicitation); Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186, 192-193 (1946) (Fair Labor Standards Act); Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U. S. 178 (1946) (same); Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 6-7, 19-20 (1945) (antitrust laws); Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U. S. 103, 132-133 (1937) (National Labor Relations Act); see also Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972) (enforcement of subpoenas).” Id., at 581.
Ill
The New York Court of Appeals held that the O’Brien test for permissible governmental regulation was applicable to this case because the closure order sought by petitioner would also impose an incidental burden upon respondents’ bookselling activities. That court ignored a crucial distinction between the circumstances presented in O’Brien and the circumstances of this case: unlike the symbolic draft card burning in O’Brien, the sexual activity carried on in this case manifests absolutely no element of protected expression. In Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 67 (1973), we underscored the fallacy of seeking to use the First Amendment as a cloak for obviously unlawful public sexual conduct by the diaphanous device of attributing protected expressive attributes to that conduct. First Amendment values may not be invoked by merely linking the words “sex” and “books.”
Nor does the distinction drawn by the New York Public Health Law inevitably single out bookstores or others engaged in First Amendment protected activities for the imposition of its burden, as did the tax struck down in Minneapolis Star. As we noted in Minneapolis Star, neither the press nor booksellers may claim special protection from governmental regulations of general applicability simply by virtue of their First Amendment protected activities. If the city imposed closure penalties for demonstrated Fire Code violations or health hazards from inadequate sewage treatment, the First Amendment would not aid the owner of premises who had knowingly allowed such violations to persist.
Nonetheless, respondents argue that the effect of the statutory closure remedy impermissibly burdens its First Amendment protected bookselling activities. The severity of this burden is dubious at best, and is mitigated by the fact that respondents remain free to sell the same materials at another location. In any event, this argument proves too much, since every civil and criminal remedy imposes some conceivable burden on First Amendment protected activities. One liable for a civil damages award has less money to spend on paid political announcements or to contribute to political causes, yet no one would suggest that such liability gives rise to a valid First Amendment claim. Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976). Similarly, a thief who is sent to prison might complain that his First Amendment right to speak in public places has been infringed because of the confinement, but we have explicitly rejected a prisoner’s claim to a prison environment least restrictive of his desire to speak to outsiders. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817 (1974); see also Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners Union, 433 U. S. 119 (1977).
It is true that the closure order in this case would require respondents to move their bookselling business to another location. Yet we have not traditionally subjected every criminal and civil sanction imposed through legal process to “least restrictive means” scrutiny simply because each particular remedy will have some effect on the First Amendment activities of those subject to sanction. Rather, we have subjected such restrictions to scrutiny only where it was conduct with a significant expressive element that drew the legal remedy in the first place, as in O’Brien, or where a statute based on a nonexpressive activity has the inevitable effect of singling out those engaged in expressive activity, as in Minneapolis Star. This case involves neither situation, and we conclude the First Amendment is not implicated by the enforcement of a public health regulation of general application against the physical premises in which respondents happen to sell books.
The New York Court of Appeals thus misread O’Brien, which has no relevance to a statute directed at imposing sanctions on nonexpressive activity. The legislation providing the closure sanction was directed at unlawful conduct having nothing to do with books or other expressive activity. Book-selling in an establishment used for prostitution does not confer First Amendment coverage to defeat a valid statute aimed at penalizing and terminating illegal uses of premises. The legislature properly sought to protect the environment of the community by directing the sanction at premises knowingly used for lawless activities.
The judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
The decision of the New York Court of Appeals conflicts with decisions of the Virginia Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Superior Court which have upheld the closure of bookstores under public health nuisance statutes based upon illicit sexual activities occurring on the premises. Commonwealth v. Croatan Books, Inc., 228 Va. 383, 323 S. E. 2d 86 (1984); Commonwealth ex rel. Lewis v. Allouwill, 330 Pa. Super. 32, 478 A. 2d 1334 (1984).
For the same reason, we must reject the Court of Appeals’ reasoning analogizing the closure order sought in this case to an unconstitutional prior restraint under Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The closure order sought in this case differs from a prior restraint in two significant respects. First, the order would impose no restraint at all on the dissemination of particular materials, since respondents are free to carry on their bookselling business at another location, even if such locations are difficult to find. Second, the closure order sought would not be imposed on the basis of an advance determination that the distribution of particular materials is prohibited — indeed, the imposition of the closure order has nothing to do with any expressive conduct at all.
The dissent asserts that we have previously struck down “[generally applicable statutes that purport to regulate nonspeech ... if they unduly penalize speech, political or otherwise.” Post, at 709. This is obviously a correct statement of holdings which are not relevant here. In each of the cases cited by the dissent, the “nonspeech” which drew sanctions was intimately related to expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 (1972) (demonstration results in prosecution under antinoise ordinance); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 601 (1946) (trespass in order to distribute religious literature); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940) (breach of peace prosecution based upon distribution of religious literature). Here, however, the “nonspeech” conduct subject to a general regulation bears absolutely no connection to any expressive activity.
Respondents assert that closure of their premises is sought as a pretext for suppression of First Amendment protected expression. However, there is no suggestion on the record before us that the closure of respondents’ bookstore was sought under the publie health nuisance statute as a pretext for the suppression of First Amendment protected material. Were respondents able to establish the existence of such a speech suppressive motivation or policy on the part of the District Attorney, they might have a claim of selective prosecution. See Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598 (1986). Respondents in this case made no such assertion before the trial court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant Wardair Canada Inc., a Canadian airline that operates charter flights to and from the United States, maintains in this action that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution precludes Florida from applying to it a tax on aviation fuel purchased in that State. Wardair also asserts that the Florida tax must fall because it violates a “clear unequivocal directive of Congress,” allegedly implicit in the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1301 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. II), that the Federal Government has exclusive regulatory power over foreign air commerce. Brief for Appellant v, 15.
We disagree with appellant’s view and analysis of the operation of the Commerce Clause, and find that Congress has not acted to pre-empt state taxes such as that imposed by Florida. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida upholding the tax.
I
Florida has for many years taxed the sale of fuel to common carriers, including airlines, within the State. Prior to April 1,1983, the tax was prorated on a mileage basis, so that a carrier was liable for only the portion of the otherwise payable tax that was equal to the ratio of its Florida mileage to its worldwide mileage for the previous fiscal year. Fla. Stat. § 212.08 (4) (1975). Effective April 1,1983, the Florida law was amended to repeal the mileage proration formula for airlines, and the fuel tax was established at a rate of 5% on a deemed price of $1,148 per gallon. Fla. Stat. §212.08 (4)(a)(2) (1985). Under the amended law, an airline was liable for the full amount of the fuel tax whether that fuel was used to fly within or without the State, and regardless of whether the airline engaged in a substantial or a nominal amount of business within the State. The effect of this amendment was, of course, to increase substantially the tax liability of airlines, such as foreign airlines, who fly largely outside of Florida, and who had, under the old scheme, paid little Florida tax on fuel.
Shortly after the new law was enacted, appellant filed suit in state court attacking its validity insofar as it authorized the assessment and collection of a tax on fuel used by foreign airlines exclusively in foreign commerce. Wardair argued, among other things, that the law was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and that it was inconsistent with the Nonscheduled Air Services Agreement, May 8, 1974, United States-Canada, Art. XII, 25 U. S. T. 787, T. I. A. S. No. 7826 (U. S.-Canadian Agreement or Agreement), a bilateral agreement between the Governments of Canada and the United States regulating air charter service between the two countries. Wardair’s case was consolidated for trial with a similar suit brought by a number of other foreign airlines.
In a separate order addressing only Wardair’s claims, the trial court rejected the Commerce Clause arguments but found that the U. S.-Canadian Agreement expressed a “federal policy” to exempt foreign airlines from fuel taxes. The court further found that this “policy” precluded the individual States from acting in this area and thus preventing the United States from “speaking with one voice” with respect to foreign commerce. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied largely on our decision in Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U. S. 434 (1979). The court granted appellant a permanent injunction against the Florida Department of Revenue from assessing and collecting the fuel tax from Wardair.
The case was certified to the Supreme Court of Florida, which reversed, in part, the trial court. 455 So. 2d 326 (1984). The Supreme Court first noted that the U. S.Canadian Agreement by its terms exempted carriers only from national, as opposed to state or local (or, in the case of Canada, provincial) excise taxes, inspection fees, and other charges, and thus held that the Agreement did not pre-empt state sales taxes. Nor was the court persuaded that the Florida tax was invalid under the Foreign Commerce Clause. The court again referred to the fact that the Agreement exempted only national taxes, and “presume[d] this has been done intentionally.” Id., at 329. Having determined that the Federal Government had, in effect, itself elected not to prohibit the States from taxing aviation fuel, the court rejected the contention that the state tax “prevents our federal government from speaking with one voice,” ibid., and thus distinguished Japan Line. We noted probable jurisdiction, 474 U. S. 943 (1984), and now affirm.
■I
Wardair suggests that by enacting the Federal Aviation Act (Act), Congress “left no room for local government participation” with respect to foreign air travel. Brief for Appellant 39. Appellant does not expressly label this a preemption argument; rather, it relies on metaphor and tells us that “in the field of foreign air commerce it is the Federal Government that calls the tune. It is the Federal Government that is the conductor of the music, deciding how it is to be played and who are the players.” Id., at 44. We assume that appellant intends, by this metaphor, to persuade us that Congress has determined to “occupy the field” of international aviation, and thus to pre-empt all state regulation. The argument is without merit.
It is of course true, as appellant notes, that Congress has, through the Act, regulated aviation extensively. The agencies charged by Congress with regulatory responsibility over foreign air travel exercise power, as appellant observes, over licensing, route services, rates and fares, tariffs, safety, and other aspects of air travel. However, state law is not preempted whenever there is any federal regulation of an activity or industry or area of law. The Supremacy Clause, among other things, confirms that when Congress legislates within the scope of its constitutionally granted powers, that legislation may displace state law, and this Court has throughout the years employed various verbal formulations in identifying numerous varieties of pre-emption. See, e. g., Louisiana Public Service Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U. S. 355, 368-369 (1986). But we have consistently emphasized that the first and fundamental inquiry in any pre-emption analysis is whether Congress intended to displace state law, and where a congressional statute does not expressly declare that state law is to be pre-empted, and where there is no actual conflict between what federal law and state law prescribe, we have required that there be evidence of a congressional intent to pre-empt the specific field covered by the state law. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190 (1983); Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238 (1984). In the present case, not only is there no indication that Congress wished to preclude state sales taxation of airline fuel, but, to the contrary, the Act expressly permits States to impose such taxes. Section 1113 of the Act, as added, 87 Stat. 90, and as amended, 49 U. S. C. App. § 1513, addresses the issue of “State taxation of air commerce,” detailing in § 1113(a) the kinds of taxes which are prohibited and in § 1113(b) those which are permissible. Among the permissible taxes are “sales or use taxes on the sale of goods or services.” It is, of course, plausible that Congress never considered whether States should be permitted to impose sales taxes on foreign, as opposed to domestic, carriers, and therefore we do not rely on the existence of this section to answer the Commerce Clause issue raised here by appellant and considered by us infra. However, this section of the Act does provide the complete response to appellant’s pre-emption argument. For what § 1113(b) shows is that, to the degree that Congress considered the power of the States to tax air travel, it expressly and unequivocally permitted the States to exercise that authority. In other words, rather than prohibit state regulation in the area, Congress invited it. This is not the stuff of pre-emption.
Ill
In cases involving the so-called dormant Commerce Clause, both interstate and foreign, the Federal Government has not affirmatively acted, and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to determine whether action taken by state or local authorities unduly threatens the values the Commerce Clause was intended to serve. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761 (1945). As we have previously observed: “The few simple words of the Commerce Clause . . . reflected a central concern of the Framers that was an immediate reason for calling the Constitutional Convention: the conviction that in order to succeed, the new Union would have to avoid the tendencies toward economic Balkanization that had plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation.” Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 325-326 (1979). In recognition of the importance of this conviction, we have acknowledged the self-executing nature of the Commerce Clause and held on countless occasions that, even in the absence of specific action taken by the Federal Government to disapprove of state regulation implicating interstate or foreign commerce, state regulation that is contrary to the constitutional principle of ensuring that the conduct of individual States does not work to the detriment of the Nation as a whole, and thus ultimately to all of the States, may be invalid under the un-exercised Commerce Clause. See H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. DuMond, 336 U. S. 525 (1949); Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, supra. In the unique context of foreign commerce, we have alluded to the special need for federal uniformity: "'In international relations and with respect to foreign intercourse and trade the people of the United States act through a single government with unified and adequate national power.’ Board of Trustees v. United States, 289 U. S. 48, 59 (1933),’” Japan Line, 441 U. S., at 448. As in the context of cases alleging violations of the dormant Interstate Commerce Clause, the concern in these Foreign Commerce Clause cases is not with an actual conflict between state and federal law, but rather with the policy of uniformity, embodied in the Commerce Clause, which presumptively prevails when the Federal Government has remained silent.
When a state tax is challenged as violative of the dormant Interstate Commerce Clause, we have asked four questions: is the tax applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State; is the tax fairly apportioned; does the tax discriminate against interstate commerce; and is the tax fairly related to the services provided by the State. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274, 279 (1977). In Japan Line, supra, we noted that when the state tax allegedly interferes with the Federal Government’s authority to regulate foreign commerce, two additional questions must be asked: “first, whether the tax, notwithstanding apportionment, creates a substantial risk of international multiple taxation, and, second, whether the tax prevents the Federal Government from speaking with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments.” Id., at 451.
In the present case, appellant concedes that Florida’s tax satisfies the four-part test set out in Complete Auto. In other words, it is not disputed that if this ease did not involve foreign commerce, the Florida tax on the sale of aviation fuel would not contravene the Commerce Clause. Appellant also recognizes that there is no threat of multiple international taxation in this case, since the tax is imposed only upon the sale of fuel, a discrete transaction which occurs within one national jurisdiction only. Appellant and the United States as amicus curiae thus rely entirely on the final factor identified in Japan Line, and argue that the Florida tax violates the Foreign Commerce Clause because it threatens the ability of the Federal Government to “speak with one voice.” Specifically, they urge that there exists a federal policy of reciprocal tax exemptions for aircraft, equipment, and supplies, including aviation fuel, that constitute the instrumentalities of international air traffic, and that this “policy” represents the statement that the “one voice” of the Federal Government wishes to make and which is threatened by the state law. We disagree. In our view, the evidence relied upon by appellant and the United States not only fails to reveal any such federal policy, but, even more fundamentally, shows also that in the context of this case we do not confront federal governmental silence of the sort that triggers dormant Commerce Clause analysis. On the contrary, the international agreements cited demonstrate that the Federal Government has affirmatively acted, rather than remained silent, with respect to the power of the States to tax aviation fuel, and thus that the case does not call for dormant Commerce Clause analysis at all. Moreover, in our view the actions taken by the Federal Government accept the authority of States to tax as Florida has here, and lend further support to the position and views advanced by appellee and relied on by the Florida Supreme Court in rejecting Wardair’s arguments.
Appellant and the United States maintain that the policy of tax exemption for the instrumentalities of international air traffic is manifested by, among other things, (1) the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, opened for signature, Dec. 7, 1944, 61 Stat. 1180 (Chicago Convention), an international convention to which the United States and 156 other nations, including Canada, are parties; (2) a Resolution (Resolution) adopted November 14, 1966, by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), an organization of which the United States is a member by virtue of being a party to the Chicago Convention; (3) more than 70 bilateral agreements, including the U. S.-Canadian Agreement, into which the United States has entered with various foreign countries dealing with international aviation. But what these documents show is that while there appears to be an international aspiration on the one hand to eliminate all impediments to foreign air travel — including taxation of fuel— the law as it presently stands acquiesces in taxation of the sale of that fuel by political subdivisions of countries. Thus, Article 24(a) of the Chicago Convention by its terms precludes the imposition of local taxes on fuel only when the fuel is “on board an aircraft... on arrival . . . and retained on board on leaving” a contracting party; it does not prohibit taxation of fuel purchased in that country. 61 Stat. 1186. We agree with amici National Governors’ Association et al. that the negative implications of this provision support recognizing Florida’s power to tax; certainly, the provision demonstrates the international community’s awareness of the problem of state and local taxation of international air travel, specifically aviation fuel, and represents a decision by the parties to that Convention to address the problem by curtailing and limiting only some of the localities’ power to tax, while implicitly preserving other aspects of that authority.
Nor does the Resolution provide support for appellant’s contention that there is a clear national policy of exempting aviation fuel from state sales taxes. While the Resolution undeniably does endorse an international scheme whereby fuel would be exempt “ ‘from all customs and other duties,’ ” which it defines as including “‘import, export, excise, sales, consumption and internal duties and taxes of all kinds levied ... by any taxing authority within a State,’ ” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12 (Sept. 17,1985), quoting Resolution pp. 3, 4 (emphasis deleted), the Resolution is formally merely the work product of an international organization of which the United States is a member; it has not been specifically endorsed, let alone signed, entered into, agreed upon, approved, or passed by either the Executive or Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. In other words, no action has been taken to give the Resolution the force of law. While it is not argued by either appellant or by the United States as amicus that this Resolution in and of itself should operate to pre-empt state law, we also think it untenable to assert, as they do, that this Resolution represents a policy of the United States, as opposed to a policy of an organization of which the United States is one of many members.
Our reluctance in this regard is bolstered by the fact that the United States has, since the time that the Convention came into force, become a party to more than 70 bilateral aviation agreements, and in not one of these agreements has the United States agreed to deny the States the power asserted by Florida in this case. Most of these agreements explicitly commit the United States to refrain from imposing national taxes on aviation fuel used by airlines of the other contracting party, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14-17, 19, but as the United States concedes, “none of our bilateral aviation agreements explicitly interdicts state or local taxes on aviation fuel used by foreign airlines in international traffic.” Id., at 17. Most strikingly as it relates to the case before us, the U. S.-Canadian Agreement itself limits the tax exemption to be afforded to foreign air carriers to “national duties and charges.” App. A-58. Taxation by political subdivisions of either the United States or Canada are not mentioned, an omission which must be understood as representing a policy choice by the contracting parties, especially in light of the fact that the Resolution addressed this concern eight years before the United States and Canada entered into the Agreement. We note that throughout the time that the U. S.-Canadian Agreement has been in force, some American States, as well as some Canadian Provinces, have imposed taxes within their jurisdictions on aviation fuel used by Canadian and American carriers respectively in international travel. Furthermore, there was not, until recently, any challenge to the localities’ legal authority to do so. Although not dispositive, this course of conduct suggests that the parties to the Agreement and those most immediately affected by it understood it to permit this sort of taxation.
What all of this makes abundantly clear is that the Federal Government has not remained silent with regard to the question whether States should have the power to impose taxes on aviation fuel used by foreign carriers in international travel. By negative implication arising out of more than 70 agreements entered into since the Chicago Convention, the United States has at least acquiesced in state taxation of fuel used by foreign carriers in international travel. Again, in the U. S.-Canadian Agreement only “national” charges are barred, and we presume that drafters from two federalist nations understood this as representing a choice not to preclude local taxation. It would turn dormant Commerce Clause analysis entirely upside down to apply it where the Federal Government has acted, and to apply it in such a way as to reverse the policy that the Federal Government has elected to follow. For the dormant Commerce Clause, in both its interstate and foreign incarnations, only operates where the Federal Government has not spoken to ensure that the essential attributes of nationhood will not be jeopardized by States acting as independent economic actors. However, the Federal Government is entitled in its wisdom to act to permit the States varying degrees of regulatory authority. In our view, the facts presented by this case show that the Federal Government has affirmatively decided to permit the States to impose these sales taxes on aviation fuel. Accordingly, there is no need for us to consider, and nothing in this opinion should be understood to address, whether, in the absence of these international agreements, the Foreign Commerce Clause would invalidate Florida’s tax.
In Japan Line, 441 U. S., at 451, we explained that Foreign Commerce Clause analysis requires that a court ask whether a state tax “prevents the Federal Government from ‘speaking with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments.’” But we never suggested in that case or any other that the Foreign Commerce Clause insists that the Federal Government speak with any particular voice.
In light of the above, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is
Affirmed.
The Constitution provides that “Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Art. I, §8, el. 3.
Florida has since substantially amended its statute which imposes taxes on aviation fuel. Those amendments, which became effective July 1, 1985, do not in any way bear on the present controversy, which concerns only appellant’s tax liability from April 1, 1983, to July 1, 1985.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease presents the question whether uses of patented inventions in preclinieal research, the results of which are not ultimately included in a submission to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are exempted from infringement by 35 U. S. C. § 271(e)(1).
I
It is generally an act of patent infringement to “mak[e], us[e], offe[r] to sell, or sel[l] any patented invention ... during the term of the patent therefor.” § 271(a). In 1984, Congress enacted an exemption to this general rule, see Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, § 202, 98 Stat. 1585, as amended, 35 U. S. C. § 271(e)(1), which provides:
“It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention (other than a new animal drug or veterinary biological product (as those terms are used in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Act of March 4,1913). ..) solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs ....”
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 301 et seq., is “a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs.” See § 355(a); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661, 665-666, 674 (1990). Under the FDCA, a drugmaker must submit research data to the FDA at two general stages of new-drug development. First, a drug-maker must gain authorization to conduct clinical trials (tests on humans) by submitting an investigational new drug application (IND). See 21 U. S. C. §355(i); 21 CFR §312.1 et seq. (2005). The IND must describe “preclinical tests (including tests on animals) of [the] drug adequate to justify the proposed clinical testing.” 21 U.S. C. §355(i)(l)(A); see 21 CFR §§ 312.23(a)(5) and (a)(8) (specifying necessary information from preclinical tests). Second, to obtain authorization to market a new drug, a drugmaker must submit a new drug application (NDA), containing “full reports of investigations which have been made to show whether or not [the] drug is safe for use and whether [the] drug is effective in use.” 21 U. S. C. § 355(b)(1). Pursuant to FDA regulations, the NDA must include all clinical studies, as well as preclinical studies related to a drug’s efficacy, toxicity, and pharmacological properties. See 21 CFR §§ 314.50(d)(2) (preclinical studies) and (d)(5) (clinical studies).
a
í>
Respondents, Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., and the Burn-ham Institute, own five patents related to the tripeptide sequence Arg-Gly-Asp, known in single-letter notation as the “RGD peptide.” U. S. Patent Nos. 4,988,621, 4,792,525, 5,695,997, 4,879,237, and 4,789,734, Supp. App. SA11-SA19. The RGD peptide promotes cell adhesion by attaching to oc^ integrins, receptors commonly located on the outer surface of certain endothelial cells. 331 F. 3d 860, 862-863 (CA Fed. 2003).
Beginning in 1988, petitioner Merck KGaA provided funding for angiogenesis research conducted by Dr. David Cheresh at the Scripps Research Institute (Scripps). Telios Pharmaceuticals v. Merck KGaA, Case No. 96-CV-1307 (SD Cal., Sept. 9, 1997), App. 30a. Angiogenesis is the process by which new blood vessels sprout from existing vessels; it plays a critical role in many diseases, including solid tumor cancers, diabetic retinopathy, and rheumatoid arthritis. 331 F. 3d, at 863. In the course of his research, Dr. Cheresh discovered that it was possible to inhibit angiogenesis by blocking the 0^3 integrins on proliferating endothelial cells. Ibid. In 1994, Dr. Cheresh succeeded in reversing tumor growth in chicken embryos, first using a monoclonal antibody (LM609) he developed himself and later using a cyclic RGD peptide (EMD 66203) provided by petitioner. App. 190a. Dr. Cheresh’s discoveries were announced in leading medical journals and received attention in the general media. See Altman, Scientists Report Finding a Way to Shrink Tumors, N. Y. Times, Dec. 30, 1994, p. Al; Brooks et al., Integrin ctyPg Antagonists Promote Tumor Regression by Inducing Apoptosis of Angiogenic Blood Vessels, 79 Cell 1157 (Bee. 30, 1994); Brooks, Clark, & Cheresh, Requirement of Vascular Integrin for Angiogenesis, 264 Science 569 (Apr. 22, 1994).
With petitioner’s agreement to fund research at Scripps due to expire in July 1995, Dr. Cheresh submitted a detailed proposal for expanded collaboration between Scripps and petitioner on February 1, 1995. App. 95a-107a. The proposal set forth a 3-year timetable in which to develop “inte-grin antagonists as angiogenesis inhibitors,” id., at 105a, beginning with in vitro and in vivo testing of RGD peptides at Scripps in year one and culminating with the submission of an IND to the FDA in year three, id., at 106a-107a. Petitioner agreed to the material terms of the proposal on February 20,1995, id., at 124a-125a, and on April 13,1995, pledged $6 million over three years to fund research at Scripps, id., at 126a. Petitioner’s April 13 letter specified that Scripps would be responsible for testing RGD peptides produced by petitioner as potential drug candidates but that, once a primary candidate for clinical testing was in “the pipeline,” petitioner would perform the toxicology tests necessary for FDA approval to proceed to clinical trials. Id., at 127a; see 21 CFR § 312.23(a)(8)(iii) (2005) (requirement that “nonelinical laboratory study” include a certification that it was performed under good laboratory practices); see also § 58.3(d) (2004) (defining “[njonclinical laboratory study”). Scripps and petitioner concluded an agreement of continued collaboration in September 1995. Case No. 96-CV-1307, App. 31a.
Pursuant to the agreement, Dr. Cheresh directed in vitro and in vivo experiments on RGD peptides provided by petitioner from 1995 to 1998. These experiments focused on EMD 66203 and two closely related derivatives, EMD 85189 and EMD 121974, and were designed to evaluate the suitability of each of the peptides as potential drug candidates. 331 F. 3d, at 863. Accordingly, the tests measured the efficacy, specificity, and toxicity of the particular peptides as angio-genesis inhibitors, and evaluated their mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics in animals. Ibid. Based on the test results, Scripps decided in 1997 that EMD 121974 was the most promising candidate for testing in humans. Ibid. Over the same period, Scripps performed similar tests on LM609, a monoclonal antibody developed by Dr. Cheresh. App. 277a, 285a-298a. Scripps also conducted more basic research on organic mimeties designed to block o^Pg inte-grins in a manner similar to the RGD peptides, id., at 223a-224a; it appears that Scripps used the RGD peptides in these tests as “positive controls” against which to measure the efficacy of the mimeties, id., at 188a.
In November 1996, petitioner initiated a formal project to guide one of its RGD peptides through the regulatory approval process in the United States and Europe. Id., at 129a. Petitioner originally directed its efforts at EMD 85189, but switched focus in April 1997 to EMD 121974. Case No. 96-CV-1307, App. 31a. Petitioner subsequently discussed EMD 121974 with officials at the FDA. Id., at 397a. In October 1998, petitioner shared its research on RGD peptides with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which agreed to sponsor clinical trials. Id., at 214a-217a. Although the fact was excluded from evidence at trial, the lower court’s opinion reflects that NCI filed an IND for EMD 121974 in 1998. 331 F. 3d, at 874 (Newman, J., dissenting).
Opinion of the Court
B
On July 18, 1996, respondents filed a patent-infringement suit against petitioner, Scripps, and Dr. Cheresh in the District Court for the Southern District of California. Respondents’ complaint alleged that petitioner willfully infringed and induced others to infringe respondents’ patents by supplying the RGD peptide to Scripps, and that Dr. Cheresh and Scripps infringed the same patents by using the RGD peptide in experiments related to angiogenesis. Respondents sought damages from petitioner and a declaratory judgment against Dr. Cheresh and Scripps. Id., at 863. Petitioner answered that its actions involving the RGD peptides did not infringe respondents’ patents, and that in any event they were protected by the common-law research exemption and 35 U. S. C. § 271(e)(1). 331 F. 3d, at 863.
At the conclusion of trial, the District Court held that, with one exception, petitioner’s pre-1995 actions related to the RGD peptides were protected by the common-law research exemption, but that a question of fact remained as to whether petitioner’s use of the RGD peptides after 1995 fell within the § 271(e)(1) safe harbor. With the consent of the parties, the District Court gave the following instruction regarding the § 271(e)(1) exemption:
“To prevail on this defense, [petitioner] must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would be objectively reasonable for a party in [petitioner’s] and Scripps’ situation to believe that there was a decent prospect that the accused activities would contribute, relatively directly, to the generation of the kinds of information that are likely to be relevant in the processes by which the FDA would decide whether to approve the product in question.
“Each of the accused activities must be evaluated separately to determine whether the exemption applies.
“[Petitioner] does not need to show that the information gathered from a particular activity was actually submitted to the FDA.” App. 57a (one paragraph break omitted).
The jury found that petitioner, Dr. Cheresh, and Scripps infringed respondents’ patents and that petitioner had failed to show that its activities were protected by § 271(e)(1). It awarded damages of $15 million.
In response to post-trial motions, the District Court dismissed respondents’ suit against Dr. Cheresh and Scripps, but affirmed the jury’s damages award as supported by substantial evidence, Civ. Action No. 961307 JMF (SD Cal., Mar. 26, 2001), App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a, and denied petitioner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, Civ. Action No. 96CV-1307 JMF (SD Cal., Mar. 6, 2001), App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a. With respect to the last, the District Court explained that the evidence was sufficient to show that “any connection between the infringing Scripps experiments and FDA review was insufficiently direct to qualify for the [§ 271(e)(1) exemption].” Id., at 49a.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The panel majority affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law to petitioner, on the ground that §271(e)(l)’s safe harbor did not apply because “the Scripps work sponsored by [petitioner] was not clinical testing to supply information to the FDA, but only general biomedical research to identify new pharmaceutical compounds.” 331 F. 3d, at 866. It reversed the District Court’s refusal to modify the damages award and remanded for further proceedings. Id., at 872. Judge Newman dissented on both points. See id., at 874, 877. The panel unanimously affirmed the District Court’s ruling that respondents’ patents covered the cyclic RGD peptides developed by petitioner. Id., at 868-869; id., at 873, n. 7 (Newman, J., dissenting). We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ construction of § 271(e)(1). 543 U. S. 1041 (2004).
Ill
As described earlier, 35 U. S. C. § 271(e)(1) provides that “[i]t shall not be an act of infringement to . . . use ... or import into the United States a patented invention ... solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the ... use ... of drugs.” Though the contours of this provision are not exact in every respect, the statutory text makes clear that it provides a wide berth for the use of patented drugs in activities related to the federal regulatory process.
As an initial matter, we think it apparent from the statutory text that §271(e)(l)’s exemption from infringement extends to all uses of patented inventions that are reasonably related to the development and submission of any information under the FDCA. Cf. Eli Lilly, 496 U. S., at 665-669 (declining to limit §271(e)(l)’s exemption from infringement to submissions under particular statutory provisions that regulate drugs). This necessarily includes preclinical studies of patented compounds that are appropriate for submission to the FDA in the regulatory process. There is simply no room in the statute for excluding certain information from the exemption on the basis of the phase of research in which it is developed or the particular submission in which it could be included.
Respondents concede the breadth of § 271(e)(1) in this regard, but argue that the only preclinical data of interest to the FDA is that which pertains to the safety of the drug in humans. In respondents’ view, preclinical studies related to a drug’s efficacy, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacology are not reasonably included in an IND or an NDA, and are therefore outside the scope of the exemption. We do not understand the FDA’s interest in information gathered in preclinical studies to be so constrained. To be sure, its regulations provide that the agency’s “primary objectives in reviewing an IND are ... to assure the safety and rights of subjects,” 21 CFR § 312.22(a) (2005), but it does not follow that the FDA is not interested in reviewing information related to other characteristics of a drug. To the contrary, the FDA requires that applicants include in an IND summaries of the pharmacological, toxicological, pharmaco-kinetic, and biological qualities of the drug in animals. See § 312.23(a)(5); U. S. Dept, of Health and Human Services, Guidance for Industry, Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidance 45 (Apr. 1996) (“The results of all relevant nonclinical pharmacology, toxicology, pharmacokinetic, and investi-gational product metabolism studies should be provided in summary form. This summary should address the methodology used, the results, and a discussion of the relevance of the findings to the investigated therapeutic and the possible unfavorable and unintended effects in humans”). The primary (and, in some cases, only) way in which a drugmaker may obtain such information is through preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies.
Moreover, the FDA does not evaluate the safety of proposed clinical experiments in a vacuum; rather, as the statute and regulations reflect, it asks whether the proposed clinical trial poses an “unreasonable risk.” 21 U. S. C. § 355(i)(3)(B)(i); see also 21 CFR § 312.23(a)(8) (2005) (requiring applicants to include pharmacological and toxicological studies that serve as the basis of their conclusion that clinical testing would be “reasonably safe”); § 56.111(a)(2) (2004) (providing that the Institutional Review Boards that oversee clinical trials must consider whether the “[r]isks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits”). This assessment involves a comparison of the risks and the benefits associated with the proposed clinical trials. As the Government’s brief, filed on behalf of the FDA, explains, the “FDA might allow clinical testing of a drug that posed significant safety concerns if the drug had a sufficiently positive potential to address a serious disease, although the agency would not accept similar risks for a drug that was less likely to succeed or that would treat a less serious medical condition.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10. Accordingly, the FDA directs that an IND must provide sufficient information for the investigator to “make his/her own unbiased risk-benefit assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed trial.” Guidance for Industry, supra, at 43. Such information necessarily includes preclinical studies of a drug’s efficacy in achieving particular results.
Respondents contend that, even accepting that the FDA is interested in preclinical research concerning drug characteristics other than safety, the experiments in question here are necessarily disqualified because they were not conducted in conformity with the FDA’s good laboratory practices regulations. This argument fails for at least two reasons. First, the FDA’s requirement that preclinical studies be conducted under “good laboratory practices” applies only to experiments on drugs “to determine their safety,” 21 CFR § 58.3(d) (2004). See § 58.1(a); § 312.23(a)(8)(iii) (2005) (only “nonclinical laboratory study subject to the good laboratory practice regulations under part 58” must certify compliance with good laboratory practice regulations). The good laboratory practice regulations do not apply to preclinical studies of a drug’s efficacy, mechanism of action, pharmacology, or phar-macokinetics. Second, FDA regulations do not provide that even safety-related experiments not conducted in compliance with good laboratory practices regulations are not suitable for submission in an IND. Rather, such studies must include “a brief statement of the reason for the noncompliance.” Ibid.
The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that § 271(e)(1) did not protect petitioner’s provision of the patented RGD peptides for research at Scripps appeared to rest on two somewhat related propositions. First, the court credited the fact that the “Scripps-Merck experiments did not supply information for submission to the [FDA], but instead identified the best drug candidate to subject to future clinical testing under the FDA processes.” 331 F. 3d, at 865; see also id., at 866 (similar). The court explained:
“The FDA has no interest in the hunt for drugs that may or may not later undergo clinical testing for FDA approval. For instance, the FDA does not require information about drugs other than the compound featured in an [IND] application. Thus, the Scripps work sponsored by [petitioner] was not ‘solely for uses reasonably related’ to clinical testing for FDA.” Ibid.
Second, the court concluded that the exemption “does not globally embrace all experimental activity that at some point, however attenuated, may lead to an FDA approval process.” Id., at 867.
We do not quibble with the latter statement. Basic scientific research on a particular compound, performed without the intent to develop a particular drug or a reasonable belief that the compound will cause the sort of physiological effect the researcher intends to induce, is surely not “reasonably related to the development and submission of information” to the FDA. It does not follow from this, however, that §271(e)(l)’s exemption from infringement categorically excludes either (1) experimentation on drugs that are not ultimately the subject of an FDA submission or (2) use of patented compounds in experiments that are not ultimately submitted to the FDA. Under certain conditions, we think the exemption is sufficiently broad to protect the use of patented compounds in both situations.
As to the first proposition, it disregards the reality that, even at late stages in the development of a new drug, scientific testing is a process of trial and error. In the vast majority of cases, neither the drugmaker nor its scientists have any way of knowing whether an initially promising candidate will prove successful over a battery of experiments. That is the reason they conduct the experiments. Thus, to construe § 271(e)(1), as the Court of Appeals did, not to protect research conducted on patented compounds for which an IND is not ultimately filed is effectively to limit assurance of exemption to the activities necessary to seek approval of a generic drug: One can know at the outset that a particular compound will be the subject of an eventual application to the FDA only if the active ingredient in the drug being tested is identical to that in a drug that has already been approved.
The statutory text does not require such a result. Congress did not limit §271(e)(l)’s safe harbor to the development of information for inclusion in a submission to the FDA; nor did it create an exemption applicable only to the research relevant to filing an ANDA for approval of a generic drug. Rather, it exempted from infringement all uses of patented compounds “reasonably related” to the process of developing information for submission under any federal law regulating the manufacture, use, or distribution of drugs. See Eli Lilly, 496 U. S., at 674. We decline to read the “reasonable relation” requirement so narrowly as to render § 271(e)(l)’s stated protection of activities leading to FDA approval for all drugs illusory. Properly construed, § 271(e)(1) leaves adequate space for experimentation and failure on the road to regulatory approval: At least where a drugmaker has a reasonable basis for believing that a patented compound may work, through a particular biological process, to produce a particular physiological effect, and uses the compound in research that, if successful, would be appropriate to include in a submission to the FDA, that use is “reasonably related” to the “development and submission of information under . . . Federal law.” § 271(e)(1).
For similar reasons, the use of a patented compound in experiments that are not themselves included in a “submission of information” to the FDA does not, standing alone, render the use infringing. The relationship of the use of a patented compound in a particular experiment to the “development and submission of information” to the FDA does not become more attenuated (or less reasonable) simply because the data from that experiment are left out of the submission that is ultimately passed along to the FDA. Moreover, many of the uncertainties that exist with respect to the selection of a specific drug exist as well with respect to the decision of what research to include in an IND or NDA. As a District Court has observed, “[I]t will not always be clear to parties setting out to seek FDA approval for their new product exactly which kinds of information, and in what quantities, it will take to win that agency's approval.” Intermedies, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1269, 1280 (ND Cal. 1991), aff’d, 991 F. 2d 808 (CA Fed. 1993). This is especially true at the preclinical stage of drug approval. FDA regulations provide only that “[t]he amount of information on a particular drug that must be submitted in an IND . .. depends upon such factors as the novelty of the drug, the extent to which it has been studied previously, the known or suspected risks, and the developmental phase of the drug.” 21 CFR § 312.22(b). We thus agree with the Government that the use of patented compounds in preclinical studies is protected under § 271(e)(1) as long as there is a reasonable basis for believing that the experiments will produce “the types of information that are relevant to an IND or NDA.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23 (emphasis deleted).
* * *
Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding that it failed to show that “all of the accused activities are covered by [§ 271(e)(1)].” App. 62a. That court rejected the challenge on the basis of a construction of § 271(e)(1) that was not consistent with the text of that provision or the relevant jury instruction. Thus, the evidence presented at trial has yet to be reviewed under the standards set forth in the jury instruction, which we believe to be consistent with, if less detailed than, the construction of § 271(e)(1) that we adopt today. We decline to undertake a review of the sufficiency of the evidence under a proper construction of § 271(e)(1) for the first time here. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Drugmakers that desire to market a generic drug (a drug containing the same active ingredients as a drug already approved for the market) may file an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the FDA. See 21 U. S. C. § 355( j). The sponsor of a generic drug does not have to make an independent showing that the drug is safe and effective, either in preclinical or clinical studies. See § 355(j)(2)(A). It need only show that the drug includes the same active ingredients as, and is bioequiva-lent to, the drug that it is mimicking. See §§355(j)(2)(A)(ii) and (iv); §355(j)(8)(B).
We cite the current versions of federal statutes and regulations. The provisions cited are materially unchanged since the period of petitioner's alleged infringement.
In the proceedings below, the Court of Appeals held that respondents’ patents covered the cyclic RGD peptides developed by petitioner. 331 F. 3d 860, 869 (CA Fed. 2003). Petitioner does not contest that ruling here.
Scripps licensed the patent for the monoclonal antibody to Ixsys, a California biotechnology company. App. 271a. Based on research conducted at Scripps and at Ixsys in consultation with Dr. Cheresh, an IND application for a humanized version of the antibody called Vitaxin was filed with the FDA on December 30, 1996. Id., at 271a-274a, 404a. In addition to toxicology tests, the application included information from Dr. Cheresh’s in vitro and in vivo experiments related to the antibody’s mechanism of action and efficacy as an inhibitor of angiogenesis. Id., at 399a-404a. Ixsys began clinical testing of the antibody as an angiogen-esis inhibitor in February 1997. Id., at 304a.
On remand, the District Court reduced the damages award to $6,375 million. Civ. Action No. CV.96 CV 1307-B(AJB), 2004 WL 2284001, *1 (SD Cal., Sept. 7, 2004).
Although the Court of Appeals’ opinion suggests in places that §271(e)(l)’s exemption from infringement is limited to research conducted in clinical trials, see 331 F. 3d, at 866, we do not understand it to have adopted that position. The Court of Appeals recognized that information included in an IND would come within §271(e)(l)’s safe harbor. Ibid. Because an IND must be filed before clinical trials may begin, such information would necessarily be developed in preclinical studies.
The Court of Appeals also suggested that a limited construction of § 271(e)(1) is necessary to avoid depriving so-called “research tools” of the complete value of their patents." Respondents have never argued the RGD peptides were used at Scripps as research tools, and it is apparent from the record that they were not. See 331 F. 3d, at 878 (Newman, J., dissenting) (“Use of an existing tool in one’s research is quite different from study of the tool itself”). We therefore need not — and do not — express a view about whether, or to what extent, § 271(e)(1) exempts from infringement the use of “research tools” in the development of information for the regulatory process.
The relevant jury instruction provided only that there must be a “decent prospect that the accused activities would contribute, relatively directly, to the generation of the kinds of information that are likely to be relevant in the processes by which the FDA would decide whether to approve the product in question.” App. 57a. It did not say that, to fall within §271(e)(l)’s exemption from infringement, the patented compound used in experimentation must be the subject of an eventual application to the FDA. And it expressly rejected the notion that the exemption only included experiments that produced information included in an IND or NDA. Ibid.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Mark Christeson's first federal habeas petition was dismissed as untimely. Because his appointed attorneys-who had missed the filing deadline-could not be expected to argue that Christeson was entitled to the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, Christeson requested substitute counsel who would not be laboring under a conflict of interest. The District Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed. In so doing, these courts contravened our decision in Martel v. Clair,565 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1276, 182 L.Ed.2d 135 (2012). Christeson's petition for certiorari is therefore granted, the judgment of the Eighth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
I
In 1999, a jury convicted Christeson of three counts of capital murder. It returned verdicts of death on all three counts. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed Christeson's conviction and sentence in 2001, see State v. Christeson,50 S.W.3d 251(en banc), and affirmed the denial of his postconviction motion for relief in 2004, see Christeson v. State,131 S.W.3d 796(en banc).
Under the strict 1-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), Christeson's federal habeas petition was due on April 10, 2005. Nine months before this critical deadline, the District Court appointed attorneys Phil Horwitz and Eric Butts to represent Christeson in his federal habeas proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2)(providing for appointment of counsel for state death row inmates).
Horwitz and Butts, as they have subsequently acknowledged, failed to meet with Christeson until more than six weeks afterhis petition was due. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 93a. There is no evidence that they communicated with their client at all during this time. They finally filed the petition on August 5, 2005-117 days too late. They have since claimed that their failure to meet with their client and timely file his habeas petition resulted from a simple miscalculation of the AEDPA limitations period (and in defending themselves, they may have disclosed privileged client communications). See id.,at 90a-92a, 135a. But a legal ethics expert, reviewing counsel's handling of Christeson's habeas petition, stated in a report submitted to the District Court: "[I]f this was not abandonment, I am not sure what would be." Id.,at 132a.
The District Court dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Court of Appeals denied Christeson's application for a certificate of appealability. Christeson, who appears to have severe cognitive disabilities that lead him to rely entirely on his attorneys, may not have been aware of this dismissal. See id.,at 229a, 231a, 237a.
Nearly seven years later, Horwitz and Butts contacted attorneys Jennifer Merrigan and Joseph Perkovich to discuss how to proceed in Christeson's case. Merrigan and Perkovich immediately noticed a glaring problem. Christeson's only hope for securing review of the merits of his habeas claims was to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)seeking to reopen final judgment on the ground that AEDPA's statute of limitations should have been equitably tolled. But Horwitz and Butts could not be expected to file such a motion on Christeson's behalf, as any argument for equitable tolling would be premised on their own malfeasance in failing to file timely the habeas petition. While initially receptive to Merrigan and Perkovich's assistance, Horwitz and Butts soon refused to allow outside counsel access to their files. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 345a.
On May 23, 2014, Merrigan and Perkovich filed a motion for substitution of counsel. The District Court denied the motion, explaining only that it was "not in [Christeson's] best interest to be represented by attorneys located in New York and Pennsylvania," as Merrigan and Perkovich are. Id.,at 169a. The District Court did not address Merrigan and Perkovich's offer to forgo all fees and expenses associated with travel to Missouri, nor did it address the possibility of appointing other attorneys for Christeson.
Christeson appealed. The Eighth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, apparently reasoning that Merrigan and Perkovich were not authorized to file an appeal on Christeson's behalf.On September 19, 2014, while this appeal was still pending before the Eighth Circuit, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a warrant of execution setting October 29, 2014, as Christeson's execution date.
After further proceedings not relevant here, Merrigan and Perkovich again filed a motion for substitution of counsel on Christeson's behalf. The District Court again denied the motion. Explaining that substitution of "federally-appointed counsel is warranted only when it would serve the interests of justice," it offered four reasons for its decision. Order in No. 04-CV-08004 (WD Mo., Oct. 22, 2014), p. 1, App. to Pet. for Cert. 375a (quoting Lambrix v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections,756 F.3d 1246, 1259 (C.A.11 2014); internal quotation marks omitted). First, it deemed the motion to be untimely because it "was not filed until 2014, and shortly before [Christeson's] execution date." App. to Pet. for Cert. 375a. Second, it observed that Horwitz and Butts had not "abandoned" Christeson, as they had recently appeared on his behalf in a class-action lawsuit challenging Missouri's lethal injection protocol. Id.,at 376a. Third, it noted that although Horwitz and Butts had represented Christeson before the Eighth Circuit, that court had not appointed substitute counsel. Ibid.Fourth and finally, the District Court expressed its belief that granting the motion would set "an untenable precedent" by allowing outside attorneys to seek " 'abusive' " delays in capital cases. Ibid.
Christeson again appealed. This time, the Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court's order. We stayed Christeson's execution, see post,p. ----, and now reverse.
II
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3599"entitles indigent defendants to the appointment of counsel in capital cases, including habeas corpus proceedings." Martel v. Clair,565 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1280. "By providing indigent capital defendants with a mandatory right to qualified legal counsel in these proceedings, Congress has recognized that federal habeas corpus has a particularly important role to play in promoting fundamental fairness in the imposition of the death penalty."McFarland v. Scott,512 U.S. 849, 859, 114 S.Ct. 2568, 129 L.Ed.2d 666 (1994). Congress has not, however, conferred capital habeas petitioners with the right to counsel of their choice. Instead, the statute leaves it to the court to select a properly qualified attorney. See §§ 3599(a)-(d). But the statute contemplates that a court may "replace" appointed counsel with "similarly qualified counsel ... upon motion" of the petitioner. § 3599(e).
We addressed the standard that a court should apply in considering such a motion in Clair. We rejected the argument that substitution of an appointed lawyer is warranted in only three situations: "when the lawyer lacks the qualifications necessary for appointment ...; when he has a disabling conflict of interest; or when he has completely abandoned the client." 565 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1284(internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, we adopted a broader standard, holding that a motion for substitution should be granted when it is in the " 'interests of justice.' " Id.,at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1287. We further explained that the factors a court of appeals should consider in determining whether a district court abused its discretion in denying such a motion "include: the timeliness of the motion; the adequacy of the district court's inquiry into the defendant's complaint; and the asserted cause for that complaint, including the extent of the conflict or breakdown in communication between lawyer and client (and the client's responsibility, if any, for that conflict)." Ibid.
The District Court here properly recognized that its consideration of Christeson's motion for substitution was governed by Clair's "interests of justice" standard. But its denial of his motion did not adequately account for all of the factors we set forth in Clair.
The court's principal error was its failure to acknowledge Horwitz and Butts' conflict of interest. Tolling based on counsel's failure to satisfy AEDPA's statute of limitations is available only for "serious instances of attorney misconduct." Holland v. Florida,560 U.S. 631, 651-652, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010). Advancing such a claim would have required Horwitz and Butts to denigrate their own performance. Counsel cannot reasonably be expected to make such an argument, which threatens their professional reputation and livelihood. See Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 125 (1998). Thus, as we observed in a similar context in Maples v. Thomas,565 U.S. ----, ----, n. 8, 132 S.Ct. 912, 925, n. 8, 181 L.Ed.2d 807 (2012), a "significant conflict of interest" arises when an attorney's "interest in avoiding damage to [his] own reputation" is at odds with his client's "strongest argument-i.e.,that his attorneys had abandoned him."
Indeed, to their credit, Horwitz and Butts acknowledged the nature of their conflict. Shortly before the first motion for substitution was filed, they provided an update to the Missouri Supreme Court on the status of Christeson's collateral proceedings. In it, they stated:
"Because counsel herein would be essential witnesses to factual questions indispensable to a Hollandinquiry, there may be ethical and legal conflicts that would arise that would prohibit counsel from litigating issues that would support a Hollandclaim. Unwaivable ethical and legal conflicts prohibit undersigned counsel from litigating these issues in any way. See Holloway v. Arkansas,435 U.S. 475, 485-486 [98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426] (1978). Conflict free counsel must be appointed to present the equitable tolling question in federal district court." App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a-49a.
Yet, in their response to the District Court's order to address the substitution motion, Horwitz and Butts characterized the potential arguments in favor of equitable tolling as "ludicrous," and asserted that they had "a legal basis and rationale for the [erroneous] calculation of the filing date." Id.,at 86a, 90a. While not every case in which a counseled habeas petitioner has missed AEDPA's statute of limitations will necessarily involve a conflict of interest, Horwitz and Butts' contentions here were directly and concededly contrary to their client's interest, and manifestly served their own professional and reputational interests.
Clairmakes clear that a conflict of this sort is grounds for substitution. Even the narrower standard we rejected in that case would have allowed for substitution where an attorney has a " 'disabling conflict of interest.' " 565 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1284. And that standard, we concluded, would "gu[t]" the specific substitution-of-counsel clause contained in § 3559(e), which must contemplate the granting of such motions in circumstances beyond those where a petitioner effectively "has no counsel at all"-as is the case when counsel is conflicted. Id.,at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1286. Indeed, we went so far as to say that given a capital defendant's "statutory right to counsel," even "in the absence" of § 3599(e)a district court would be compelled "to appoint new counsel if the first lawyer developed a conflict." Ibid.
Given the obvious conflict of interest here, the considerations relied upon by the District Court cannot justify its decision to deny petitioner new counsel. The second and third factors noted by the District Court-that appointed counsel continued to represent Christeson in litigation challenging the means of his execution, and that the Eighth Circuit had not previously substituted counsel-are not substantial. Whether Horwitz and Butts had currently "abandoned" Christeson is beside the point: Even if they were actively representing him in some matters, their conflict prevented them from representing him in this particular matter. Likewise, it is irrelevant that the Eighth Circuit had not previously sua spontedirected substitution of counsel in the course of denying Christeson's request for a certificate of appealability and adjudicating his challenge to Missouri's execution protocol, when the conflict was not evident.
The first and fourth factors cited by the District Court-the delay in seeking substitution and the potential for abuse-might be valid considerations in many cases. See Clair,565 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1286("Protecting against abusive delay isan interest of justice"). But under the circumstances here, these factors alone cannot warrant denial of substitution. Christeson's first substitution motion, while undoubtedly delayed, was not abusive. It was filed approximately a month after outside counsel became aware of Christeson's plight and well before the State had set an execution date, and it requested only 90 days to investigate and file a Rule 60(b)motion.
Nor is it plain that any subsequent motion that substitute counsel might file on Christeson's behalf would be futile. See id.,at ---- - ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1288-1289(affirming denial of substitution motion as untimely where any filing made by substitute counsel would have been futile). To be sure, Christeson faces a host of procedural obstacles to having a federal court consider his habeas petition. Although Christeson might properly raise a claim for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), see Gonzalez v. Crosby,545 U.S. 524, 535-536, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005), to obtain such relief he must demonstrate both the motion's timeliness and, more significant here, that " 'extraordinary circumstances' justif[y] the reopening of a final judgment." Id.,at 535, 125 S.Ct. 2641(quoting Ackermann v. United States,340 U.S. 193, 199, 71 S.Ct. 209, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950)). That, in turn, will require Christeson to show that he was entitled to the equitable tolling of AEDPA's statute of limitations. He should have that opportunity, and is entitled to the assistance of substitute counsel in doing so.
* * *
The petition for certiorari and the motion to proceed in forma pauperisare granted. The judgment of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMASjoins, dissenting.
I would not reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case without briefing and argument. As the Court acknowledges, petitioner cannot obtain review of the merits of his federal habeas claims without showing that the applicable statute of limitations should have been equitably tolled, ante,at 892 - 893, and the availability of equitable tolling in cases governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) is a question of great importance.
AEDPA sought to ameliorate the lengthy delay that had often characterized federal habeas proceedings in the past.See Woodford v. Garceau,538 U.S. 202, 206, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003)("Congress enacted AEDPA to reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences, particularly in capital cases"). AEDPA thus imposed a strict 1-year time limit for filing a federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). If this 1-year period were equitably tolled whenever a habeas petitioner's attorney missed the deadline and thus rendered ineffective assistance, the 1-year period would be of little value, and the days of seemingly interminable federal habeas review would return. In Holland,the Court held that the AEDPA statute of limitations may be equitably tolled-but only under quite extraordinary circumstances. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 651-652, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010). Any expansion or further delineation of such circumstances should not be undertaken without the careful consideration that is possible only after the normal procedure of full briefing and argument.
The Court believes that briefing and argument are not necessary in this case, and my understanding of the Court's decision is that it expresses no view whatsoever on the question whether petitioner may ultimately be entitled to equitable tolling. I understand the Court to hold only that conflict-free substitute counsel should have been appointed for the purposes of investigating the facts related to the issue of equitable tolling and presenting whatever argument can be mounted in support of a request for that relief.
Based on the present record, it is not clear that this case involves anything other than an error, albeit a serious one, on the part of the attorneys who represented petitioner at the time when his federal habeas petition was due to be filed. According to those attorneys, they miscalculated the due date and as a result filed the petition after the time had run. They met with petitioner to discuss the habeas petition prior to the date on which they say they thought the petition was due but after the date on which it was actually due. These facts show nothing more than attorney error and thus fall short of establishing the kind of abandonment that is needed for equitable tolling under our precedent. See id., at 651-652, 130 S.Ct. 2549.I do not understand the Court's opinion to hold otherwise.
Because of the close relationship between the question that the Court decides (the propriety of the District Court's refusal to appoint substitute counsel) and the question of petitioner's entitlement to equitable tolling, I think that plenary review would have been more appropriate in this case. I write separately to emphasize that the Court's summary disposition does not address that issue.
Christeson has since submitted a signed retainer agreement with Merrigan and Perkovich that removes any doubt on that score.
Members of this Court have lamented the delay that often occurs in capital cases. Johnson v. Bredesen,558 U.S. 1067, 1067-1070, 130 S.Ct. 541, 175 L.Ed.2d 552 (2009) (Stevens, J., statement respecting denial of certiorari), Elledge v. Florida,525 U.S. 944, 944-946, 119 S.Ct. 366, 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998) (BREYER, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
On May 3,1985, respondent James V. Bryant delivered two photocopies of a handwritten letter to two administrative offices at the University of Southern California. The rambling letter referred to a plot to assassinate President Ronald Reagan by “Mr Image,” who was described as “Communist white men within the 'National Council of Churches.’” The letter stated that “Mr Image wants to murder President Reagan on his up and coming trip to Germany,” that “Mr Image had conspired with a large number of U. S. officials in the plot to murder President Reagan” and others, and that “Mr Image (NCC) still plans on murdering the President on his trip to Germany in May, 1985.” See Bryant v. United States Treasury Department, Secret Service, 903 F. 2d 717, 724-727 (CA9 1990) (Bryant’s letter). President Reagan was traveling in Germany at the time.
A campus police sergeant telephoned the Secret Service, and agent Brian Hunter responded to the call. After reading the letter, agent Hunter interviewed university employees. One identified James Bryant as the man who had delivered the letter and reported that Bryant had “told her ‘[h]e should have been assassinated in Bonn.’” Another employee said that the man who delivered the letter made statements about “'bloody coups’” and “‘assassination,’” and said something about “ ‘across the throat’ ” while moving his hand horizontally across his throat to simulate a cutting action. Id., at 718-719.
Hunter and another Secret Service agent, Jeffrey Jordan, then visited a local address that appeared on the letter. Bryant came to the door and gave the agents permission to enter. He admitted writing and delivering the letter, but refused to identify “Mr. Image” and answered questions about “Mr. Image” in a rambling fashion. Bryant gave Hunter permission to search the apartment, and the agent found the original of the letter. While the search was underway, Jordan continued questioning Bryant, who refused to answer questions about his feelings toward the President or to state whether he intended to harm the President. Id., at 719.
Hunter and Jordan arrested Bryant for making threats against the President, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 871(a). Bryant was arraigned and held without bond until May 17, 1985, when the criminal complaint was dismissed on the Government’s motion.
Bryant subsequently sued agents Hunter and Jordan, the United States Department of the Treasury, and the Director of the Secret Service, seeking recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act and alleging that the agents had violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). The District Court dismissed all defendants other than agents Hunter and Jordan and all causes of action other than Bryant’s Fourth Amendment claims for arrest without probable cause and without a warrant. The court denied the agents’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
On appeal, a Ninth Circuit panel held that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity for arresting Bryant without a warrant because, at that time, the warrant requirement was not clearly established for situations in which the ar-restee had consented to the agents’ entry into a residence. 903 F. 2d, at 723-724.
However, the panel divided on the question whether the agents were entitled to immunity on the claim that they had arrested Bryant without probable cause. The majority concluded that the agents had failed to sustain the burden of establishing qualified immunity because their reason for arresting Bryant — their belief that the “Mr. Image” plotting to kill the President in Bryant’s letter could be a pseudonym for Bryant — was not the most reasonable reading of Bryant’s letter:
“Even accepting the ‘alter ego’ theory that by warning what Mr. Image was going to do, Mr. Bryant was in fact communicating what he himself planned to do, the letter read in its entirety does not appear to make a threat against the president. Most of the letter does not even talk about President Reagan. A more reasonable interpretation of the letter might be that Bryant was trying to convince people of the danger Mr. Image and the conspiracy posed rather than that Bryant was speaking through Mr. Image.” Id., at 722 (emphasis added).
Our cases establish that qualified immunity shields agents Hunter and Jordan from suit for damages if “a reasonable officer could have believed [Bryant’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 641 (1987). Even law enforcement officials who “reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present” are entitled to immunity. Ibid. Moreover, because “[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 526 (1985), we repeatedly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U. S. 183, 195 (1984); Mitchell, supra, at 526; Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341 (1986); Anderson, supra, at 646, n. 6.
The decision of the Ninth Circuit ignores the import of these decisions. The Court of Appeals’ confusion is evident from its statement that “[wjhether a reasonable officer could have believed he had probable cause is a question for the trier of fact, and summary judgment' . . . based on lack of probable cause is proper only if there is only one reasonable conclusion a jury could reach.” 903 F. 2d, at 721. This statement of law is wrong for two reasons. First, it routinely places the question of immunity in the hands of the jury. Immunity ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial. See Mitchell, supra, at 527-529. Second, the court should ask whether the agents acted reasonably under settled law in the circumstances, not whether another reasonable, or more reasonable, interpretation of the events can be constructed five years after the fact.
Under settled law, Secret Service Agents Hunter and Jordan are entitled to immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest Bryant. Probable cause existed if “at the moment the arrest was made ... the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing” that Bryant had violated 18 U. S. C. § 871. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 91 (1964).
When Agents Hunter and Jordan arrested Bryant, they possessed trustworthy information that Bryant had written a letter containing references to an assassination scheme directed against the President, that Bryant was cognizant of the President’s whereabouts, that Bryant had made an oral statement that “‘[h]e should have been assassinated in Bonn,’ ” 903 F. 2d, at 719, and that Bryant refused to answer questions about whether he intended to harm the President. On the basis of this information, a Magistrate ordered Bryant to be held without bond.
These undisputed facts establish that the Secret Service agents are entitled to qualified immunity. Even if we assumed, arguendo, that they (and the magistrate) erred in concluding that probable cause existed to arrest Bryant, the agents nevertheless would be entitled to qualified immunity because their decision was reasonable, even if mistaken. Anderson, supra, at 641.
The qualified immunity standard “gives ample room for mistaken judgments” by protecting “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley, supra, at 343, 341. This accommodation for reasonable error exists because “officials should not err always on the side of caution” because they fear being sued. Davis, supra, at 196. Our national experience has taught that this principle is nowhere more important than when the specter of Presidential assassination is raised.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 871(a) provides:
“Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Mr. and Mrs. Filson brought this suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming a $6,000 interest in certain New Jersey realty. The complaint alleged that Mr. and Mrs. Fountain, the defendants, acquired title to this realty subject to a resulting trust in favor of the Filsons in that amount. The Fountains answered. They denied the existence of a resulting trust and also denied the existence of any obligation to the Filsons. The documents covering the transfer of the realty and certain depositions of the parties were filed. Mrs. Fountain, her husband having died, then moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The sole basis of the motion was the claim that New Jersey law would not permit the imposition of a resulting trust under the circumstances disclosed in the complaint and the accompanying documents. The motion was granted and judgment for Mrs. Fountain was entered.
On appeal the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia came to three conclusions. First, it agreed that under New Jersey law no resulting trust could arise. Second, it concluded that the summary judgment in Mrs. Fountain’s favor was nevertheless erroneous, because the complaint contained a general prayer for “other relief” and alleged facts on the basis of which a personal judgment for $6,000 could have been recovered even in the absence of a resulting trust in the realty. Finally, the Court of Appeals proceeded to examine the depositions which had been taken in advance of trial. The court concluded that they showed the existence of a personal obligation and the case was, therefore, remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter a personal judgment in favor of the Filsons for $6,000. 84 U. S. App. D. C.-, 171 F. 2d 999. Mrs. Fountain’s timely motion for a modification of this order in order to permit a trial as to the existence of the personal obligation was denied.
Mrs. Fountain’s petition for certiorari, which attacks only the third portion of the Court of Appeals’ ruling above stated, is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. We need not pass on the propriety of an order for summary judgment by a district court in favor of one party after the opposite party has moved for summary judgment in its favor, where it appears that there is no dispute as to any fact material to the issue being litigated. For here the order was made on appeal on a new issue as to which the opposite party had no opportunity to present a defense before the trial court. In Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571 (1948), and Cone v. West Virginia Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212 (1947), we held that judgment notwithstanding the verdict could not be given in the Court of Appeals in favor of a party who had lost in the trial court and who had not there moved for such relief. One of the reasons for so holding was that otherwise the party who had won in the trial court would be deprived of any opportunity to remedy the defect which the appellate court discovered in his case. He would have had such an opportunity if a proper motion had been made by his opponent in the trial court. The same principle interdicts, a fortiori, the appellate court order for summary judgment here. Summary judgment may be given, under Rule 56, only if there is no dispute as to any material fact. There was no occasion in the trial court for Mrs. Fountain to dispute the facts material to a claim that a personal obligation existed, since the only claim considered by that court on her motion for summary judgment was the claim that there was a resulting trust. When the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court should have considered a claim for personal judgment it was error for it to deprive Mrs. Fountain of an opportunity to dispute the facts material to that claim by ordering summary judgment against her. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals as here modified.
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of counsel is violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at his trial.
I
A
Whiteside was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury verdict which was affirmed by the Iowa courts. The killing took place on February 8, 1977, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Whiteside and two others went to one Calvin Love’s apartment late that night, seeking marihuana. Love was in bed when Whiteside and his companions arrived; an argument between Whiteside and Love over the marihuana ensued. At one point, Love directed his girlfriend to get his “piece,” and at another point got up, then returned to his bed. According to Whiteside’s testimony, Love then started to reach under his pillow and moved toward Whiteside. Whiteside stabbed Love in the chest, inflicting a fatal wound.
Whiteside was charged with murder, and when counsel was appointed he objected to the lawyer initially appointed, claiming that he felt uncomfortable with a lawyer who had formerly been a prosecutor. Gary L. Robinson was then appointed and immediately began an investigation. Whiteside gave him a statement that he had stabbed Love as the latter “was pulling a pistol from underneath the pillow on the bed.” Upon questioning by Robinson, however, Whiteside indicated that he had not actually seen a gun, but that he was convinced that Love had a gun. No pistol was found on the premises; shortly after the police search following the stabbing, which had revealed no weapon, the victim’s family had removed all of the victim’s possessions from the apartment. Robinson interviewed Whiteside’s companions who were present during the stabbing, and none had seen a gun during the incident. Robinson advised Whiteside that the existence of a gun was not necessary to establish the claim of self-defense, and that only a reasonable belief that the victim had a gun nearby was necessary even though no gun was actually present.
Until shortly before trial, Whiteside consistently stated to Robinson that he had not actually seen a gun, but that he was convinced that Love had a gun in his hand. About a week before trial, during preparation for direct examination, Whiteside for the first time told Robinson and his associate Donna Paulsen that he had seen something “metallic” in Love’s hand. When asked about this, Whiteside responded:
“[I]n Howard Cook’s case there was a gun. If I don’t say I saw a gun, I’m dead.”
Robinson told Whiteside that such testimony would be perjury and repeated that it was not necessary to prove that a gun was available but only that Whiteside reasonably believed that he was in danger. On Whiteside’s insisting that he would testify that he saw “something metallic” Robinson told him, according to Robinson’s testimony:
“[W]e could not allow him to [testify falsely] because that would be perjury, and as officers of the court we would be suborning perjury if we allowed him to do it; ... I advised him that if he did do that it would be my duty to advise the Court of what he was doing and that I felt he was committing perjury; also, that I probably would be allowed to attempt to impeach that particular testimony.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-85.
Robinson also indicated he would seek to withdraw from the representation if Whiteside insisted on committing perjury.
Whiteside testified in his own defense at trial and stated that he “knew” that Love had a gun and that he believed Love was reaching for a gun and he had acted swiftly in self-defense. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had not actually seen a gun in Love’s hand. Robinson presented evidence that Love had been seen with a sawed-off shotgun on other occasions, that the police search of the apartment may have been careless, and that the victim’s family had removed everything from the apartment shortly after the crime. Robinson presented this evidence to show a basis for White-side’s asserted fear that Love had a gun.
The jury returned a verdict of second-degree murder, and Whiteside moved for a new trial, claiming that he had been deprived of a fair trial by Robinson’s admonitions not to state that he saw a gun or “something metallic.” The trial court held a hearing, heard testimony by Whiteside and Robinson, and denied the motion. The trial court made specific findings that the facts were as related by Robinson.
The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed respondent’s conviction. State v. Whiteside, 272 N. W. 2d 468 (1978). That court held that the right to have counsel present all appropriate defenses does not extend to using perjury, and that an attorney’s duty to a client does not extend to assisting a client in committing perjury. Relying on DR 7-102(A)(4) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, which expressly prohibits an attorney from using perjured testimony, and Iowa Code § 721.2 (now Iowa Code § 720.3 (1986)), which criminalizes subornation of perjury, the Iowa court concluded that not only were Robinson’s actions permissible, but were required. The court commended “both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Paulsen for the high ethical manner in which this matter was handled.”
B
Whiteside then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. In that petition Whiteside alleged that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel and of his right to present a defense by Robinson’s refusal to allow him to testify as he had proposed. The District Court denied the writ. Accepting the state trial court’s factual finding that Whiteside’s intended testimony would have been perjurious, it concluded that there could be no grounds for habeas relief since there is no constitutional right to present a perjured defense.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and directed that the writ of habeas corpus be granted. Whiteside v. Scurr, 744 F. 2d 1323 (1984). The Court of Appeals accepted the findings of the trial judge, affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court, that trial counsel believed with good cause that Whiteside would testify falsely and acknowledged that under Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), a criminal defendant’s privilege to testify in his own behalf does not include a right to commit perjury. Nevertheless, the court reasoned that an intent to commit perjury, communicated to counsel, does not alter a defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel and that Robinson’s admonition to Whiteside that he would inform the court of Whiteside’s perjury constituted a threat to violate the attorney’s duty to preserve client confidences. According to the Court of Appeals, this threatened violation of client confidences breached the standards of effective representation set down in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). The court also concluded that Strickland’s prejudice requirement was satisfied by an implication of prejudice from the conflict between Robinson’s duty of loyalty to his client and his ethical duties. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, with Judges Gibson, Ross, Fagg, and Bowman dissenting. Whiteside v. Scurr, 750 F. 2d 713 (1984). We granted certiorari, 471 U. S. 1014 (1985), and we reverse.
I — I » — I
A
The right of an accused to testify in his defense is of relatively recent origin. Until the latter part of the preceding century, criminal defendants in this country, as at common law, were considered to be disqualified from giving sworn testimony at their own trial by reason of their interest as a party to the case. See, e. g., Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U. S. 570 (1961); R. Morris, Studies in the History of American Law 59-60 (2d ed. 1959). Iowa was among the states that adhered to this rule of disqualification. State v. Laffer, 38 Iowa 422 (1874).
By the end of the 19th century, however, the disqualification was finally abolished by statute in most states and in the federal courts. Act of Mar. 16, 1878, ch. 37, 20 Stat. 30-31; see Thayer, A Chapter of Legal History in Massachusetts, 9 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 12 (1895). Although this Court has never explicitly held that a criminal defendant has a due process right to testify in his own behalf, cases in several Circuits have so held, and the right has long been assumed. See, e. g., United States v. Curtis, 742 F. 2d. 1070, 1076 (CA7 1984); United States v. Bifield, 702 F. 2d 342, 349 (CA2), cert. denied, 461 U. S. 931 (1983). We have also suggested that such a right exists as a corollary to the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled testimony, see Harris v. New York, supra, at 225. See also Ferguson, 365 U. S., at 598-601 (concurring opinion of Frankfurter, J.); id., at 601-603 (concurring opinion of Clark, J.).
B
In Strickland v. Washington, we held that to obtain relief by way of federal habeas corpus on a claim of a deprivation of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, the movant must establish both serious attorney error and prejudice. To show such error, it must be established that the assistance rendered by counsel was constitutionally deficient in that “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 U. S., at 687. To show prejudice, it must be established that the claimed lapses in counsel’s performance rendered the trial unfair so as to “undermine confidence in the outcome” of the trial. Id., at 694.
In Strickland, we acknowledged that the Sixth Amendment does not require any particular response by counsel to a problem that may arise. Rather, the Sixth Amendment inquiry is into whether the attorney’s conduct was “reasonably effective.” To counteract the natural tendency to fault an unsuccessful defense, a court reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance must “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id., at 689. In giving shape to the perimeters of this range of reasonable professional assistance, Strickland mandates that
“[prevailing norms of practice as reflected in American Bar Association Standards and the like, . . . are guides to determining what is reasonable, but they are only guides.” Id., at 688.
Under the Strickland standard, breach of an ethical standard does not necessarily make out a denial of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel. When examining attorney conduct, a court must be careful not to narrow the wide range of conduct acceptable under the Sixth Amendment so restrictively as to constitutionalize particular standards of professional conduct and thereby intrude into the state’s proper authority to define and apply the standards of professional conduct applicable to those it admits to practice in its courts. In some future case challenging attorney conduct in the course of a state-court trial, we may need to define with greater precision the weight to be given to recognized canons of ethics, the standards established by the state in statutes or professional codes, and the Sixth Amendment, in defining the proper scope and limits on that conduct. Here we need not face that question, since virtually all of the sources speak with one voice.
C
We turn next to the question presented: the definition of the range of “reasonable professional” responses to a criminal defendant client who informs counsel that he will perjure himself on the stand. We must determine whether, in this setting, Robinson’s conduct fell within the wide range of professional responses to threatened client perjury acceptable under the Sixth Amendment.
In Strickland, we recognized counsel’s duty of loyalty and his “overarching duty to advocate the defendant’s cause.” Ibid. Plainly, that duty is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth. Although counsel must take all reasonable lawful means to attain the objectives of the client, counsel is precluded from taking steps or in any way assisting the client in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law. This principle has consistently been recognized in most unequivocal terms by expositors of the norms of professional conduct since the first Canons of Professional Ethics were adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908. The 1908 Canon 32 provided:
“No client, corporate or individual, however powerful, nor any cause, civil or political, however important, is entitled to receive nor should any lawyer render any service or advice involving disloyalty to the law whose ministers we are, or disrespect of the judicial office, which we are bound to uphold, or corruption of any person or persons exercising a public office or private trust, or deception or betrayal of the public. ... He must. . . observe and advise his client to observe the statute law . . . .”
Of course, this Canon did no more than articulate centuries of accepted standards of conduct. Similarly, Canon 37, adopted in 1928, explicitly acknowledges as an exception to the attorney’s duty of confidentiality a client’s announced intention to commit a crime:
“The announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidences which [the attorney] is bound to respect.”
These principles have been carried through to contemporary codifications of an attorney’s professional responsibility. Disciplinary Rule 7-102 of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1980), entitled “Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law,” provides:
“(A) In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
“(4) Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.
“(7) Counsel or assist his client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent.”
This provision has been adopted by Iowa, and is binding on all lawyers who appear in its courts. See Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers (1985). The more recent Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1983) similarly admonish attorneys to obey all laws in the course of representing a client:
“RULE 1.2 Scope of Representation
“(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. . . .”
Both the Model Code of Professional Responsibility and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct also adopt the specific exception from the attorney-client privilege for disclosure of perjury that his client intends to commit or has committed. DR 4-101(C)(3) (intention of client to commit a crime); Rule 3.3 (lawyer has duty to disclose falsity of evidence even if disclosure compromises client confidences). Indeed, both the Model Code and the Model Rules do not merely authorize disclosure by counsel of client perjury; they require such disclosure. See Rule 3.3(a)(4); DR 7-102(B)(l); Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of Iowa State Bar Assn. v. Crary, 245 N. W. 2d 298 (Iowa 1976).
These standards confirm that the legal profession has accepted that an attorney’s ethical duty to advance the interests of his client is limited by an equally solemn duty to comply with the law and standards of professional conduct; it specifically ensures that the client may not use false evidence. This special duty of an attorney to prevent and disclose frauds upon the court derives from the recognition that perjury is as much a crime as tampering with witnesses or jurors by way of promises and threats, and undermines the administration of justice. See 1 W. Burdick, Law of Crime §§293, 300, 318-336 (1946).
The offense of perjury was a crime recognized at common law, id., at p. 475, and has been made a felony in most states by statute, including Iowa. Iowa Code § 720.2 (1985). See generally 4 C. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law §631 (14th ed. 1981). An attorney who aids false testimony by questioning a witness when perjurious responses can be anticipated risks prosecution for subornation of perjury under Iowa Code §720.3 (1985).
It is universally agreed that at a minimum the attorney’s first duty when confronted with a proposal for perjurious testimony is to attempt to dissuade the client from the unlawful course of conduct. Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, Comment; Wolfram, Client Perjury, 50 S. Cal. L. Rev. 809, 846 (1977). A statement directly in point is found in the commentary to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct under the heading “False Evidence”:
‘When false evidence is offered by the client, however, a conflict may arise between the lawyer’s duty to keep the client’s revelations confidential and the duty of candor to the court. Upon ascertaining that material evidence is false, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered or, if it has been offered, that its false character should immediately be disclosed.” Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, Comment (1983) (emphasis added).
The commentary thus also suggests that an attorney’s revelation of his client’s perjury to the court is a professionally responsible and acceptable response to the conduct of a client who has actually given perjured testimony. Similarly, the Model Rules and the commentary, as well as the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted in Iowa, expressly permit withdrawal from representation as an appropriate response of an attorney when the client threatens to commit perjury. Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(a)(1), Rule 1.6, Comment (1983); Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-110(B), (C) (1980). Withdrawal of counsel when this situation arises at trial gives rise to many difficult questions including possible mistrial and claims of double jeopardy.
The essence of the brief amicus of the American Bar Association reviewing practices long accepted by ethical lawyers is that under no circumstance may a lawyer either advocate or passively tolerate a client’s giving false testimony. This, of course, is consistent with the governance of trial conduct in what we have long called “a search for truth.” The suggestion sometimes made that “a lawyer must believe his client, not judge him” in no sense means a lawyer can honorably be a party to or in any way give aid to presenting known perjury.
D
Considering Robinson’s representation of respondent in light of these accepted norms of professional conduct, we discern no failure to adhere to reasonable professional standards that would in any sense make out a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Whether Robinson’s conduct is seen as a successful attempt to dissuade his client from committing the crime of perjury, or whether seen as a “threat” to withdraw from representation and disclose the illegal scheme, Robinson’s representation of Whiteside falls well within accepted standards of professional conduct and the range of reasonable professional conduct acceptable under Strickland.
The Court of Appeals assumed for the purpose of the decision that Whiteside would have given false testimony had counsel not intervened; its opinion denying a rehearing en banc states:
“[W]e presume that appellant would have testified falsely.
“. . . Counsel’s actions prevented [Whiteside] from testifying falsely. We hold that counsel’s action deprived appellant of due process and effective assistance of counsel.
“Counsel’s actions also impermissibly compromised appellant’s right to testify in his own defense by conditioning continued representation by counsel and confidentiality upon appellant’s restricted testimony.” 750 F. 2d., at 714-715.
While purporting to follow Iowa’s highest court “on all questions of state law,” 744 F. 2d., at 1330, the Court of Appeals reached its conclusions on the basis of federal constitutional due process and right to counsel.
The Court of Appeals’ holding that Robinson’s “action deprived [Whiteside] of due process and effective assistance of counsel” is not supported by the record since Robinson’s action, at most, deprived Whiteside of his contemplated perjury. Nothing counsel did in any way undermined Whiteside’s claim that he believed the victim was reaching for a gun. Similarly, the record gives no support for holding that Robinson’s action “also impermissibly compromised [Whiteside’s] right to testify in his own defense by conditioning continued representation . . . and confidentiality upon [Whiteside’s] restricted testimony.” The record in fact shows the contrary: (a) that Whiteside did testify, and (b) he was “restricted” or restrained only from testifying falsely and was aided by Robinson in developing the basis for the fear that Love was reaching for a gun. Robinson divulged no client communications until he was compelled to do so in response to Whiteside’s post-trial challenge to the quality of his performance. We see this as a case in which the attorney successfully dissuaded the client from committing the crime of perjury.
Paradoxically, even while accepting the conclusion of the Iowa trial court that Whiteside’s proposed testimony would have been a criminal act, the Court of Appeals held that Robinson’s efforts to persuade Whiteside not to commit that crime were improper, first, as forcing an impermissible choice between the right to counsel and the right to testify; and, second, as compromising client confidences because of Robinson’s threat to disclose the contemplated perjury.
Whatever the scope of a constitutional right to testify, it is elementary that such a right does not extend to testifying falsely. In Harris v. New York, we assumed the right of an accused to testify “in his own defense, or to refuse to do so” and went on to hold:
“[T]hat privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. See United States v. Knox, 396 U. S. 77 (1969); cf. Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855 (1966). Having voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully . . . .” 401 U. S., at 225.
In Harris we held the defendant could be impeached by prior contrary statements which had been ruled inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Harris and other cases make it crystal clear that there is no right whatever— constitutional or otherwise — for a defendant to use false evidence. See also United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620, 626-627 (1980).
The paucity of authority on the subject of any such “right” may be explained by the fact that such a notion has never been responsibly advanced; the right to counsel includes no right to have a lawyer who will cooperate with planned perjury. A lawyer who would so cooperate would be at risk of prosecution for suborning perjury, and disciplinary proceedings, including suspension or disbarment.
Robinson’s admonitions to his client can in no sense be said to have forced respondent into an impermissible choice between his right to counsel and his right to testify as he proposed for there was no permissible choice to testify falsely. For defense counsel to take steps to persuade a criminal defendant to testify truthfully, or to withdraw, deprives the defendant of neither his right to counsel nor the right to testify truthfully. In United States v. Havens, supra, we made clear that “when defendants testify, they must testify truthfully or suffer the consequences.” Id., at 626. When an accused proposes to resort to perjury or to produce false evidence, one consequence is the risk of withdrawal of counsel.
On this record, the accused enjoyed continued representation within the bounds of reasonable professional conduct and did in fact exercise his right to testify; at most he was denied the right to have the assistance of counsel in the presentation of false testimony. Similarly, we can discern no breach of professional duty in Robinson's admonition to respondent that he would disclose respondent’s perjury to the court. The crime of perjury in this setting is indistinguishable in substance from the crime of threatening or tampering with a witness or a juror. A defendant who informed his counsel that he was arranging to bribe or threaten witnesses or members of the jury would have no “right” to insist on counsel’s assistance or silence. Counsel would not be limited to advising against that conduct. An attorney’s duty of confidentiality, which totally covers the client’s admission of guilt, does not extend to a client’s announced plans to engage in future criminal conduct. See Clark v. United States, 289 U. S. 1, 15 (1933). In short, the responsibility of an ethical lawyer, as an officer of the court and a key component of a system of justice, dedicated to a search for truth, is essentially the same whether the client announces an intention to bribe or threaten witnesses or jurors or to commit or procure perjury. No system of justice worthy of the name can tolerate a lesser standard.
The rule adopted by the Court of Appeals, which seemingly would require an attorney to remain silent while his client committed perjury, is wholly incompatible with the established standards of ethical conduct and the laws of Iowa and contrary to professional standards promulgated by that State. The position advocated by petitioner, on the contrary, is wholly consistent with the Iowa standards of professional conduct and law, with the overwhelming majority of courts, and with codes of professional ethics. Since there has been no breach of any recognized professional duty, it follows that there can be no deprivation of the right to assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard.
E
We hold that, as a matter of law, counsel’s conduct complained of here cannot establish the prejudice required for relief under the second strand of the Strickland inquiry. Although a defendant need not establish that the attorney’s deficient performance more likely than not altered the outcome in order to establish prejudice under Strickland, a defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 466 U. S., at 694. According to Strickland, “[a] reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Ibid. The Strickland Court noted that the “benchmark” of an ineffective-assistance claim is the fairness of the adversary proceeding, and that in judging prejudice and the likelihood of a different outcome, “[a] defendant has no entitlement to the luck of a lawless decisionmaker.” Id., at 695.
Whether he was persuaded or compelled to desist from perjury, Whiteside has no valid claim that confidence in the result of his trial has been diminished by his desisting from the contemplated perjury. Even if we were to assume that the jury might have believed his perjury, it does not follow that Whiteside was prejudiced.
In his attempt to evade the prejudice requirement of Strickland, Whiteside relies on cases involving conflicting loyalties of counsel. In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335 (1980), we held that a defendant could obtain relief without pointing to a specific prejudicial default on the part of his counsel, provided it is established that the attorney was “actively represent[ing] conflicting interests.” Id., at 350.
Here, there was indeed a “conflict,” but of a quite different kind; it was one imposed on the attorney by the client’s proposal to commit the crime of fabricating testimony without which, as he put it, “I’m dead.” This is not remotely the kind of conflict of interests dealt with in Cuyler v. Sullivan. Even in that case we did not suggest that all multiple representations necessarily resulted in an active conflict rendering the representation constitutionally infirm. If a “conflict” between a client’s proposal and counsel’s ethical obligation gives rise to a presumption that counsel’s assistance was prejudi-cially ineffective, every guilty criminal’s conviction would be suspect if the defendant had sought to obtain an acquittal by illegal means. Can anyone doubt what practices and problems would be spawned by such a rule and what volumes of litigation it would generate?
Whiteside’s attorney treated Whiteside’s proposed perjury in accord with professional standards, and since Whiteside’s truthful testimony could not have prejudiced the result of his trial, the Court of Appeals was in error to direct the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and must be reversed.
Reversed.
Although courts universally condemn an attorney’s assisting in presenting perjury, Courts of Appeals have taken varying approaches on how to deal with a client’s insistence on presenting perjured testimony. The Seventh Circuit, for example, has held that an attorney’s refusal to call the defendant as a "witness did not render the conviction constitutionally infirm where the refusal to call the defendant was based on the attorney’s belief that the defendant would commit perjury. United States v. Curtis, 742 F. 2d 1070 (1984). The Third Circuit found a violation of the Sixth Amendment where the attorney could not state any basis for her belief that defendant’s proposed alibi testimony was perjured. United States ex rel. Wilcox v. Johnson, 555 F. 2d 115 (1977). See also Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F. 2d 727 (CA9 1978) (withdrawal request in the middle of a bench trial, immediately following defendant’s testimony).
Whiteside’s version of the events at this pretrial meeting is considerably more cryptic:
“Q. And as you went over the questions, did the two of you come into conflict with regard to whether or not there was a weapon?
“A. I couldn’t — I couldn’t say a conflict. But I got the impression at one time that maybe if I didn’t go along with — with what was happening, that it was no gun being involved, maybe that he will pull out of my trial.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-70.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s finding that respondent properly exhausted his claims in state court. Although respondent had pressed his claim before the Supreme Court of Iowa as a denial of his due process right to a fair trial, and not as a denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Court of Appeals accepted the District Court’s conclusion that the Sixth Amendment claim was exhausted, since further proceedings would be futile.
There currently exist two different codifications of uniform standards of professional conduct. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility was originally adopted by the American Bar Association in 1969, and was subsequently adopted (in many cases with modification) by nearly every state. The more recent Model Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted by the American Bar Association in 1983. Since their promulgation by the American Bar Association, the Model Rules have been adopted by 11 States: Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Washington. See 1 ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct 334 (1984-1985) (New Jersey); id., at 445 (Arizona); id., at 855 (Montana, Minnesota); id., at 924 (Missouri); id., at 961 (Delaware, Washington); id., at 1026 (North Carolina); id., at 1127 (Arkansas); 2 id., at 14 (1986) (New Hampshire, Nevada). Iowa is one of the States that adopted a form of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, but has yet to adopt the Model Rules. See Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers (1985).
The brief of amicus American Bar Association, which supports petitioner, makes this point, referring to the history of codes of professional conduct which it has promulgated. The preamble to the most current version of the ethical standards recognizes the difficult choices that may confront an attorney who is sensitive to his concurrent duties to his client and to the legal system:
“Within the framework of these Rules many difficult issues of professional discretion can arise. Such issues must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the Rules.” Preamble, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, p. 10 (1983).
In the evolution of the contemporary standards promulgated by the American Bar Association, an early draft reflects a compromise suggesting that when the disclosure of intended perjury is made during the course of trial, when withdrawal of counsel would raise difficult questions of a mistrial holding, counsel had the option to let the defendant take the stand but decline to affirmatively assist the presentation of perjury by traditional direct examination. Instead, counsel would stand mute while the defendant undertook to present the false version in narrative form in his own words unaided by any direct examination. This conduct was thought to be a signal at least to the presiding judge that the attorney considered the testimony to be false and was seeking to disassociate himself from that course. Additionally, counsel would not be permitted to discuss the known false testimony in closing arguments. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Proposed Standard 4-7.7 (2d ed. 1980). Most courts treating the subject rejected this approach and insisted on a more rigorous standard, see, e. g., United States v. Curtis, 742 F. 2d 1070 (CA7 1984); McKissick v. United States, 379 F. 2d 754 (CA5 1967); Dodd v. Florida Bar, 118 So. 2d 17, 19 (Fla.1960). The Eighth Circuit in this case and the Ninth Circuit have expressed approval of the “free narrative” standards. Whiteside v. Scurr, 744 F. 2d 1323, 1331 (CA8 1984); Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F. 2d 727 (CA9 1978).
The Rule finally promulgated in the current Model Rules of Professional Conduct rejects any participation or passive role whatever by counsel in allowing perjury to be presented without challenge.
The Court of Appeals also determined that Robinson’s efforts to persuade Whiteside to testify truthfully constituted an impermissible threat to testify against his own client. We find no support for a threat to testify against Whiteside while he was acting as counsel. The record reflects testimony by Robinson that he had admonished Whiteside that if he withdrew he “probably would be allowed to attempt to impeach that particular testimony,” if Whiteside testified falsely. The trial court accepted this version of the conversation as true.
See United States v. Curtis, 742 F. 2d 1070 (CA7 1984); Committee on Professional Ethics v. Crary, 245 N. W. 2d 298 (Iowa 1976); State v. Robinson, 290 N. C. 56, 224 S. E. 2d 174 (1976); Thornton v. United States, 357 A. 2d 429 (D. C. 1976); State v. Henderson, 205 Kan. 231, 468 P. 2d 136 (1970); McKissick v. United States, 379 F. 2d 754 (CA5 1967); In re King, 7 Utah 2d 258, 322 P. 2d 1095 (1958); In re Carroll, 244 S. W. 2d 474 (Ky. 1951); Hinds v. State Bar, 19 Cal. 2d 87, 119 P. 2d 134 (1941). Contra, Whiteside v. Scurr, 744 F. 2d 1323 (CA8 1984) (case below); Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F. 2d 727 (CA9 1978).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
An Indiana jury convicted Joseph Corcoran of four counts of murder. Corcoran was sentenced to death. After Corcoran’s challenges to his sentence in the Indiana courts failed, he sought federal habeas relief. Corcoran argued in his federal habeas petition that: (1) the Indiana trial court committed various errors at the sentencing phase; (2) his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment; (8) Indiana’s capital sentencing statute was unconstitutional; (4) the prosecution committed misconduct at sentencing; and (5) he should not be executed because he suffers from a mental illness. See Corcoran v. Buss, 483 F. Supp. 2d 709, 719, 726 (ND Ind. 2007). The District Court granted habeas relief on Corcoran’s claim of a Sixth Amendment violation, and ordered the state courts to resentence Corcoran to a penalty other than death. Id., at 725-726. The District Court did not address Corcoran’s other arguments relating to his sentence, noting that they were “rendered moot” by the order that Corcoran be resentenced because of the Sixth Amendment violation. Id., at 734.
The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s Sixth Amendment ruling. Corcoran v. Buss, 551 F. 3d 703, 712, 714 (2008). Then, without mentioning Corcoran’s other sentencing claims, the Seventh Circuit remanded “with instructions to deny the writ,” stating that “Indiana is at liberty to reinstate the death penalty.” Id., at 714. Corcoran sought rehearing, arguing that the Court of Appeals should have allowed the District Court to consider his additional attacks on his sentence. But the Court of Appeals denied rehearing, again without referring to Corcoran’s undecided claims.
We now grant certiorari and hold that the Seventh Circuit erred in disposing of Corcoran’s other claims without explanation of any sort. The Seventh Circuit should have permitted the District Court to consider Corcoran’s unresolved challenges to his death sentence on remand, or should have itself explained why such consideration was unnecessary.
In its brief in opposition, the State argues that Corcoran’s claims were waived, and that they were in any event frivolous, so that a remand would be wasteful. Brief in Opposition 9-10. Nothing in the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, however, suggests that this was the basis for that court’s order that the writ be denied.
The petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of respondent Frank Bisignano for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for further proceedings in light of Johnson v. New Jersey, ante, p. 719.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Johnson v. New Jersey, ante, at 736.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 and the petition for a- writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Ignited States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for consideration of the request contained ' in the memorandum filed in this Court by the Solicitor General.
■ Mr. Justice Black, with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins, would grant certiorari and reverse the decision below for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinions in Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187,. 201 (1959), and Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, 150 (1959).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 349 (a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 267, 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (a)(2), provides that “a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by... taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof.” The Act also provides that the party claiming that such loss of citizenship occurred must “establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence” and that the voluntariness of the expatriating conduct is rebuttably presumed. § 349 (c), as added, 75 Stat. 656, 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (c). The issues in this case are whether, in establishing loss of citizenship under § 1481 (a)(2), a party must prove an intent to surrender United States citizenship and whether the United States Constitution permits Congress to legislate with respect to expatriation proceedings by providing the standard of proof and the statutory presumption contained in § 1481 (c).
I
Appellee, Laurence J. Terrazas, was born in this country, the son of a Mexican citizen. He thus acquired at birth both United States and Mexican citizenship. In the fall of 1970, while a student in Monterrey, Mexico, and at the age of 22, appellee executed an application for a certificate of Mexican nationality, swearing “adherence, obedience, and submission to the laws and authorities of the Mexican Republic” and “expressly renouncing] United States citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience, and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of the United States of America....” App. to Brief for Appellant 5a. The certificate, which issued upon this application on April 3, 1971, recited that Terrazas had sworn adherence to the United Mexican States and that he “has expressly renounced all rights inherent to any other nationality, as well as all submission, obedience, and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to those which have recognized him as that national.” Id., at 8a. Terrazas read and understood the certificate upon receipt. App. to Juris. Statement 21a.
A few months later, following a discussion with an officer of the United States Consulate in Monterrey, proceedings were instituted to determine whether appellee had lost his United States citizenship by obtaining the certificate of Mexican nationality. Appellee denied that he had, but in December 1971 the Department of State issued a certificate of loss of nationality. App. to Brief for Appellant 31a. The Board of Appellate Review of the Department of State, after a full hearing, affirmed that appellee had voluntarily renounced his United States citizenship. App. to Juris. Statement 31a. As permitted by § 360 (a) of the Act, 66 Stat. 273, 8 U. S. C. § 1603 (a), appellee then brought this suit against the Secretary of State for a declaration of his United States nationality. Trial was de novo.
The District Court recognized that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, as construed in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253, 268 (1967), “ 'protect[s] every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship’ ” and that every citizen has “ ‘a constitutional right to remain a citizen... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.’ ” App. to Juris. Statement 25a. A person of dual nationality, the District Court said, "will be held to have expatriated himself from the United States when it is shown that he voluntarily committed an act whereby he unequivocally renounced his allegiance to the United States.” Ibid. Specifically, the District Court found that appellee had taken an oath of allegiance to Mexico, that he had “knowingly and understandingly renounced allegiance to the United States in connection with his Application for a Certificate of Mexican Nationality,” id., at 28a, and that “[t]he taking of an oath of allegiance to Mexico and renunciation of a foreign country [sic] citizenship is a condition precedent under Mexican law to the issuance of a Certificate of Mexican Nationality.” Ibid. The District Court concluded that the United States had “proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Laurence J. Terrazas knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily took an oath of allegiance to Mexico, and concurrently renounced allegiance to the United States,” id., at 29a, and that he had therefore “voluntarily relinquished United States citizenship pursuant to § 349 (a) (2) of the... Act.” Ibid.
In its opinion accompanying its findings and conclusions, the District Court observed that appellee had acted “voluntarily in swearing allegiance to Mexico and renouncing allegiance to the United States,” id., at 25a, and that appellee “knew he was repudiating allegiance to the United States through his actions.” Ibid. The court also said, relying upon and quoting from United States v. Matheson, 400 F. Supp. 1241, 1245 (SDNY 1975), aff’d, 532 F. 2d 809 (CA2), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 823 (1976), that “the declaration of allegiance to a foreign state in conjunction with the renuncia-tory language of United States citizenship ‘would leave no room for ambiguity as to the intent of the applicant.’ ” App. to Juris. Statement 23a.
The Court of Appeals reversed. 577 F. 2d 7 (1978). As the Court of Appeals understood the law — and there appears to have been no dispute on these basic requirements in the Courts of Appeals — the United States had not only to prove the taking of an oath to a foreign state, but also to demonstrate an intent on appellee’s part to renounce his United States citizenship. The District Court had found these basic elements to have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence; and the Court of Appeals observed that, “[a]ssuming that the proper [evidentiary] standards were applied, we are convinced that the record fully supports the court’s findings.” Id., at 10. The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that under Ajroyim v. Busk, supra, Congress had no power to legislate the evidentiary standard contained in § 1481 (c) and that the Constitution required that proof be not merely by a preponderance of the evidence, but by “clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.” 577 F. 2d, at 11. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
The Secretary took this appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1252. Because the invalidation of § 1481 (c) posed a substantial constitutional issue, we noted probable jurisdiction. 440 U. S. 970.
II
The Secretary first urges that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a “specific intent to renounce U. S. citizenship” must be proved “before the mere taking of an oath of allegiance could result in an individual’s expatriation.” 577 F. 2d, at 11. His position is that he need prove only the voluntary commission of an act, such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation, that “is so inherently inconsistent with the continued retention of American citizenship that Congress may accord to it its natural consequences, i. e., loss of nationality.” Brief for Appellant 24. We disagree.
In Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253 (1967), the Court held that § 401 (e) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1168—1169, which provided that an American citizen “shall lose his nationality by... [vjoting in a political election in a foreign state,” contravened the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Afroyim was a naturalized American citizen who lived in Israel for 10 years. While in that nation, Afroyim voted in a political election. He in consequence was stripped of his United States citizenship. Consistently with Perez v. Brownell, 356 U. S. 44 (1958), which had sustained § 401 (e), the District Court affirmed the power of Congress to expatriate for such conduct regardless of the citizen’s intent to renounce his citizenship. This Court, however, in overruling Perez, “reject[ed] the idea... that, aside from the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent.” Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, at 257. The Afroyim opinion continued: § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is “most reasonably... read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it.” 387 U. S., at 262.
The Secretary argues that Afroyim does not stand for the proposition that a specific intent to renounce must be shown before citizenship is relinquished. It is enough, he urges, to establish one of the expatriating acts specified in § 1481 (a) because Congress has declared each of those acts to be inherently inconsistent with the retention of citizenship. But Afroyim emphasized that loss of citizenship requires the individual’s “assent,” 387 u. S., at 257, in addition to his voluntary commission of the expatriating act. It is difficult to understand that “assent” to loss of citizenship would mean anything less than an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in words or is found as a fair inference from proved conduct. Perez had sustained congressional power to expatriate without regard to the intent of the citizen to surrender his citizenship. Afroyim overturned this proposition. It may be, as the Secretary maintains, that a requirement of intent to relinquish citizenship poses substantial difficulties for the Government in performance of its essential task of determining who is a citizen. Nevertheless, the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, among other things, was to define citizenship; and as interpreted in Afroyim, that definition cannot coexist with a congressional power to specify acts that work a renunciation of citizenship even absent an intent to renounce. In the last analysis, expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct.
The Secretary argues that the dissent in Perez, which it is said the Court’s opinion in Afroyim adopted, spoke of conduct so contrary to undivided allegiance to this country that it could result in loss of citizenship without regard to the intent of the actor and that “assent” should not therefore be read as a code word for intent to renounce. But Afroyim is a majority opinion, and its reach is neither expressly nor implicitly limited to that of the dissent in Perez. Furthermore, in his Perez dissent, Mr. Chief Justice Warren, in speaking of those acts that were expatriating because so fundamentally inconsistent with citizenship, concluded by saying that in such instances the “Government is simply giving formal recognition to the inevitable consequence of the citizen’s own voluntary surrender of his citizenship.” Perez v. Brownell, supra, at 69. This suggests that the Chief Justice’s conception of “actions in derogation of undivided allegiance to this country,” 356 U. S., at 68, in fact would entail an element of assent.
In any event, we are confident that it would be inconsistent with Afroyim to treat the expatriating acts specified in § 1481 (a) as the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen. “Of course,” any of the specified acts “may be highly persuasive evidence in the particular case of a purpose to abandon citizenship.” Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 129, 139 (1958) (Black, J., concurring). But the trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship.
This understanding of Afroyim is little different from that expressed by the Attorney General in his 1969 opinion explaining the impact of that case. 42 Op. Atty. Gen. 397. An “act which does not reasonably manifest an individual’s transfer or abandonment of allegiance to the United States,” the Attorney General said, “cannot be made a basis for expatriation.” Id., at 400. Voluntary relinquishment is “not confined to a written renunciation,” but “can also be manifested by other actions declared, expatriative under the [A]ct, if such actions are in derogation of allegiance to this country.” Ibid. Even in these cases, however, the issue of intent was deemed by the Attorney General to be open; and, once raised, the burden of proof on the issue was on the party asserting that expatriation had occurred. Ibid. “In- each case,” the Attorney General stated, “the administrative authorities must make a judgment, based on all the evidence, whether the individual comes within the terms of an expatriation provision and has in fact voluntarily relinquished his citizenship.” Id., at 401. It was under this advice, as the Secretary concedes, that the relevant departments of the Government have applied the statute and the Constitution to require an ultimate finding of an intent to expatriate. Brief for Appellant 56-57, n. 28.
Accordingly, in the case now before us, the Board of Appellate Review of the State Department found that appellee not only swore allegiance to Mexico, but also intended to abandon his United States citizenship: “In consideration of the complete record, we view appellant’s declaration of allegiance to Mexico and his concurrent repudiation of any and all submission, obedience, and loyalty to the United States as compelling evidence of a specific intent to relinquish his United States citizenship.” App. to Juris. Statement 50a. This same view — that expatriation depends on the will of a citizen as ascertained from his words and conduct — was also reflected in the United States’ response to the petition for certiorari in United States v. Matheson, 532 F. 2d 809, cert. denied, 429 U. S. 823 (1976). Insofar as we are advised, this view remained the official position of the United States until the appeal in this case.
As we have said, Afroyim requires that the record support a finding that the expatriating act was accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship. The submission of the United States is inconsistent with this holding, and we are unprepared to reconsider it.
Ill
With respect to the principal issues before it, the Court of Appeals held that Congress was without constitutional authority to prescribe the standard of proof in expatriation proceedings and that the proof in such cases must be by clear and convincing evidence rather than by the preponderance standard prescribed in § 1481 (c). We are in fundamental disagreement with these conclusions.
In Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 129 (1958), an American-born citizen, temporarily in Japan, was drafted into the Japanese Army. The Government later claimed that, under § 401 (c) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1169, he had expatriated himself by serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation. The Government agreed that expatriation had not occurred if Nishikawa’s army service had been involuntary. Nishikawa contended that the Government had to prove that his service was voluntary, while the Government urged that duress was an affirmative defense that Nishikawa had the burden to prove by overcoming the usual presumption of voluntariness. This Court held the presumption unavailable to the Government and required proof of a voluntary expatriating act by clear and convincing evidence.
Section 1481 (c) soon followed; its evident aim was to supplant the evidentiary standards prescribed by Nishikawa. The provision “sets up rules of evidence under which the burden of proof to establish loss of citizenship by preponderance of the evidence would rest upon the Government. The presumption of voluntariness under the proposed rules of evidence, would be rebuttable — similarly—by preponderance of the evidence... H. R. Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 41 (1961).
We see no basis for invalidating the evidentiary prescriptions contained in § 1481 (c). Nishikawa was not rooted in the Constitution. The Court noted, moreover, that it was acting in the absence of legislative guidance. Nishikawa v. Dulles, supra, at 135. Nor do we agree with the Court of Appeals that, because under Afroyim Congress is constitutionally devoid of power to impose expatriation on a citizen, it is also without power to prescribe the evidentiary standards to govern expatriation proceedings. 577 F. 2d, at 10. Although § 1481 (c) had been law since 1961, Afroyim did not address or advert to that section; surely the Court would have said so had it intended to construe the Constitution to exclude expatriation proceedings from the traditional powers of Congress to prescribe rules of evidence and standards of proof in the federal courts. This power, rooted in the authority of Congress conferred by Art. 1, § 8, cl. 9, of the Constitution to create inferior federal courts, is undoubted and has been frequently noted and sustained. See, e. g., Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1, 31 (1976); Hawkins v. United States, 358 U. S. 74, 78 (1958); Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 467 (1943).
We note also that the Court’s opinion in Ajroyim was written by Mr. Justice Black who, in concurring in Nishikawa, said that the question whether citizenship has been voluntarily relinquished is to be determined on the facts of each case and that Congress could provide rules of evidence for such proceedings. Nishikawa v. Dulles, supra, at 139. In this respect, we agree with Mr. Justice Black; and since Congress has the express power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, it is untenable to hold that it has no power whatsoever to address itself to the manner or means by which Fourteenth Amendment citizenship may be relinquished.
We are unable to conclude that the specific evidentiary standard provided by Congress in § 1481 (c) is invalid under either the Citizenship Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It is true that in criminal and involuntary commitment contexts we have held that the Due Process Clause imposes requirements of proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975); Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979). This Court has also stressed the importance of citizenship and evinced a decided preference for requiring clear and convincing evidence to prove expatriation. Nishikawa v. United States, supra. But expatriation proceedings are civil in nature and do not threaten a loss of liberty. Moreover, as we have noted, Nishikawa did not purport to be a constitutional ruling, and the same is true of similar rulings in related areas. Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125 (1943) (denaturalization). None of these cases involved a congressional judgment, such as that present here, that the preponderance standard of proof provides sufficient protection for the interest of the individual in retaining his citizenship. Contrary to the Secretary's position, we have held that expatriation requires the ultimate finding that the citizen has committed the expatriating act with the intent to renounce his citizenship. This in itself is a heavy burden, and we cannot hold that Congress has exceeded its powers by requiring proof of an intentional expatriating act by a preponderance of evidence.
IV
The Court of Appeals did not discuss separately the validity of the statutory presumption provided in § 1481 (c). By holding that the section was beyond the power of Congress, however, and by requiring that the expatriating act be proved voluntary by clear and convincing evidence, the Court of Appeals effectively foreclosed use of the § 1481 (c) presumption of voluntariness, not only in the remand proceedings in the District Court, but also in other expatriation proceedings in that Circuit. As we have indicated, neither the Citizenship Clause nor Afroyim places suits such as this wholly beyond the accepted power of Congress to prescribe rules of evidence in federal courts. We also conclude that the presumption of voluntariness provided in § 1481 (c) is not otherwise constitutionally infirm.
Section 1481 (c) provides in relevant part that “any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.” In enacting § 1481 (c), Congress did not dispute the holding of Nishikawa that the alleged expatriating act — there, service in a foreign army — must be performed voluntarily, but it did insist that the Government have the benefit of the usual presumption of voluntariness and that one claiming that his act was involuntary make out his claim of duress by a preponderance of the evidence.
It is important at this juncture to note the scope of the statutory presumption. Section 1481 (c) provides that any of the statutory expatriating acts, if proved, are presumed to have been committed voluntarily. It does not also direct a presumption that the act has been performed with the intent to relinquish United States citizenship. That matter remains the burden of the party claiming expatriation to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. As so understood, we cannot invalidate the provision.
The majority opinion in Nishikawa referred to the “ordinary rule that duress is a matter of affirmative defense” to be proved by the party claiming the duress. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U. S., at 134. Justices Frankfurter and Burton, concurring in the result, also referred to the “ordinarily controlling principles of evidence [that] would suggest that the individual, who is peculiarly equipped to clarify an ambiguity in the meaning of outward events, should have the burden of proving what his state of mind was.” Id., at 141. And Mr. Justice Harlan, in dissent with Mr. Justice Clark, pointed to the “general rule that consciously performed acts are presumed voluntary” and referred to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (c), which treats duress as a matter of affirmative defense. 356 U. S., at 144. Yet the Court in Nishikawa, because it decided that “the consequences of denationalization are so drastic” and because it found nothing indicating a contrary result in the legislative history of the Nationality Act of 1940, held that the Government must carry the burden of proving that the expatriating act was performed voluntarily. Id., at 133-138.
Section 1481 (c), which was enacted subsequently, and its legislative history, H. R. Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 40-41 (1961), make clear that Congress preferred the ordinary rule that voluntariness is presumed and that duress is an affirmative defense to be proved by the party asserting it. See Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States, 271 U. S. 43, 49-50 (1926); Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17, 23-24 (1899); Savage v. United States, 92 U. S. 382, 387-388 (1876). “Duress, if proved, may be a defence to an action... but the burden of proof to establish the charge... is upon the party making it... Mason v. United States, 17 Wall. 67, 74 (1873), The rationality of the procedural rule with respect to claims of involuntariness in ordinary civil cases cannot be doubted. To invalidate the rule here would be to disagree flatly with Congress on the balance to be struck between the interest in citizenship and the burden the Government must assume in demonstrating expatriating conduct. It would also consti-tutionalize that disagreement and give the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment far more scope in this context than the relevant circumstances that brought the Amendment into being would suggest appropriate. Thus we conclude that the presumption of voluntariness included in § 1481 (e) has continuing vitality.
V
In sum, we hold that in proving expatriation, an expatriating act and an intent to relinquish citizenship must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. We also hold that when one of the statutory expatriating acts is proved, it is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor. If he succeeds, there can be no expatriation. If he fails, the question remains whether on all the evidence the Government has satisfied its burden of proof that the expatriating act was performed with the necessary intent to relinquish citizenship.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Stewart dissents for the reasons stated in Part II of Mr. Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion, which he joins.
The relevant statutory provisions are §§ 349 (a) (2), (c) of the Act, 66 Stat. 267, as amended, 75 Stat. 656, as set forth in 8 U. S. C. § 1481:
“(a) From and after the effective date of this chapter a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by—
“(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof;
“(c) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.”
The application contained the following statement:
“I therefore hereby expressly renounce. citizenship, as well as any submission, obedience, and loyalty to any foreign government, especially to that of., of which I might have been subject, all protection foreign to the laws and authorities of Mexico, all rights which treaties or international law grant to foreigners; and furthermore I swear adherence, obedience, and submission to the laws and authorities of the Mexican Republic.”
The blank spaces in the statement were filled in with the words “Estados Unidos” (United States) and “Norteamérica” (North America), respectively. Brief for Appellant 4.
The Fourteenth Amendment, § 1, reads: “All persons bom or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In remanding the case to the District Court, the Court of Appeals did not “necessarily requir[e] that court to conduct a new trial.” 577 F. 2d, at 12. The Court of Appeals recognized that, even granting the higher standard of proof it had imposed on the District Court, the factual determinations already on the record might be adequate to permit consideration of the case on remand without the holding of another trial or evidentiary hearing. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals’ discussion of specific intent is submerged in its analysis of proper evidentiary standards. Id., at 11. The absence of independent analysis undoubtedly resulted from the Secretary’s failure to contend in either the District Court or the Court of Appeals that it was unnecessary to prove an intent to relinquish citizenship. Indeed, the jurisdictional statement filed by the Secretary in this Court presented the single question whether 8 U. S. C. § 1481 (c) is unconstitutional under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; it did not present separately the question whether proof of a specific intent to relinquish is essential to expatriation.
Our Rule 15 (1) (c) states that “[o]nly the questions set forth in the jurisdictional statement or fairly comprised therein will be considered by the court.” The Secretary now argues that resolution of the intent issue is an essential, or at least an advisable, predicate to an intelligent resolution of the constitutionality of §1481 (c). There is some merit in this position: arguably the intent issue is fairly comprised in the question set forth in the jurisdictional statement. In any event, consideration of issues not present in the jurisdictional statement or petition for certiorari and not presented in the Court of Appeals is not beyond our power, and in appropriate circumstances we have addressed them. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 320, n. 6 (1971); Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, 66, 68-69 (1938) (parties agreed that Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 (1842), was still good law). Cf. Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U. S. 478 (1974); Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U. S. 375 (1970); Silber v. United States, 370 U. S. 717 (1962). See generally R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice §§ 6.27 and 7.14 (5th ed. 1978).
As will be more apparent below, the Secretary, represented in this Court by the Solicitor General, has changed his position on the intent issue since the decision of the Court of Appeals; and his present position is at odds with a 1969 opinion of the Attorney General, 42 Op. Atty. Gen. 397, which interpreted Afroyim v. Rusk and guided the administrative actions of the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The issue of intent is important, the parties have briefed it, and we shall address it.
As the Secretary states in his brief, Brief for Appellant 57, n. 28, “both the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service have adopted administrative guidelines that attempt to ascertain the individual’s intent by taking into consideration the nature of the expatriating act and the individual’s statements and actions made in connection with that act.”
The State Department’s guideline evidences a position on intent quite similar to that adopted here:
“In the light of the Afroyim, decision and the Attorney General’s Statement of Interpretation of that decision, the Department now holds that the taking of a meaningful oath of allegiance to a foreign state is highly persuasive evidence of an intent to transfer or abandon allegiance. The taking of an oath that is not meaningful does not result in expatriation. The meaningfulness of the oath must be decided by the Department on the individual merits of each case.” Department of State, 8 Foreign Affairs Manual § 224.2, p. 2 (1970) (emphasis in original).
Cf. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Interpretations § 349.1 (d) (2), p. 6976.4 (1970) (characterizing Afroyim as overruling Perez’s holding “that expatriation could flow from a voluntary act even though the citizen did not intend thereby to relinquish his United States citizenship”).
Contemporaneous academic commentary agreed that Afroyim imposed the requirement of intent to relinquish citizenship on a party seeking to establish expatriation. See Comment, An Expatriation Enigma: Afroyim v. Rusk, 48 B. U. L. Rev. 295, 298 (1968); Note, Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship: The Limits of Afroyim v. Rush, 54 Cornell L. Rev. 624, 624-625 (1969); The Supreme Court: 1966 Term, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 69, 126 (1967); Note, 29 Ohio St. L. J. 797, 801 (1968).
In his response to the petition for certiorari in Matheson, the Solicitor General argued that “Afroyim broadly held that Congress has no power to prescribe any objective conduct that will automatically result in expatriation, absent the individual’s voluntary relinquishment of citizenship....” Brief in Opposition in Matheson v. United States, O. T. 1976, No. 75-1651, p. 8. In Matheson, it was maintained, “there is nothing in the record that would support a finding that decedent’s application for a certificate of Mexican nationality was prompted by a specific intent to relinquish her American citizenship.” Id., at 7. Thus, the Solicitor General concluded no expatriation could be said to have taken place.
The House Report accompanying §1481 (c), H. R. Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 40 (1961), took direct aim at Nishikawa’s holding that “the Government must in each case prove voluntary conduct by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.” Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U. S., at 138. The Report quoted with approval from Mr. Justice Harlan’s dissenting opinion in Nishikawa:
“ 'Although the Court recognizes the general rule that consciously performed acts are presumed voluntary [citations omitted], it in fact alters this rule in all denationalization cases by placing the burden of proving voluntariness on the Government, thus relieving citizen-claimants in such cases from the duty of proving that their presumably voluntary acts were actually involuntary.
“ ‘One of the prime reasons for imposing the burden of proof on the party claiming involuntariness is that the evidence normally lies in his possession.
“ T... find myself compelled to dissent because in my opinion the majority’s position can be squared neither with congressional intent nor with proper and well-established rules governing the burden of proof on the issue of duress.’” H. R. Rep. No. 1086, supra, at 41 (quoting Nishikawa v. Dulles, supra, at 144-145).
The Report continued:
“In order to forestall further erosion of the statute designed to preserve and uphold the dignity and the priceless, value of U. S. citizenship, with attendant obligations, [§ 1481 (c)] sets up rules of evidence under which the burden of proof to establish loss of citizenship by
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Brennan would grant the petition, vacate the judgment, and remand in light of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413.
Mr. Justice Clark would grant the petition and affirm.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the reversal on the basis of the reasoning set forth in his opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the assertion by a government employer of the right, in circumstances to be described, to read text messages sent and received on a pager the employer owned and issued to an employee. The employee contends that the privacy of the messages is protected by the ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” found in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). Though the case touches issues of far-reaching significance, the Court concludes it can be resolved by settled principles determining when a search is reasonable.
I
A
The city of Ontario (City) is a political subdivision of the State of California. The case arose out of incidents in 2001 and 2002 when respondent Jeff Quon was employed by the Ontario Police Department (OPD). He was a police sergeant and member of OPD’s Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team. The City, OPD, and OPD’s Chief, Lloyd Scharf, are petitioners here. As will be discussed, two respondents share the last name Quon. In this opinion “Quon” refers to Jeff Quon, for the relevant events mostly revolve around him.
In October 2001, the City acquired 20 alphanumeric pagers capable of sending and receiving text messages. Arch Wireless Operating Company provided wireless service for the pagers. Under the City’s service contract with Arch Wireless, each pager was allotted a limited number of characters sent or received each month. Usage in excess of that amount would result in an additional fee. The City issued pagers to Quon and other SWAT Team members in order to help the SWAT Team mobilize and respond to emergency situations.
Before acquiring the pagers, the City announced a “Computer Usage, Internet and E-Mail Policy” (Computer Policy) that applied to all employees. Among other provisions, it specified that the City “reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice. Users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 151, 152. In March 2000, Quon signed a statement acknowledging that he had read and understood the Computer Policy.
The Computer Policy did not apply, on its face, to text messaging. Text messages share similarities with e-mails, but the two differ in an important way. In this ease, for instance, an e-mail sent on a City computer was transmitted through the City’s own data servers, but a text message sent on one of the City’s pagers was transmitted using wireless radio frequencies from an individual pager to a receiving station owned by Arch Wireless. It was routed through Arch Wireless’ computer network, where it remained until the recipient’s pager or cellular telephone was ready to receive the message, at which point Arch Wireless transmitted the message from the transmitting station nearest to the recipient. After delivery, Arch Wireless retained a copy on its computer servers. The message did not pass through computers owned by the City.
Although the Computer Policy did not cover text messages by its explicit terms, the City made clear to employees, including Quon, that the City would treat text messages the same way as it treated e-mails. At an April 18, 2002, staff meeting at which Quon was present, Lieutenant Steven Duke, the OPD officer responsible for the City’s contract with Arch Wireless, told officers that messages sent on the pagers “are considered e-mail messages. This means that [text] messages would fall under the City’s policy as public information and [would be] eligible for auditing.” App. 30. Duke’s comments were put in writing in a memorandum sent on April 29, 2002, by Chief Scharf to Quon and other City personnel.
Within the first or second billing cycle after the pagers were distributed, Quon exceeded his monthly text message character allotment. Duke told Quon about the overage, and reminded him that messages sent on the pagers were “considered e-mail and could be audited.” Id., at 40. Duke said, however, that “it was not his intent to audit [an] employee’s text messages to see if the overage [was] due to work related transmissions.” Ibid. Duke suggested that Quon could reimburse the City for the overage fee rather than have Duke audit the messages. Quon wrote a check to the City for the overage. Duke offered the same arrangement to other employees who incurred overage fees.
Over the next few months, Quon exceeded his character limit three or four times. Each time he reimbursed the City. Quon and another officer again incurred overage fees for their pager usage in August 2002. At a meeting in October, Duke told Scharf that he had become “‘tired of being a bill collector.’” Id., at 91. Scharf decided to determine whether the existing character limit was too low — that is, whether officers such as Quon were having to pay fees for sending work-related messages — or if the overages were for personal messages. Scharf told Duke to request transcripts of text messages sent in August and September by Quon and the other employee who had exceeded the character allowance.
At Duke’s request, an administrative assistant employed by OPD contacted Arch Wireless. After verifying that the City was the subscriber on the accounts, Arch Wireless provided the desired transcripts. Duke reviewed the transcripts and discovered that many of the messages sent and received on Quon’s pager were not work related, and some were sexually explicit. Duke reported his findings to Scharf, who, along with Quon’s immediate supervisor, reviewed the transcripts himself. After his review, Scharf referred the matter to OPD’s internal affairs division for an investigation into whether Quon was violating OPD rules by pursuing personal matters while on duty.
The officer in charge of the internal affairs review was Sergeant Patrick McMahon. Before conducting a review, McMahon used Quon’s work schedule to redact the transcripts in order to eliminate any messages Quon sent while off duty. He then reviewed the content of the messages Quon sent during work hours. McMahon’s report noted that Quon sent or received 456 messages during work hours in the month of August 2002, of which no more than 57 were work related; he sent as many as 80 messages during a single day at work; and on an average workday, Quon sent or received 28 messages, of which only 3 were related to police business. The report concluded that Quon had violated OPD rules. Quon was allegedly disciplined.
B
Raising claims under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983; 18 U. S. C. § 2701 et seq., popularly known as the Stored Communications Act (SCA); and California law, Quon filed suit against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Arch Wireless and an individual not relevant here were also named as defendants. Quon was joined in his suit by another plaintiff who is not a party before this Court and by the other respondents, each of whom exchanged text messages with Quon during August and September 2002: Jerilyn Quon, Jeff Quon’s then-wife, from whom he was separated; April Florio, an OPD employee with whom Jeff Quon was romantically involved; and Steve Trujillo, another member of the OPD SWAT Team. Among the allegations in the complaint was that petitioners violated respondents’ Fourth Amendment rights and the SCA by obtaining and reviewing the transcript of Jeff Quon’s pager messages and that Arch Wireless had violated the SCA by turning over the transcript to the City.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted Arch Wireless’ motion for summary judgment on the SCA claim but denied petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (CD Cal. 2006). Relying on the plurality opinion in O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709, 711 (1987), the District Court determined that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of his text messages. Whether the audit of the text messages was nonetheless reasonable, the District Court concluded, turned on Chief Scharf’s intent: “[I]f the purpose for the audit was to determine if Quon was using his pager to ‘play games’ and ‘waste time,’ then the audit was not constitutionally reasonable”; but if the audit’s purpose “was to determine the efficacy of the existing character limits to ensure that officers were not paying hidden work-related costs,... no constitutional violation occurred.” 445 F. Supp. 2d, at 1146.
The District Court held a jury trial to determine the purpose of the audit. The jury concluded that Scharf ordered the audit to determine the efficacy of the character limits. The District Court accordingly held that petitioners did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It entered judgment in their favor.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 529 F. 3d 892 (2008). The panel agreed with the District Court that Jeff Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages but disagreed with the District Court about whether the search was reasonable. Even though the search was conducted for “a legitimate work-related rationale,” the Court of Appeals concluded, it “was not reasonable in scope.” Id., at 908. The panel disagreed with the District Court’s observation that “there were no less-intrusive means” that Chief Scharf could have used “to verify the efficacy of the 25,000 character limit . . . without intruding on [respondents’] Fourth Amendment rights.” Id., at 908-909. The opinion pointed to a “host of simple ways” that the chief could have used instead of the audit, such as warning Quon at the beginning of the month that his future messages would be audited, or asking Quon himself to redact the transcript of his messages. Id., at 909. The Court of Appeals further concluded that Arch Wireless had violated the SCA by turning over the transcript to the City.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 554 F. 3d 769 (2009). Judge Ikuta, joined by six other Circuit Judges, dissented. Id., at 774-779. Judge Wardlaw concurred in the denial of rehearing, defending the panel’s opinion against the dissent. Id., at 769-774.
This Court granted the petition for certiorari filed by the City, OPD, and Chief Scharf challenging the Court of Appeals’ holding that they violated the Fourth Amendment. 558 U. S. 1090 (2009). The petition for certiorari filed by Arch Wireless challenging the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Arch Wireless violated the SCA was denied. USA Mobility Wireless, Inc. v. Quon, 558 U. S. 1091 (2009).
II
The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .” It is well settled that the Fourth Amendment’s protection extends beyond the sphere of criminal investigations. Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 530 (1967). “The Amendment guarantees the privacy, dignity, and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the Government,” without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 613-614 (1989). The Fourth Amendment applies as well when the Government acts in its capacity as an employer. Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656, 665 (1989).
The Court discussed this principle in O’Connor. There a physician employed by a state hospital alleged that hospital officials investigating workplace misconduct had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his office and seizing personal items from his desk and filing cabinet. All Members of the Court agreed with the general principle that “[individuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights merely because they work for the government instead of a private employer.” 480 U. S., at 717 (plurality opinion); see also id., at 731 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 737 (Black-mun, J., dissenting). A majority of the Court further agreed that “ ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement,’” make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable for government employers. Id., at 725 (plurality opinion) (quoting New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment)); 480 U. S., at 732 (opinion of Scalia, J.) (quoting same).
The O’Connor Court did disagree on the proper analytical framework for Fourth Amendment claims against government employers. A four-justice plurality concluded that the correct analysis has two steps. First, because “some government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable,” id., at 718, a court must consider “[t]he operational realities of the workplace” in order to determine whether an employee's Fourth Amendment rights are implicated, id., at 717. On this view, “the question whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.” Id., at 718. Next, where an employee has a legitimate privacy expectation, an employer’s intrusion on that expectation “for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances.” Id., at 725-726.
Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, outlined a different approach. His opinion would have dispensed with an inquiry into “operational realities” and would conclude “that the offices of government employees . . . are covered by Fourth Amendment protections as a general matter.” Id., at 731. But he would also have held “that government searches to retrieve work-related materials or to investigate violations of workplace rules — searches of the sort that are regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context — do not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 732.
Later, in the Von Raab decision, the Court explained that “operational realities” could diminish an employee’s privacy expectations, and that this diminution could be taken into consideration when assessing the reasonableness of a workplace search. 489 U. S., at 671. In the two decades since O’Connor, however, the threshold test for determining the scope of an employee’s Fourth Amendment rights has not been clarified further. Here, though they disagree on whether Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy, both petitioners and respondents start from the premise that the O’Connor plurality controls. See Brief for Petitioners 22-28; Brief for Respondents 25-32. It is not necessary to resolve whether that premise is correct. The case can be decided by determining that the search was reasonable even assuming Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The two O’Connor approaches — the plurality’s and Justice Scalia’s — therefore lead to the same result here.
III
A
Before turning to the reasonableness of the search, it is instructive to note the parties’ disagreement over whether Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The record does establish that OPD, at the outset, made it clear that pager messages were not considered private. The City’s Computer Policy stated that “[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using” City computers. App. to Pet. for Cert. 152. Chief Scharf’s memo and Duke’s statements made clear that this official policy extended to text messaging. The disagreement, at least as respondents see the case, is over whether Duke’s later statements overrode the official policy. Respondents contend that because Duke told Quon that an audit would be unnecessary if Quon paid for the overage, Quon reasonably could expect that the contents of his messages would remain private.
At this point, were we to assume that inquiry into “operational realities” were called for, compare O’Connor, 480 U. S., at 717 (plurality opinion), with id., at 730-731 (opinion of Scalia, J.); see also id., at 737-738 (Blaekmun, J., dissenting), it would be necessary to ask whether Duke’s statements could be taken as announcing a change in OPD policy, and if so, whether he had, in fact or appearance, the authority to make such a change and to guarantee the privacy of text messaging. It would also be necessary to consider whether a review of messages sent on police pagers, particularly those sent while officers are on duty, might be justified for other reasons, including performance evaluations, litigation concerning the lawfulness of police actions, and perhaps compliance with state open records laws. See Brief for Petitioners 35-40 (citing Cal. Public Records Act, Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §6250 et seq. (West 2008)). These matters would all bear on the legitimacy of an employee’s privacy expectation.
The Court must proceed with care when considering the whole concept of privacy expectations in communications made on electronic equipment owned by a government employer. The judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear. See, e. g., Olm-stead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), overruled by Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 353 (1967). In Katz, the Court relied on its own knowledge and experience to conclude that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth. See id., at 360-361 (Harlan, J., concurring). It is not so clear that courts at present are on so sure a ground. Prudence counsels caution before the facts in the instant case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices.
Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. As one amici brief notes, many employers expect or at least tolerate personal use of such equipment by employees because it often increases worker efficiency. See Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. 16-20. Another ami-cus points out that the law is beginning to respond to these developments, as some States have recently passed statutes requiring employers to notify employees when monitoring their electronic communications. See Brief for New York Intellectual Property Law Association 22 (citing Del. Code Ann., Tit. 19, §705 (2005); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §31-48d (West 2003)). At present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law’s treatment of them, will evolve.
Even if the Court were certain that the O’Connor plurality’s approach were the right one, the Court would have difficulty predicting how employees’ privacy expectations will be shaped by those changes or the degree to which society will be prepared to recognize those expectations as reasonable. See 480 U. S., at 715. Cell phone and text message communications are so pervasive that some persons may consider them to be essential means or necessary instruments for self-expression, even self-identification. That might strengthen the case for an expectation of privacy. On the other hand, the ubiquity of those devices has made them generally affordable, so one could counter that employees who need cell phones or similar devices for personal matters can purchase and pay for their own. And employer policies concerning communications will of course shape the reasonable expectations of their employees, especially to the extent that such policies are clearly communicated.
A broad holding concerning employees’ privacy expectations vis-á-vis employer-provided technological equipment might have implications for future cases that cannot be predicted. It is preferable to dispose of this case on narrower grounds. For present purposes we assume several propositions, arguendo: First, Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages sent on the pager provided to him by the City; second, petitioners’ review of the transcript constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; and third, the principles applicable to a government employer’s search of an employee’s physical office apply with at least the same force when the employer intrudes on the employee’s privacy in the electronic sphere.
B
Even if Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages, petitioners did not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment by obtaining and reviewing the transcripts. Although as a general matter, warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” there are “a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions” to that general rule. Katz, supra, at 357. The Court has held that the “ ‘special needs’ ” of the workplace justify one such exception. O’Connor, 480 U. S., at 725 (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 666-667.
Under the approach of the O’Connor plurality, when conducted for a “noninvestigatory, work-related purpos[e]” or for the “investigatio[n] of work-related misconduct,” a government employer’s warrantless search is reasonable if it is “ ‘justified at its inception’ ” and if “ ‘the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of’ ” the circumstances giving rise to the search. 480 U. S., at 725-726. The search here satisfied the standard of the O’Connor plurality and was reasonable under that approach.
The search was justified at its inception because there were “reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search [was] necessary for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose.” Id., at 726. As a jury found, Chief Scharf ordered the search in order to determine whether the character limit on the City’s contract with Arch Wireless was sufficient to meet the City’s needs. This was, as the Ninth Circuit noted, a “legitimate work-related rationale.” 529 F. 3d, at 908. The City and OPD had a legitimate interest in ensuring that employees were not being forced to pay out of their own pockets for work-related expenses, or on the other hand that the City was not paying for extensive personal communications.
As for the scope of the search, reviewing the transcripts was reasonable because it was an efficient and expedient way to determine whether Quon’s overages were the result of work-related messaging or personal use. The review was also not “‘excessively intrusive.’” O’Connor, supra, at 726 (plurality opinion). Although Quon had gone over his monthly allotment a number of times, OPD requested transcripts for only the months of August and September 2002. While it may have been reasonable as well for OPD to review transcripts of all the months in which Quon exceeded his allowance, it was certainly reasonable for OPD to review messages for just two months in order to obtain a large enough sample to decide whether the character limits were efficacious. And it is worth noting that during his internal affairs investigation, McMahon redacted all messages Quon sent while off duty, a measure which reduced the intrusiveness of any further review of the transcripts.
Furthermore, and again on the assumption that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his messages, the extent of an expectation is relevant to assessing whether the search was too intrusive. See Von Raab, supra, at 671; cf. Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 654-657 (1995). Even if he could assume some level of privacy would inhere in his messages, it would not have been reasonable for Quon to conclude that his messages were in all circumstances immune from scrutiny. Quon was told that his messages were subject to auditing. As a law enforcement officer, he would or should have known that his actions were likely to come under legal scrutiny, and that this might entail an analysis of his on-the-job communications. Under the circumstances, a reasonable employee would be aware that sound management principles might require the audit of messages to determine whether the pager was being appropriately used. Given that the City issued the pagers to Quon and other SWAT Team members in order to help them more quickly respond to crises — and given that Quon had received no assurances of privacy — Quon could have anticipated that it might be necessary for the City to audit pager messages to assess the SWAT Team’s performance in particular emergency situations.
From OPD's perspective, the fact that Quon likely had only a limited privacy expectation, with boundaries that we need not here explore, lessened the risk that the review would intrude on highly private details of Quon’s life. OPD’s audit of messages on Quon’s employer-provided pager was not nearly as intrusive as a search of his personal e-mail account or pager, or a wiretap on his home phone line, would have been. That the search did reveal intimate details of Quon’s life does not make it unreasonable, for under the circumstances a reasonable employer would not expect that such a review would intrude on such matters. The search was permissible in its scope.
The Court of Appeals erred in finding the search unreasonable. It pointed to a “host of simple ways to verify the efficacy of the 25,000 character limit . . . without intruding on [respondents’] Fourth Amendment rights.” 529 F. 3d, at 909. The panel suggested that Scharf “could have warned Quon that for the month of September he was forbidden from using his pager for personal communications, and that the contents of all of his messages would be reviewed to ensure the pager was used only for work-related purposes during that timeframe. Alternatively, if [OPD] wanted to review past usage, it could have asked Quon to count the characters himself, or asked him to redact personal messages and grant permission to [OPD] to review the redacted transcript.” Ibid.
This approach was inconsistent with controlling precedents. This Court has “repeatedly refused to declare that only the ‘least intrusive’ search practicable can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Vernonia, supra, at 663; see also, e.g., Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U. S. 822, 837 (2002); Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U. S. 640, 647 (1983). That rationale “could raise insuperable barriers to the exercise of virtually all search-and-seizure powers,” United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 557, n. 12 (1976), because “judges engaged in post hoc evaluations of government conduct can almost always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the government might have been accomplished,” Skinner, 489 U. S., at 629, n. 9 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The analytic errors of the Court of Appeals in this case illustrate the necessity of this principle. Even assuming there were ways that OPD could have performed the search that would have been less intrusive, it does not follow that the search as conducted was unreasonable.
Respondents argue that the search was per se unreasonable in light of the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Arch Wireless violated the SCA by giving the City the transcripts of Quon’s text messages. The merits of the SCA claim are not before us. But even if the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude that the SCA forbade Arch Wireless from turning over the transcripts, it does not follow that petitioners’ actions were unreasonable. Respondents point to no authority for the proposition that the existence of statutory protection renders a search per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. And the precedents counsel otherwise. See Virginia v. Moore, 553 U. S. 164, 168 (2008) (search incident to an arrest that was illegal under state law was reasonable); California v. Greenwood, 486 U. S. 35, 43 (1988) (rejecting argument that if state law forbade police search of individual’s garbage the search would violate the Fourth Amendment). Furthermore, respondents do not maintain that any OPD employee either violated the law himself or herself or knew or should have known that Arch Wireless, by turning over the transcript, would have violated the law. The otherwise reasonable search by OPD is not rendered unreasonable by the assumption that Arch Wireless violated the SCA by turning over the transcripts.
Because the search was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope, the search was reasonable under the approach of the O’Con-nor plurality. 480 U. S., at 726. For these same reasons— that the employer had a legitimate reason for the search, and that the search was not excessively intrusive in light of that justification — the Court also concludes that the search would be “regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context” and would satisfy the approach of Justice Scalia’s concurrence. Id., at 732. The search was reasonable, and the Court of Appeals erred by holding to the contrary. Petitioners did not violate Quon’s Fourth Amendment rights.
C
Finally, the Court must consider whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Jerilyn Quon, Florio, and Trujillo, the respondents who sent text messages to Jeff Quon. Petitioners and respondents disagree whether a sender of a text message can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a message he knowingly sends to someone’s employer-provided pager. It is not necessary to resolve this question in order to dispose of the case, however. Respondents argue that because “the search was unreasonable as to Sergeant Quon, it was also unreasonable as to his correspondents.” Brief for Respondents 60 (some capitalization omitted; boldface deleted). They make no corollary argument that the search, if reasonable as to Quon, could nonetheless be unreasonable as to Quon’s correspondents. See id., at 65-66. In light of this litigating position and the Court’s conclusion that the search was reasonable as to Jeff Quon, it necessarily follows that these other respondents cannot prevail.
* * *
Because the search was reasonable, petitioners did not violate respondents’ Fourth Amendment rights, and the court below erred by concluding otherwise. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
announced the judgment of the Court in Part VI and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II and an opinion with respect to Parts III, IV, and V, in which The Chief Justice joins.
These cases, like City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., ante, p. 416, and Simopoulos v. Virginia, post, p. 506, present questions as to the validity of state statutes or local ordinances regulating the performance of abortions.
I
Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc., two physicians who perform abortions, and an abortion clinic (plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri challenging, as unconstitutional, several sections of the Missouri statutes regulating the performance of abortions. The sections relevant here include Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.025 (Supp. 1982), requiring that abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy be performed in a hospital; §188.047, requiring a pathology report for each abortion performed; §188.030.3, requiring the presence of a second physician during abortions performed after viability; and §188.028, requiring minors to secure parental or judicial consent.
After hearing testimony from a number of expert witnesses, the District Court invalidated all of these sections except the pathology requirement. 483 F. Supp. 679, 699-701 (1980). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment with respect to § 188.028, thereby upholding the requirement that a minor secure parental or judicial consent to an abortion. It also held that the District Court erred in sustaining §188.047, the pathology requirement. The District Court’s judgment with respect to the second-physician requirement was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings and findings relating to the second-trimester hospitalization requirement. 655 F. 2d 848, 872-873 (1981). On remand, the District Court adhered to its holding that the second-trimester hospitalization requirement was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. 664 F. 2d 687, 691 (1981). We granted certiorari. 456 U. S. 988 (1982).
The Court today in City of Akron, ante, at 426-431, has stated fully the principles that govern judicial review of state statutes regulating abortions, and these need not be repeated here. With these principles in mind, we turn to the statutes at issue.
II
In City of Akron, we invalidated a city ordinance requiring physicians to perform all second-trimester abortions at general or special hospitals accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) or by the American Osteopathic Association. Ante, at 431-432. Missouri’s hospitalization requirements are similar to those enacted by Akron, as all second-trimester abortions must be performed in general, acute-care facilities. Forthe reasons stated in City of Akron, we held that such a requirement “unreasonably infringes upon a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.” Ante, at 439. For the same reasons, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment that § 188.025 is unconstitutional.
H-H h — I
We turn now to the State’s second-physician requirement. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), the Court recognized that the State has a compelling interest in the life of a viable fetus: “[T]he State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id., at 164-165. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 386-387 (1979); Beal v. Doe, 432 U. S. 438, 445-446 (1977). Several of the Missouri statutes undertake such regulation. Postviability abortions are proscribed except when necessary to preserve the life or the health of the woman. Mo. Rev. Stat. §188.030.1 (Supp. 1982). The State also forbids the use of abortion procedures fatal to the viable fetus unless alternative procedures pose a greater risk to the health of the woman. § 188.030.2.
The statutory provision at issue in this case requires the attendance of a second physician at the abortion of a viable fetus. § 188.030.3. This section requires that the second physician “take all reasonable steps in keeping with good medical practice... to preserve the life and health of the viable unborn child; provided that it does not pose an increased risk to the life or health of the woman.” See n. 3, supra. It also provides that the second physician “shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for a child bom as a result of the abortion.”
The lower courts invalidated § 188.030.3. The plaintiffs, respondents here on this issue, urge affirmance on the grounds that the second-physician requirement distorts the traditional doctor-patient relationship, and is both impractical and costly. They note that Missouri does not require two physicians in attendance for any other medical or surgical procedure, including childbirth or delivery of a premature infant.
The first physician’s primary concern will be the life and health of the woman. Many third-trimester abortions in Missouri will be emergency operations, as the State permits these late abortions only when they are necessary to preserve the life or the health of the woman. It is not unreasonable for the State to assume that during the operation the first physician’s attention and skills will be directed to preserving the woman’s health, and not to protecting the actual life of those fetuses who survive the abortion procedure. Viable fetuses will be in immediate and grave danger because of their premature birth. A second physician, in situations where Missouri permits third-trimester abortions, may be of assistance to the woman’s physician in preserving the health and life of the child.
By giving immediate medical attention to a fetus that is delivered alive, the second physician will assure that the State’s interests are protected more fully than the first physician alone would be able to do. And given the compelling interest that the State has in preserving life, we cannot say that the Missouri requirement of a second physician in those unusual circumstances where Missouri permits a third-trimester abortion is unconstitutional. Preserving the life of a viable fetus that is aborted may not often be possible, but the State legitimately may choose to provide safeguards for the comparatively few instances of live birth that occur. We believe the second-physician requirement reasonably furthers the State’s compelling interest in protecting the lives of viable fetuses, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that § 188.030.3 is unconstitutional.
> HH
In regulating hospital services within the State, Missouri requires that “[a]ll tissue surgically removed with the exception of such tissue as tonsils, adenoids, hernial sacs and prepuces, shall be examined by a pathologist, either on the premises or by arrangement outside of the hospital.” 13 Mo. Admin. Code § 50-20.030(3)(A)7 (1977). With respect to abortions, whether performed in hospitals or in some other facility, §188.047 requires the pathologist to “file a copy of the tissue report with the state division of health....” See n. 2, swpra. The pathologist also is required to “provide a copy of the report to the abortion facility or hospital in which the abortion was performed or induced.” Thus, Missouri appears to require that tissue following abortions, as well as from almost all other surgery performed in hospitals, must be submitted to a pathologist, not merely examined by the performing doctor. The narrow question before us is whether the State lawfully also may require the tissue removed following abortions performed in clinics as well as in hospitals to be submitted to a pathologist.
On its face and in effect, § 188.047 is reasonably related to generally accepted medical standards and “further[s] important health-related state concerns.” City of Akron, ante, at 430. As the Court of Appeals recognized, pathology examinations are clearly “useful and even necessary in some cases,” because “abnormalities in the tissue may warn of serious, possibly fatal disorders.” 655 F. 2d, at 870. As a rule, it is accepted medical practice to submit all tissue to the examination of a pathologist. This is particularly important following abortion, because questions remain as to the long-range complications and their effect on subsequent pregnancies. See App. 72-73 (testimony of Dr. Willard Cates, Jr.); Levin, Schoenbaum, Monson, Stubblefield, & Ryan, Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss, 243 J. A. M. A. 2495, 2499 (1980). Recorded pathology reports, in concert with abortion complication reports, provide a statistical basis for studying those complications. Cf. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 81 (1976).
Plaintiffs argue that the physician performing the abortion is as qualified as a pathologist to make the examination. This argument disregards the fact that Missouri requires a pathologist — not the performing physician — to examine tissue after almost every type of surgery. Although this requirement is in a provision relating to surgical procedures in hospitals, many of the same procedures included within the Missouri statute customarily are performed also in outpatient clinics. No reason has been suggested why the prudence required in a hospital should not be equally appropriate in such a clinic. Indeed, there may be good reason to impose stricter standards in this respect on clinics performing abortions than on hospitals. As the testimony in the District Court indicates, medical opinion differs widely on this question. See 4 Record 623; 5 Record 749-750, 798-800, 845-847; n. 11, supra. There is substantial support for Missouri’s requirement. In this case, for example, Dr. Bernard Nathan-son, a widely experienced abortion practitioner, testified that he requires a pathologist examination after each of the 60,000 abortions performed under his direction at the New York Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health. He considers it “absolutely necessary to obtain a pathologist’s report on each and every specimen of tissue removed from abortion or for that matter from any other surgical procedure which involves the removal of tissue from the human body.” App. 143-144. See also id,., at 146-147 (testimony of Dr. Keitges); 5 Record 798-799 (testimony of Dr. Schmidt).
In weighing the balance between protection of a woman’s health and the comparatively small additional cost of a pathologist’s examination, we cannot say that the Constitution requires that a State subordinate its interest in health to minimize to this extent the cost of abortions. Even in the early weeks of pregnancy, “[c]ertain regulations that have no significant impact on the woman’s exercise of her right [to decide to have an abortion] may be permissible where justified by important state health objectives.” City of Akron, ante, at 430. See Danforth, supra, at 80-81. We think the cost of a tissue examination does not significantly burden a pregnant woman’s abortion decision. The estimated cost of compliance for plaintiff Reproductive Health Services was $19.40 per abortion performed, 483 F. Supp., at 700, n. 48, and in light of the substantial benefits that a pathologist’s examination can have, this small cost clearly is justified. In Danforth, this Court unanimously upheld Missouri’s record-keeping requirement as “useful to the State’s interest in protecting the health of its female citizens, and [as] a resource that is relevant to decisions involving medical experience and judgment,” 428 U. S., at 81. We view the requirement for a pathology report as comparable and as a relatively insignificant burden. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this issue.
Y
As we noted in City of Akron, the relevant legal standards with respect to parental-consent requirements are not in dispute. See ante, at 439; Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622, 640-642, 643-644 (1979) (Bellotti II) (plurality opinion); id., at 656-657 (White, J., dissenting). A State’s interest in protecting immature minors will sustain a requirement of a consent substitute, either parental or judicial. It is clear, however, that “the State must provide an alternative procedure whereby a pregnant minor may demonstrate that she is sufficiently mature to make the abortion decision herself or that, despite her immaturity, an abortion would be in her best interests.” City of Akron, ante, at 439-440. The issue here is one purely of statutory construction: whether Missouri provides a judicial alternative that is consistent with these established legal standards.
The Missouri statute, § 188.028.2, in relevant part, provides:
“(4) In the decree, the court shall for good cause:
“(a) Grant the petition for majority rights for the purpose of consenting to the abortion; or
“(b) Find the abortion to be in the best interests of the minor and give judicial consent to the abortion, setting forth the grounds for so finding; or
“(c) Deny the petition, setting forth the grounds on which the petition is denied.”
On its face, §188.028.2(4) authorizes Juvenile Courts to choose among any of the alternatives outlined in the section. The Court of Appeals concluded that a denial of the petition permitted in subsection (c) “would initially require the court to find that the minor was not emancipated and was not mature enough to make her own decision and that an abortion was not in her best interests.” 655 F. 2d, at 858. Plaintiffs contend that this interpretation is unreasonable. We do not agree.
Where fairly possible, courts should construe a statute to avoid a danger of unconstitutionality. The Court of Appeals was aware, if the statute provides discretion to deny permission to a minor for any “good cause,” that arguably it would violate the principles that this Court has set forth. Ibid. It recognized, however, that before exercising any option, the Juvenile Court must receive evidence on “the emotional development, maturity, intellect and understanding of the minor.” Mo. Rev. Stat. §188.028.2(8) (Supp. 1982). The court then reached the logical conclusion that “findings and the ultimate denial of the petition must be supported by a showing of ‘good cause.’” 655 F. 2d, at 858. The Court of Appeals reasonably found that a court could not deny a petition “for good cause” unless it first found — after having received the required evidence — that the minor was not mature enough to make her own decision. See Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 643-644, 647-648 (plurality opinion). We conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the statute and that §188.028, as interpreted, avoids any constitutional infirmities.
<1 l-H
The judgment of the Court of Appeals, insofar as it invalidated Missouri’s second-trimester hospitalization requirement and upheld the State’s parental- and judicial-consent provision, is affirmed. The judgment invalidating the requirement of a pathology report for all abortions and the requirement that a second physician attend the abortion of any viable fetus is reversed. We vacate the judgment upholding an award of attorney’s fees for all hours expended by plaintiffs’ attorneys and remand for proceedings consistent with Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424 (1983).
It is so ordered.
Missouri Rev. Stat. § 188.025 (Supp. 1982) provides: “Every abortion performed subsequent to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy shall be performed in a hospital.”
Missouri Rev. Stat. §188.047 (Supp. 1982) provides:
“A representative sample of tissue removed at the time of abortion shall be submitted to a board eligible or certified pathologist, who shall file a copy of the tissue report with the state division of health, and who shall provide a copy of the report to the abortion facility or hospital in which the abortion was performed or induced and the pathologist's report shall be made a part of the patient’s permanent record.”
Missouri Rev. Stat. § 188.030.3 (Supp. 1982) provides:
“An abortion of a viable unborn child shall be performed or induced only when there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for a child bom as a result of the abortion. During the performance of the abortion, the physician performing it, and subsequent to the abortion, the physician required by this section to be in attendance, shall take all reasonable steps in keeping with good medical practice, consistent with the procedure used, to preserve the life and health of the viable unborn child; provided that it does not pose an increased risk to the life or health of the woman.”
Missouri Rev. Stat. § 188.028 (Supp. 1982) provides:
“1. No person shall knowingly perform an abortion upon a pregnant woman under the age of eighteen years unless:
“(1) The attending physician has secured the informed written consent of the minor and one parent or guardian; or
“(2) The minor is emancipated and the attending physician has received the informed written consent of the minor; or
“(3) The minor has been granted the right to self-consent to the abortion by court order pursuant to subsection 2 of this section, and the attending physician has received the informed written consent of the minor; or
“(4) The minor has been granted consent to the abortion by court order, and the court has given its informed written consent in accordance with subsection 2 of this section, and the minor is having the abortion willingly, in compliance with subsection 3 of this section.
“2. The right of a minor to self-consent to an abortion under subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of this section or court consent under subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of this section may be granted by a court pursuant to the following procedures:
“(1) The minor or next friend shall make an application to the juvenile court which shall assist the minor or next friend in preparing the petition and notices required pursuant to this section. The minor or the next friend of the minor shall thereafter file a petition setting forth the initials of the minor; the age of the minor; the names and addresses of each parent, guardian, or, if the minor’s parents are deceased and no guardian has been appointed, any other person standing in loco parentis of the minor; that the minor has been fully informed of the risks and consequences of the abortion; that the minor is of sound mind and has sufficient intellectual capacity to consent to the abortion; that, if the court does not grant the minor majority rights for the purpose of consent to the abortion, the court should find that the abortion is in the best interest of the minor and give judicial consent to the abortion; that the court should appoint a guardian ad litem of the child; and if the minor does not have private counsel, that the court should appoint counsel. The petition shall be signed by the minor or the next friend;
“(8) A hearing on the merits of the petition, to be held on the record, shall be held as soon as possible within five days of the filing of the petition.... At the hearing, the court shall hear evidence relating to the emotional development, maturity, intellect and understanding of the minor; the nature, possible consequences, and alternatives to the abortion; and any other evidence that the court may find useful in determining whether the minor should be granted majority rights for the purpose of consenting to the abortion or whether the abortion is in the best interests of the minor;
“(4) In the decree, the court shall for good cause:
“(a) Grant the petition for majority rights for the purpose of consenting to the abortion; or
“(b) Find the abortion to be in the best interests of the minor and give judicial consent to the abortion, setting forth the grounds for so finding; or
“(c) Deny the petition, setting forth the grounds on which the petition is denied;
“3. If a minor desires an abortion, then she shall be orally informed of and, if possible, sign the written consent required by section 188.039 in the same manner as an adult person. No abortion shall be performed on any minor against her will, except that an abortion may be performed against the will of a minor pursuant to a court order described in subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of this section that the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the minor.”
The District Court also awarded attorney’s fees for all hours claimed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The Court of Appeals affirmed this allocation of fees. See 655 F. 2d 848, 872 (CA8 1981). The petition for certiorari raises the issue whether an award of attorney’s fees, made pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1988 (1976 ed., Supp. V), should be proportioned to reflect the extent to which plaintiffs prevailed.
Missouri does not define the term “hospital” in its statutory provisions regulating abortions. We therefore must assume, as did the courts below, see 483 F. Supp. 679, 686, n. 10 (1980); 664 F. 2d 687, 689-690, and nn. 3,5, and 6 (1981), that the term has its common meaning of a general, acute-care facility. Cf. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.015(2) (Supp. 1982) (defining “abortion facility” as “a clinic, physician’s office, or any other place or facility in which abortions are performed other than a hospital”). Section 197.020.2 (1978), part of Missouri’s hospital licensing laws, reads:
“ ‘Hospital’ means a place devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for the diagnosis, treatment or care for not less than twenty-four hours in any week of three or more nonrelated individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury, deformity or other abnormal physical conditions; or a place devoted primarily to provide for not less than twenty-four hours in any week medical... care for three or more nonrelated individuals....”
Cf. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 197.200(1) (1978) (defining “ambulatory surgical center” to include facilities “with an organized medical staff of physicians” and “with continuous physician services and registered professional nursing services whenever a patient is in the facility”); 13 Mo. Admin. Code § 50-30.010(1)(A) (1977) (same). The regulations for the Department of Social Services establish standards for the construction, physical facilities, and administration of hospitals. §§50-20.010 to 50-20.030. These are not unlike those set by JCAH. See City of Akron, ante, at 432, and n. 16.
The courts below found, and Justice Blackmun’s partial dissenting opinion agrees, post, at 499-500, that there is no possible justification for a second-physician requirement whenever D&E is used because no viable fetus can survive a D&E procedure. 483 F. Supp., at 694; 655 F. 2d, at 865. Accordingly, for them, § 188.030.3 is overbroad. This reasoning rests on two assumptions. First, a fetus cannot survive a D&E abortion, and second, D&E is the method of choice in the third trimester. There is general agreement as to the first proposition, but not as to the second. Indeed, almost all of the authorities disagree with Justice Blackmun’s critical assumption, and as the Court of Appeals noted, the choice of this procedure after viability is subject to the requirements of § 188.030.2. See id., at 865, and n. 28. Nevertheless, the courts below, in conclusory language, found that D&E is the “method of choice even after viability is possible.” Id., at 865. No scholarly writing supporting this view is cited by those courts or by the partial dissent. Reliance apparently is placed solely on the testimony of Dr. Robert Crist, a physician from Kansas, to whom the District Court referred in a footnote. 483 F. Supp., at 694, n. 25. This testimony provides slim support for this holding. Dr. Crist’s testimony, if nothing else, is remarkable in its candor. He is a member of the National Abortion Federation, “an organization of abortion providers and people interested in the pro-choice movement.” 3 Record 415-416. He supported the use of D&E on 28-week pregnancies, well into the third trimester. In some circumstances, he considered it a better procedure than other methods. See id., at 427-428. His disinterest in protecting fetal life is evidenced by his agreement “that the abortion patient has a right not only to be rid of the growth, called a fetus in her body, but also has a right to a dead fetus.” Id., at 481. He also agreed that he “[njever ha[s] any intention of trying to protect the fetus, if it can be saved,” ibid., and finally that “as a general principle” “[t]here should not be a live fetus,” id., at 435. Moreover, contrary to every other view, he thought a fetus could survive a D&E abortion. Id., at 433-434. None of the other physicians who testified at the trial, those called both by the plaintiffs and defendants, considered that any use of D&E after viability was indicated. See 2 Record 21 (limiting use of D&E to under 18 weeks); 3 Record 381, 410-413 (Dr. Robert Kretzschmar) (D&E up to 17 weeks; would never perform D&E after 26 weeks); 5 Record 787 (almost “inconceivable” to use D&E after viability); 7 Record 52 (D&E safest up to 18 weeks); id., at 110 (doctor not performing D&E past 20 weeks); id., at 111 (risks of doing outpatient D&E equivalent to childbirth at 24 weeks). See also 8 Record 33, 78-81 (deposition of Dr. Willard Cates) (16 weeks latest D&E performed). Apparently Dr. Crist performed abortions only in Kansas, 3 Record 334, 368, 428, a State having no statutes comparable to § 188.030.1 and § 188.030.2. It is not clear whether he was operating under or familiar with the limitations imposed by Missouri law. Nor did he explain the circumstances when there were “contraindications” against the use of any of the procedures that could preserve viability, or whether his conclusory opinion was limited to emergency situations. Indeed, there is no record evidence that D&E ever will be the method that poses the least risk to the woman in those rare situations where there are compelling medical reasons for performing an abortion after viability. If there were such instances, they hardly would justify invalidating § 188.030.3.
In addition to citing Dr. Crist in its footnote, the District Court cited— with no elaboration — Dr. Schmidt. His testimony, reflecting no agreement with Dr. Crist, is enlightening. Although he conceded that the attendance of a second physician for a D&E abortion on a viable fetus was not necessary, he considered the point mostly theoretical, because he “simply [did] not believe that the question of viability comes up when D&E is an elected method of abortion.” 5 Record 836. When reminded of Dr. Crist’s earlier testimony, he conceded the remote possibility of third-trimester D&E abortions, but stated: “I personally cannot conceive that as a significant practical point. It may be important legally, but [not] from a medical standpoint....” Ibid. Given that Dr. Crist’s discordant testimony is wholly unsupported, the State’s compelling interest in protecting a viable fetus justifies the second-physician requirement even though there may be the rare case when a physician may think honestly that D&E is required for the mother’s health. Legislation need not accommodate every conceivable contingency.
There is no clearly expressed exception on the face of the statute for the performance of an abortion of a viable fetus without the second physician in attendance. There may be emergency situations where, for example, the woman’s health may be endangered by delay. Section § 188.030.3 is qualified, at least in part, by the phrase “provided that it does not pose an increased risk to the life or health of the woman.” This clause reasonably could be construed to apply to such a situation. Cf. H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U. S. 398, 407, n. 14 (1981) (rejecting argument that Utah statute might apply to individuals with emergency health care needs).
See American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Technical Bulletin No. 56, p. 4 (Dec. 1979) (as high as 7% live-birth rate for intrauterine instillation of uterotonic agents); Stroh & Hinman, Reported Live Births Following Induced Abortion: Two and One-Half Years' Experience in Upstate New York, 126 Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 83, 83-84 (1976) (26 live births following saline induced-abortions; 9 following hysterotomy; 1 following oxtyocin-induced abortion) (1 survival out of 38 live births); 5 Record 728 (50-62% mortality rate for fetuses 26 and 27 weeks); id., at 729 (25-92% mortality rate for fetuses 28 and 29 weeks); id., at 837 (50% mortality rate at 34 weeks).
A pathological examination is designed to assist in the detection of fatal ectopic pregnancies, hydatidiform moles or other preeancerous growths, and a variety of other problems that can be discovered only through a pathological examination. The general medical utility of pathological examinations is clear. See, e. g., ACOG, Standards for Obstetric-Gynecologic Services 52 (5th ed. 1982) (1982 ACOG Standards); National Abortion Federation (NAF) Standards 6 (1981) (compliance with standards obligatory for NAF member facilities to remain in good standing); Brief for American Public Health Association as Amicus Curiae, O. T. 1982, Nos. 81-185, 81-746, 81-1172, p. 29, n. 6 (supporting the NAF standards for nonhospital abortion facilities as constituting “minimum standards”).
ACOG’s standards at the time of the District Court’s trial recommended that a “tissue or operative review committee” should examine “all tissue removed at obstetric-gynecologic operations.” ACOG, Standards for Obstetric-Gynecologic Services 13 (4th ed. 1974). The current ACOG Standards also state as a general rule that, for all surgical services performed on an ambulatory basis, “[t]issue removed should be submitted to a pathologist for examination.” 1982 ACOG Standards, at 52. Justice Blackmun’s partial dissent, however, relies on the recent modification of these Standards as they apply to abortions. ACOG now provides an “exception to the practice” of mandatory examination by a pathologist and makes such examination for abortion tissue permissive. Ibid. Not surprisingly, this change in policy was controversial within the College. See 5 Record 799-800. ACOG found that “[n]o consensus exists regarding routine microscopic examination of aspirated tissue in every case,” though it recognized — on the basis of inquiries made in 29 institutions — that in a majority of them a microscopic examination is performed in all cases. ACOG, Report of Committee on Gynecologic Practice, Item #6.2.1 (June 27-28, 1980).
The professional views that the plaintiffs find to support their position do not disclose whether consideration was given to the fact that not all abortion clinics, particularly inadequately regulated clinics, conform to ethical or generally accepted medical standards. See Bellotti v. Baird, 448 U. S. 622, 641, n. 21 (1979) (Bellotti II) (minors may resort to “incompetent or unethical” abortion clinics); Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 91, n. 2 (1976) (Stewart, J., concurring). The Sun-Times of Chicago, in a series of special reports, disclosed widespread questionable practices in abortion clinics in Chicago, including the failure to obtain proper pathology reports. See The Abortion Profiteers, Chicago Sun-Times 25-26 (Special Reprint 1978). It is clear, therefore, that a State reasonably could conclude that a pathology requirement is necessary in abortion clinics as well as in general hospitals.
In suggesting that we make from a “comfortable perspective” the judgment that a State constitutionally can require the additional cost of a pathology examination, Justice Blackmun’s partial dissent suggests that we disregard the interests of the “woman on welfare or the unemployed teenager.” Post, at 498. But these women may be those most likely to seek the least expensive clinic available. As the standards of medical practice in such clinics may not be the highest, a State may conclude reasonably that a pathologist’s examination of tissue is particularly important for their protection.
Justice Blackmun’s partial dissent appears to suggest that § 188.047 is constitutionally infirm because it does not require microscopic examination, post, at 496-497, but that misses the point of the regulation. The need is for someone other than the performing clinic to make an independent medical judgment on the tissue. See n. 12, supra; 5 Record 750 (Dr. Pierre Keitges, a pathologist). It is reasonable for the State to assume that an independent pathologist is more likely to perform a microscopic examination than the performing doctor. See H. Cove, Surgical Pathology of the Endometrium 28 (1981) (“To the pathologist, abortions of any sort are evaluated grossly and microscopically for the primary purpose of establishing a diagnosis of intrauterine pregnancy”) (emphasis added).
The Danforth Court also noted that “[t]he added requirements for confidentiality, with the sole exception for public health officers, and for retention for seven years, a period not unreasonable in length, assist and persuade us in our determination of the constitutional limits.” 428 U. S., at 81. Missouri extends the identical safeguards found reassuring in Danforth to the pathology reports at issue here. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 188.055.2, 188.060 (Supp. 1982).
The dissenters apparently believe that the issue here is an open one, and adhere to the views they expressed in Bellotti II. Post, at 503-504. But those views have never been adopted by a majority of this Court, while a majority have expressed quite differing views. See H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U. S. 398 (1981); Bellotti II (plurality opinion); 443 U. S., at 656-657 (White, J., dissenting).
The plurality in Bellotti II also required that the alternative to parental consent must “assure” that the resolution of this issue “will be completed with anonymity and sufficient expedition to provide an effective opportunity for an abortion to be obtained.” Id., at 644. Confidentiality here is assured by 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:
|
E
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The basic question in this ease is whether tax Alabama assesses on foreign corporations violates the Commerce Clause. We conclude that it does.
I
Alabama requires each corporation doing State to pay a franchise tax based upon the firm's capital. A domestic firm, organized under the laws of Alabama, must pay tax in an amount equal to 1% of the par value of the firm’s stock. Ala. Const., Art. XII, §229; Ala. Code §40-14-40 (1993); App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a, 52a, 61a (Stipulated Facts). A foreign firm, organized under the laws of a State other than Alabama, must pay tax in an amount equal to 0.3% of the value of “the actual amount of capital employed” in Alabama. Ala. Const., Art. XII, §232; Ala. Code §40-14-41(a) (Supp. 1998). Alabama law grants domestic firms considerable leeway in controlling their own tax base and tax liability, as a firm may set its stock’s par value at a level well below its book or market value. App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a-5Ba (Stipulated Facts). Alabama law does not grant a foreign firm similar leeway to control its tax base, however, as the value of the “actual” capital upon which Alabama calculates the foreign franchise tax includes not only the value of capital stock but also other accounting items (e. g., long-term debt, surplus), the value of whieh depends upon the firm’s financial status. Id., at 53a-54a; Ala. Code §§40-14-41(b)(1) — (5), (c) (Supp. 1998).
In 1986, the Reynolds Metals Company and three other foreign corporations sued Alabama’s tax authorities, seeking a refund of the foreign franchise tax they had paid on the ground that the tax discriminated against foreign corporations. Although the tax favored foreign firms in some respects (granting them a lower tax rate and excluding any capital not employed in Alabama), that favorable treatment was more than offset by the fact that a domestic firm, unlike a foreign firm, could shrink its tax base significantly simply by setting the par value of its stock at a low level. As a result, Reynolds Metals said, the tax burden borne by foreign corporations was much higher than the burden on domestic corporations, and the tax consequently violated both the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses. U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and Arndt. 14, § 1.
The Alabama Supreme Court rejected these claims. White v. Reynolds Metals Co., 558 So. 2d 373 (1989). Without denying that the franchise tax imposed a special burden upon foreign corporations, the court nonetheless thought that this special burden simply offset a different burden imposed exclusively upon domestic corporations by Alabama’s "domestic shares tax.” This latter tax is a property tax on shares of domestic stock; it is assessed against shareholders based upon the value of the shares they hold, but in practice it is normally paid by the corporation itself. Id., at 386-388 (citing, e. g., Gregg Dyeing Co. v. Query, 286 U. S. 472 (1932) (permitting taxes that discriminate against interstate commerce when they compensate for burdens placed uniquely upon domestic commerce)). Any remaining discrimination, the court concluded, was constitutionally insignificant. 558 So. 2d, at 388-390.
While the Alabama courts were considering Reynolds Metals, a different foreign corporation, South Central Bell Telephone Company, brought the lawsuit now before us. Bell asserted the same Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause claims as had Reynolds Metals, though in respect to different tax years. Bell initially agreed to hold its suit in abeyance pending the resolution of Reynolds Metals’ claims. Then, after the Alabama Supreme Court decided against the taxpayers in Reynolds Metals, Bell (joined by other foreign corporations with similar claims) went to trial.
The Bell plaintiffs that the empirical premises that underlay Reynolds Metals were -wrong: Despite the differences in franchise tax rates, Alabama’s franchise tax scheme in practice discriminates substantially against foreign corporations, and the Alabama tax on shares of domestic corporations does not offset the discrimination in the franchise tax. The Alabama trial court agreed with the Bell plaintiffs that their evidence, taken together with this Court’s recent Commerce Clause cases, “clearly and abundantly demonstrates that the franchise tax on foreign corporations discriminates against them for no other reason than the state of their incorporation.” Memorandum Opinion in App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a-22a (hereinafter Mem. Op.) (citing Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U. S. 93 (1994); Associated Industries of Mo. v. Lohman, 511 U. S. 641 (1994); Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 516 U. S. 325 (1996)). But the trial court nonetheless dismissed their claims for a different reason, namely, that given the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds Metals, “the Taxpayer^’] claims [in this case] are barred by res judicata.” Mem. Op. 17a.
The Alabama Supreme a vote of 5 to 4. The majority’s decision cited Reynolds Metals and a procedural rule regarding summary dispositions and simply said, “PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.” 711 So. 2d 1005 (1998). One justice concurred specially to say that by requesting that their case be held in abeyance until Reynolds Metals was resolved, the Bell plaintiffs had agreed to be bound by Reynolds Metals. 711 So. 2d, at 1005-1007 (opinion of Maddox, J.). Three dissenters wrote that given the differences between this case and Reynolds Metals (e. g., different tax years, different plaintiffs), res judicata could not bind the Bell plaintiffs. 711 So. 2d, at 1008 (opinion of See, J.). On the merits, the dissenters concluded that the franchise tax violated the Commerce Clause. See id., at 1008-1011. (One other justice dissented without opinion.)
granted the Bell plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari, agreeing to decide (1) whether the Alabama courts’ refusal to permit the Bell plaintiffs to raise their constitutional claims because of res judicata “deprived” the Bell plaintiffs “of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,” Pet. for Cert. (i); see Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U. S. 798 (1996); and (2) whether the franchise tax “impermissibly discriminates against interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause,” Pet. for Cert, (i). We decide both questions in favor of the Bell plaintiffs.
hH
A
outset, the respondents — the State of Alabama and its State Department of Revenue (collectively, the State)— argue that this Court lacks “appellate jurisdiction over this case.” Brief for Respondents 15. The State points to the Eleventh Amendment, which provides:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State ....”
The State claims that this Amendment’s literal language applies here because this case began in state court as a suit brought against one State, namely, Alabama, by citizens of another; because we, in hearing this case, would be exereis-ing the “Judicial power of the United States”; and because Alabama has not waived its right to object to our exercise of that power.
the very argument that the State now makes. In McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business Regulation, 496 U. S. 18 (1990), we unanimously held that “[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not constrain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over cases arising from state courts.” Id., at 31. We explained:
“[X]t is ‘inherent in the a state court takes cognizance of a case, the State assents to appellate review by this Court of the federal issues raised in the case ‘whoever may be the parties to the original suit, whether private persons, or the state itself.’ ” Id., at 30 (quoting Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313, 329 (1934); Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 585 (1837) (Story, J., dissenting)).
Our holding in McKesson confirmed a long-established and uniform practice of reviewing state-court decisions on federal matters, regardless of whether the State was the plaintiff or the defendant in the trial court. 496 U. S., at 28; accord, General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U. S. 211, 233 (1908) (Harlan, J., concurring) (“[I]t was long ago settled” that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar “a writ of error to review the final judgment of a state court”).
Although the State now Brief for Respondents 27, it does not provide a convincing reason why we should revisit that relatively recent precedent, and we shall not do so. Cf. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 854-855 (1992) (considerations relevant to overruling precedent include workability of prior precedent, its relation to other changes in law, and relevant reliance).
B
The State, in opposing Bell’s petition for certiorari, argued that the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision rested upon an adequate state ground, namely, state-law principles of res judicata. It now believes, however, that the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on their merits and relied upon Reynolds Metals under principles of stare decisis, not res judicata. Brief for Respondents 3. For that reason, the State “offer[s] no defense of the decision as a valid application of the doctrine of res judicata.” Ibid. Nor do we believe a valid defense could be made. See Richards v. Jefferson County, supra.
we considered an Alabama Supreme Court holding that state-law principles of res judicata prevented certain taxpayers from bringing a case (which we will call Case Two) to challenge on federal constitutional grounds a state tax that the Alabama Supreme Court had upheld in an earlier case (Case One) brought by different taxpayers. We held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbade this “extreme” application of state-law preclusion (res judicata) principles, id., at 797, because the plaintiffs in Case Two were “strangers” to the earlier judgment, id., at 802.
case before us. In Richards, we pointed out that the taxpayers in Case One “did not sue on behalf of a class; their pleadings did not purport to assert any claim against or on behalf of any nonparties; and the judgment they received did not purport to bind any .. . taxpayers who were nonparties.” Id., at 801. We added that the taxpayers in Case One did not understand their suit “to be on behalf of” the different taxpayers involved in Case Two, nor did the Case One court make any special effort “to protect the interests” of the Case Two plaintiffs. Id., at 802. As far as we are aware, the same can be said of the circumstances now before us. The two relevant cases involve different plaintiffs and different tax years. Neither is a class action, and no one claims that there is “privity” or some other special relationship between the two sets of plaintiffs. Hence, the Case Two plaintiffs here are “strangers” to Case One, and for the reasons we explained in Richards, they cannot be bound by the earlier judgment.
The Alabama trial court stances before us from those in Richards by pointing out that the plaintiffs here were aware of the earlier Reynolds Metals litigation and that one of the Reynolds Metals lawyers also represented the Bell plaintiffs. See Mem. Op. 18a-19a. These circumstances, however, created no special representational relationship between the earlier and later plaintiffs. Nor could these facts have led the later plaintiffs to expect to be precluded, as a matter of res judicata, by the earlier judgment itself, even though they may well have expected that the rule of law announced in Reynolds Metals would bind them in the same way that a decided case binds every citizen.
A concurring cluded that the Bell plaintiffs had “agreed that the final decision in Reynolds Metals would be controlling” when, in a letter to the trial court, they “specifically requested that [their] case be held in abeyance until Reynolds Metals was decided.” 711 So. 2d, at 1006-1007 (opinion of Maddox, J.). That letter also said, however, that if “ ‘either party desires to proceed at a later date, with the Court’s permission this case would be activated/” Id., at 1006. Given this latter statement, the letter is no more than a routine request for continuance. It does not distinguish Richards.
In sum, if the case rests on state-law claim or issue preclusion (res judicata or collateral estoppel), that holding is inconsistent with Richards and with the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee.
C
Turning to the merits, we conclude that this Court’s Commerce Clause precedent requires us to hold Alabama’s franchise tax unconstitutional. Alabama law defines a domestic corporation’s tax base as including only one item — the par value of capital stock — which the corporation may set at whatever level it chooses. A foreign corporation’s tax base, on the other hand, contains many additional balance sheet items that are valued in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, rather than by arbitrary assignment by the corporation. Accordingly, as the State has admitted, Alabama law gives domestic corporations the ability to reduce their franchise tax liability simply by reducing the par value of their stock, while it denies foreign corporations that same ability. App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a-53a (Stipulated Facts). And no one claims that the different tax rates for foreign and domestic corporations offset the difference in the tax base. The tax therefore facially discriminates against interstate commerce and is unconstitutional unless the State can offer a sufficient justification for it. Cf. Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 516 U. S. 325 (1996) (state tax scheme requiring shareholders in out-of-state corporations to pay tax on a higher percentage of share value than shareholders of corporations operating solely within the State facially discriminated in violation of the Commerce Clause). This discrimination is borne out in practice, as the record, undisputed here, shows that the average domestic corporation pays only one-fifth the franchise tax it would pay if it were treated as a foreign corporation. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a (plaintiffs’ statement of facts); Mem. Op. 21a, and n. 7 (adopting plaintiffs’ statement of facts).
cannot justify this discrimination on the ground that the foreign franchise tax is a “complementary” or “compensatory” tax that offsets the tax burden that the domestic shares tax imposes upon domestic corporations. E. g., Hen- neford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U. S. 577 (1937) (upholding a facially discriminatory use tax as “complementary” to a domestic sales tax). Our cases hold that a discriminatory tax cannot be upheld as “compensatory” unless the State proves that the special burden that the franchise tax imposes upon foreign corporations is “roughly . . . approximate” to the special burden on domestic corporations, and that the taxes are similar enough “in substance” to serve as “mutually exclusive” proxies for one another. Oregon Waste Systems, 511 U. S., at 103; accord, Fulton, supra, at 332-333.
In this case, however, “roughly approximate.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. 36a-37a (plaintiffs’ statement of facts, showing that the foreign franchise tax burden far exceeds the domestic franchise tax and the domestic shares tax combined); Mem. Op. 21a, n. 7 (adopting plaintiffs’ statement of facts); cf. 711 So. 2d, at 1011 (See, J., dissenting) (in the face of the State’s “indefinite assertion,” plaintiffs offered “substantial evidence ... that the foreign franchise tax exceeds any intrastate burden” imposed through the higher franchise tax rate and the domestic shares tax). And the State has made no effort to persuade this Court otherwise.
Nor are the two tax bama imposes its foreign franchise tax upon a foreign firm’s decision to do business in the State; Alabama imposes its domestic shares tax upon the ownership of a certain form of property, namely, shares in domestic corporations. Compare Ala. Code §40-14-41 with §40-14-70 (1993 and Supp. 1998). No one has explained to us how the one could be seen as a “proxy” for the other.
stead says, with “respect to the merits,” that “the flaw in petitioners’ claim lies not in the application to Alabama’s corporate franchise tax of this Court’s recent negative Commerce Clause cases; the flaw lies rather in the negative Commerce Clause cases themselves.” Brief for Respondents 3. The State adds that the Court should “formally reconsider” and “abando[n]” its negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.” Id., at 3, 28. We will not entertain this invitation to reconsider our longstanding negative Commerce Clause doctrine, however, because the State did not make clear it intended to make this argument until it filed its brief on the merits. We would normally expect notice of an intent to make so far-reaching an argument in the respondent’s opposition to a petition for certiorari, cf. this Court’s Rule 15.2, thereby assuring adequate preparation time for those likely affected and wishing to participate. We are not aware of any convincing reason to depart from that practice in this case. And consequently we shall not do so.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
When we held in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, that the modern business of insurance was “interstate commerce,” we put it in a category which Congress could regulate and which, if our prior decisions controlled, could not in some respects be regulated by the States, even in absence of federal regulation. See Frankfurter, The Commerce Clause (1937); Rutledge, A Declaration of Legal Faith (1947).
Congress promptly passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 33, 15 U. S. C. § 1011, which provided that the regulation and taxation of insurance should be left to the States, without restriction by reason of the Commerce Clause. Subsequently, by force of the McCarran-Fergu-son Act, we upheld the continued taxation and regulation by the States of interstate insurance transactions. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408.
Prior to the South-Eastern Underwriters decision, we had given broad scope to local regulation of the insurance business. Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U. S. 53; Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313. The Osborn case upheld a Virginia requirement that insurance companies authorized to do business in that State must write policies through resident agents. The Hoopeston case, while it involved the making of out-of-state insurance contracts, also involved servicing of policies in New York, the regulating State.
Here, unlike the Osborn and Hoopeston cases, the insurance companies carry on no activities within the State of Texas. Of course, the insqred does business in Texas and the property insured is located there. It is earnestly argued that, unless the philosophy of the Osborn and Hoopeston decisions is to be restricted, the present Texas tax on premiums paid out-of-state on out-of-state contracts should be sustained. We are urged to follow the approach of the Osborn and Hoopeston decisions, look to the aspects of the insurance transactions taken as a whole, and decide that there are sufficient contacts with Texas to justify this tax under the requirements of due process.
Were the Osborn and Hoopeston cases andthebarebones of the McCarran-Ferguson Act our only criteria for decision, we would have presented the question whether three prior decisions — Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578; St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas, 260 U. S. 346; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U. S. 77 — have continuing vitality. The first two were distinguished in the Osborn (310 U. S., at 66-67) and Hoopeston (318 U. S., at 318-319) cases. The Allgeyer case held that Louisiana by reason of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could not make it a misdemeanor to effect insurance on Louisiana risks with an insurance company not licensed to do business in Louisiana, where the insured through use of the mails contracted in New York for the policy. The St. Louis Cotton Compress case held invalid under the Due Process Clause an Arkansas tax on the premiums paid for a policy on Arkansas risks, made with an out-of-state company having no office or agents in Arkansas. The Connecticut General Lije Insurance case held invalid under the Due Process Clause a California tax on premiums paid in Connecticut by one insurance company to another for reinsurance of life insurance policies written in California on California residents, even though both insurance companies were authorized to do business in California. The Court stated:
“All that appellant did in effecting the reinsurance was done without the state and for its transaction no privilege or license by California was needful. The tax cannot be sustained either as laid on property, business done, or transactions carried on within the state, or as a tax on a privilege granted by the state.” 303 U. S., at 82.
The Texas Court of Civil Appeals, 340 S. W. 2d 339. and the Texas Supreme Court, feeling bound by these decisions, held the tax on premiums unconstitutional, 162 Tex. 8, 343 S. W. 2d 241. We granted certiorari, 368 U. S. 810.
The insurance transactions involved in the present litigation take place entirely outside Texas. The insurance, which is principally insurance against loss or liability arising from damage to property, is negotiated and paid for outside Texas. The policies are issued outside Texas. All losses arising under the policies are adjusted and paid outside Texas. The insurers are not licensed to do business in Texas, have no office or place of business in Texas, do not solicit business in Texas, have no agents in Texas, and do not investigate risks or claims in Texas.
The insured is not a domiciliary of Texas but a New York corporation doing business in Texas. Losses under the policies are payable not to Texas residents but to the insured at its principal office in New York City. The only connection between Texas and the insurance transactions is the fact that the property covered by the insurance is physically located in Texas.
We need not decide de novo whether the results (and the reasons given) in the Allgeyer, St. Louis Cotton Compress, and Connecticut General Life Insurance decisions are sound and acceptable. For we have in the history of the McCarran-Ferguson Act an explicit, unequivocal statement that the Act was so designed as not to displace those three decisions. The House Report stated:
“It is not the intention of Congress in the enactment of this legislation to clothe the States with any power to regulate or tax the business of insurance beyond that which they had been held to possess prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Southeastern Underwriters Association case. Briefly, your committee is of the opinion that we should provide for the continued regulation and taxation of insurance by the States, subject always, however, to the limitations set out in the controlling decisions of the United States Supreme Court, as, for instance, in Allgeyer v. Louisiana (165 U. S. 578), St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas (260 U. S. 346), and Connecticut General Insurance Co. v. Johnson (303 U. S. 77), which hold, inter alia, that a State does not have power to tax contracts of insurance or reinsurance entered into outside its jurisdiction by individuals or corporations resident or domiciled therein covering risks within the State or to regulate such transactions in any way.” H. R. Rep. No. 143, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3.
Senator McCarran, after reading the foregoing part of the House Report during the Senate debate, stated, “. . . we give to the States no more powers than those they previously had, and we take none from them.” 91 Cong. Rec. 1442.
So, while Congress provided in 15 U. S. C. § 1012 (a) that the insurance business “shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business,” it indicated without ambiguity that such state “regulation or taxation” should be kept within the limits set by the Allgeyer, St. Louis Cotton Compress, and Connecticut General Life Insurance decisions.
The power of Congress to grant protection to interstate commerce against state regulation or taxation (.Bethlehem Steel Co. v. State Board, 330 U. S. 767, 775-776; Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 235-236) or to withhold it (In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, 560 et seq.; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, supra) is so complete that its ideas of policy should prevail.
Congress, of course, does not have the final say as to what constitutes due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. And while Congress has authority by § 5 of that Amendment to enforce its provisions (Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167), the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not purport to do so. We have, of course, freedom to change our decisions on the constitutionality of laws. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 665. But the policy announced by Congress in the McCarran-Ferguson Act was one on which the industry had reason to rely since 1897, when the Allgeyer decision was announced; and we are advised by an amicus brief how severe the impact would be on small insurance companies should the old rule be changed. When, therefore, Congress has posited a regime of state regulation on the continuing validity of specific prior decision's (see Federal Trade Comm’n v. Travelers Health Assn., 362 U. S. 293, 301-302), we should be loath to change them.
We have accepted the status quo in comparable situations. After this Court held in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, that a State could not provide compensation to stevedores doing maritime work, Congress enacted the Longshoremen’s Act. See S. Rep. No. 973, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 16; H. R. Rep. No. 1767, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 20. In Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U. S. 249, we took note of the passage of laws which “accepted the Jensen line of demarcation between state and federal jurisdiction” (id., at 256), which line we also accepted in spite of the fact that the Jensen case had become in the eyes of some a derelict in the stream of the law.
In Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U. S. 356, 357, we refused to re-examine a prior decision holding baseball not to be covered by the antitrust laws, stating that “[t]he business has thus been left for thirty years to develop, on the understanding that it was not subject to existing antitrust legislation.” In that case Congress had remained silent, not changing the law. Here Congress tailored the new regulations for the insurance business with specific reference to our prior decisions. Since these earlier decisions are part of the arch on which the new structure rests, we refrain from disturbing them lest we change the design that Congress fashioned.
Affirmed.
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.
15 U. S. C. § 1011 provides:
“Congress declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.”
15 U. S. C. § 1012 provides, so far as relevant here:
“(a) The business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.”
14 Vernon’s Tex. Civ. Stat., 1952 (Cum. Supp. 1961), Art. 21.38, § 2 (e) provides:
“If any person, firm, association or corporation shall purchase from an insurer not licensed in the State of Texas a policy of insurance covering risks within this State in a manner other than through an insurance agent licensed as such under the laws of the State of Texas, such person, firm, association or corporation shall pay to the Board a tax of five per cent (5%) of the amount of the gross premiums paid by such insured for such insurance. Such tax shall be paid not later than thirty (30) days from the date on which such premium is paid to the unlicensed insurer.”
Supra, note 1.
As we stated in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, supra, at 434:
“The power oí Congress over commerce exercised entirely without reference to coordinated action of the states is not restricted, except as the Constitution expressly provides, by any limitation which forbids it to discriminate against interstate commerce and in favor of local trade. Its plenary scope enables Congress not only to promote but also to prohibit interstate commerce, as it has done frequently and for a great variety of reasons. That power does not run down a one-way street or one of narrowly fixed dimensions. Congress may keep the way open, confine it broadly or closely, or close it entirely, subject only to the restrictions placed upon its authority by other constitutional provisions and the.requirement that it shall not invade the domains of action reserved exclusively for the states.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether the health risk posed by involuntary exposure of a prison inmate to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) can form the basis of a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment.
I
Respondent is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Nevada prison system. At the time that this case arose, respondent was an inmate in the Nevada State Prison in Carson City, Nevada. Respondent filed a pro se civil rights complaint in United States District Court under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, naming as defendants the director of the prison, the warden, the associate warden, a unit counselor, and the manager of the prison store. The complaint, dated December 18, 1986, alleged that respondent was assigned to a cell with another inmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. App. 6. The complaint also stated that cigarettes were sold to inmates without properly informing of the health hazards a nonsmoking inmate would encounter by sharing a room with an inmate who smoked, id., at 7-8, and that certain cigarettes burned continuously, releasing some type of chemical, id., at 9. Respondent complained of certain health problems allegedly caused by exposure to cigarette smoke. Respondent sought injunctive relief and damages for, inter alia, subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment by jeopardizing his health. Id., at 14.
The parties consented to a jury trial before a Magistrate. The Magistrate viewed respondent’s suit as presenting two issues of law: (1) whether respondent had a constitutional right to be housed in a smoke-free environment, and (2) whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to respondent’s serious medical needs. App. to Pet. for Cert. D2-D3. The Magistrate, after citing applicable authority, concluded that respondent had no constitutional right to be free from cigarette smoke: While “society may be moving toward an opinion as to the propriety of non-smoking and a smoke-free environment,” society cannot yet completely agree on the resolution of these issues. Id., at D3, D6. The Magistrate found that respondent nonetheless could state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs if he could prove the underlying facts, but held that respondent had failed to present evidence showing either medical problems that were traceable to cigarette smoke or deliberate indifference to them. Id., at D6-D10. The Magistrate therefore granted petitioners’ motion for a directed verdict and granted judgment for the defendants. Id., at DIO.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Magistrate’s grant of a directed verdict on the issue of deliberate indifference to respondent’s immediate medical symptoms. McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F. 2d 1500, 1512 (CA9 1991). The Court of Appeals also held that the defendants were immune from liability for damages since there was at the time no clearly established law imposing liability for exposing prisoners to ETS. Although it agreed that respondent did not have a constitutional right to a smoke-free prison environment, the court held that respondent had stated a valid cause of action under the Eighth Amendment by alleging that he had been involuntarily exposed to levels of ETS that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to his future health. Id., at 1509. In support of this judgment, the court noticed scientific opinion supporting respondent’s claim that sufficient exposure to ETS could endanger one’s health. Id., at 1505-1507. The court also concluded that society’s attitude had evolved to the point that involuntary exposure to unreasonably dangerous levels of ETS violated current standards of decency. Id., at 1508. The court therefore held that the Magistrate erred by directing a verdict without permitting respondent to prove that his exposure to ETS was sufficient to constitute an unreasonable danger to his future health.
Petitioners sought review in this Court. In the meantime, this Court had decided Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U. S. 294 (1991), which held that, while the Eighth Amendment applies to conditions of confinement that are not formally imposed as a sentence for a crime, such claims require proof of a subjective component, and that where the claim alleges inhumane conditions of confinement or failure to attend to a prisoner’s medical needs, the standard for that state of mind is the “deliberate indifference” standard of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 (1976). We granted certiorari in this case, vacated the judgment below, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Seiter. 502 U. S. 903 (1991).
On remand, the Court of Appeals noted that Seiter added an additional subjective element that respondent had to prove to make out an Eighth Amendment claim, but did not vitiate its determination that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to house a prisoner in an environment exposing him to levels of ETS that pose an unreasonable risk of harming his health — the objective component of respondent’s Eighth Amendment claim. McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F. 2d 853, 854 (CA9 1992). The Court of Appeals therefore reinstated its previous judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with its prior opinion and with Seiter. 959 F. 2d, at 854.
Petitioners again sought review in this Court, contending that the decision below was in conflict with the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Clemmons v. Bohannon, 956 F. 2d 1523 (1992). We granted certiorari. 505 U. S. 1218 (1992). We affirm.
II
The petition for certiorari which we granted not only challenged the Court of Appeals’ holding that respondent had stated a valid Eighth Amendment claim, but also asserted, as did its previous petition, that it was improper for the Court of Appeals to decide the question at all. Pet. for Cert. 25-29. Petitioners claim that respondent’s complaint rested only on the alleged current effects of exposure to cigarette smoke, not on the possible future effects; that the issues framed for trial were likewise devoid of such an issue; and that such a claim was not presented, briefed, or argued on appeal and that the Court of Appeals erred in sua sponte deciding it. Ibid. Brief for Petitioners 46-49. The Court of Appeals was apparently of the view that the claimed entitlement to a smoke-free environment subsumed the claim that exposure to ETS could endanger one’s future health. From its examination of the record, the court stated that “[b]oth before and during trial, McKinney sought to litigate the degree of his exposure to ETS and the actual and potential effects of such exposure on his health,” 924 F. 2d, at 1503; stated that the Magistrate had excluded evidence relating to the potential health effects of exposure to ETS; and noted that two of the issues on appeal addressed whether the Magistrate erred in holding as a matter of law that compelled exposure to ETS does not violate a prisoner’s rights and whether it was error to refuse to appoint an expert witness to testify about the health effects of such exposure. While the record is ambiguous and the Court of Appeals might well have affirmed the Magistrate, we hesitate to dispose of this case on the basis that the court misread the record before it. We passed over the same claim when we vacated the judgment below and remanded when the case was first before us, Pet. for Cert., O. T. 1991, No. 91-269, pp. 23-26, and the primary question on which certiorari was granted, and the question to which petitioners have devoted the bulk of their briefing and argument, is whether the court below erred in holding that McKinney had stated an Eighth Amendment claim on which relief could be granted by alleging that his compelled exposure to ETS poses an unreasonable risk to his health.
Ill
It is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. As we said in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U. S. 189, 199-200 (1989):
“[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well being. . . . The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs — e. g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety — it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment. .. .”
Contemporary standards of decency require no less. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S., at 103-104. In Estelle, we concluded that although accidental or inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care to a prisoner would not violate the Eighth Amendment, “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners” violates the Amendment because it constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain contrary to contemporary standards of decency. Id., at 104, Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U. S. 294 (1991), later held that a claim that the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement violate the Eighth Amendment requires an inquiry into the prison officials’ state of mind. “ ‘Whether one characterizes the treatment received by [the prisoner] as inhuman conditions of confinement, failure to attend to his medical needs, or a combination of both, it is appropriate to apply the “deliberate indifference” standard articulated in Estelle.’” Id., at 303.
Petitioners are well aware of these decisions, but they earnestly submit that unless McKinney can prove that he is currently suffering serious medical problems caused by exposure to ETS, there can be no violation of the Eighth Amendment. That Amendment, it is urged, does not protect against prison conditions that merely threaten to cause health problems in the future, no matter how grave and imminent the threat.
We have great difficulty agreeing that prison authorities may not be deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s current health problems but may ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year. In Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678, 682 (1978), we noted that inmates in punitive isolation were crowded into cells and that some of them had infectious maladies such as hepatitis and venereal disease. This was one of the prison conditions for which the Eighth Amendment required a remedy, even though it was not alleged that the likely harm would occur immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed. We would think that a prison inmate also could successfully complain about demonstrably unsafe drinking water without waiting for an attack of dysentery. Nor can we hold that prison officials may be deliberately indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.
That the Eighth Amendment protects against future harm to inmates is not a novel proposition. The Amendment, as we have said, requires that inmates be furnished with the basic human needs, one of which is “reasonable safety.” DeShaney, supra, at 200. It is “cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 315-316 (1982). It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them. The Courts of Appeals have plainly recognized that a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event. Two of them were cited with approval in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U. S. 337, 352, n. 17 (1981). Gates v. Collier, 501 F. 2d 1291 (CA5 1974), held that inmates were entitled to relief under the Eighth Amendment when they proved threats to personal safety from exposed electrical wiring, deficient firefighting measures, and the mingling of inmates with serious contagious diseases with other prison inmates. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F. 2d 559, 572 (CA10 1980), stated that a prisoner need not wait until he is actually assaulted before obtaining relief. As respondent points out, the Court of Appeals cases to the effect that the Eighth Amendment protects against sufficiently imminent dangers as well as current unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and suffering are legion. See Brief for Respondent 24-27. We thus reject petitioners’ central thesis that only deliberate indifference to current serious health problems of inmates is actionable under the Eighth Amendment.
The United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners does not contend that the Amendment permits “even those conditions of confinement that truly pose a significant risk of proximate and substantial harm to an inmate, so long as the injury has not yet occurred and the inmate does not yet suffer from its effects.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19. Hutto v. Finney, the United States observes, teaches as much. The Government recognizes that there may be situations in which exposure to toxic or similar substances would “present a risk of sufficient likelihood or magnitude — and in which there is a sufficiently broad consensus that exposure of anyone to the substance should therefore be prevented — that” the Amendment’s protection would be available even though the effects of exposure might not be manifested for some time. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19. But the United States submits that the harm to any particular individual from exposure to ETS is speculative, that the risk is not sufficiently grave to implicate a “ ‘serious medical nee[d],’ ” and that exposure to ETS is not contrary to current standards of decency. Id., at 20-22. It would be premature for us, however, as a matter of law to reverse the Court of Appeals on the basis suggested by the United States. The Court of Appeals has ruled that McKinney’s claim is that the level of ETS to which he has been involuntarily exposed is such that his future health is unreasonably endangered and has remanded to permit McKinney to attempt to prove his case. In the course of such proof, he must also establish that it is contrary to current standards of decency for anyone to be so exposed against his will and that prison officials are deliberately indifferent to his plight. We cannot rule at this juncture that it will be impossible for McKinney, on remand, to prove an Eighth Amendment violation based on exposure to ETS.
IV
We affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals that McKinney states a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment by alleging that petitioners have, with deliberate indifference, exposed him to levels of ETS that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health. We also affirm the remand to the District Court to provide an opportunity for McKinney to prove his allegations, which will require him to prove both the subjective and objective elements necessary to prove an Eighth Amendment violation. The District Court will have the usual authority to control the order of proof, and if there is a failure of proof on the first element that it chooses to consider, it would not be an abuse of discretion to give judgment for petitioners without taking further evidence. McKinney must also prove that he is entitled to the remedy of an injunction.
With respect to the objective factor, McKinney must show that he himself is being exposed to unreasonably high levels of ETS. Plainly relevant to this determination is the fact that McKinney has been moved from Carson City to Ely State Prison and is no longer the cellmate of a five-pack-a-day smoker. While he is subject to being moved back to Carson City and to being placed again in a cell with a heavy smoker, the fact is that at present he is not so exposed. Moreover, the director of the Nevada State Prisons adopted a formal smoking policy on January 10, 1992. This policy restricts smoking in “program, food preparation/serving, recreational and medical areas” to specifically designated areas.
It further provides that wardens may, contingent on space availability, designate nonsmoking areas in dormitory settings, and that institutional classification committees may make reasonable efforts to respect the wishes of nonsmokers where double bunking obtains. See App. to Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae A1-A2. It is possible that the new policy will be administered in a way that will minimize the risk to McKinney and make it impossible for him to prove that he will be exposed to unreasonable risk with respect to his future health or that he is now entitled to an injunction.
Also with respect to the objective factor, determining whether McKinney’s conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment requires more than a scientific and statistical inquiry into the seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that such injury to health will actually be caused by exposure to ETS. It also requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk. In other words, the prisoner must show that the risk of which he complains is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.
On remand, the subjective factor, deliberate indifference, should be determined in light of the prison authorities’ current attitudes and conduct, which may have changed considerably since the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Indeed, the adoption of the smoking policy mentioned above will bear heavily on the inquiry into deliberate indifference. In this respect we note that at oral argument McKinney’s counsel was of the view that depending on how the new policy was administered, it could be very difficult to demonstrate that prison authorities are ignoring the possible dangers posed by exposure to ETS. Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. The inquiry into this factor also would be an appropriate vehicle to consider arguments regarding the realities of prison administration.
V
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
This was true of the defendants’ alleged liability for housing respondent with a cellmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes each day.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies' owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.
In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS's argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.
Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price-as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.
Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.
In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.
As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can "opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs." Post, at 2787 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose "disadvantages... on others" or that require "the general public [to] pick up the tab." Post, at 2787. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that "RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on... thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby." Post, at 2787.1 The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.
I
A
Congress enacted RFRA in 1993 in order to provide very broad protection for religious liberty. RFRA's enactment came three years after this Court's decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), which largely repudiated the method of analyzing free-exercise claims that had been used in cases like Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). In determining whether challenged government actions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, those decisions used a balancing test that took into account whether the challenged action imposed a substantial burden on the practice of religion, and if it did, whether it was needed to serve a compelling government interest. Applying this test, the Court held in Sherbert that an employee who was fired for refusing to work on her Sabbath could not be denied unemployment benefits. 374 U.S., at 408-409, 83 S.Ct. 1790. And in Yoder, the Court held that Amish children could not be required to comply with a state law demanding that they remain in school until the age of 16 even though their religion required them to focus on uniquely Amish values and beliefs during their formative adolescent years. 406 U.S., at 210-211, 234-236, 92 S.Ct. 1526.
In Smith, however, the Court rejected "the balancing test set forth in Sherbert." 494 U.S., at 883, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Smith concerned two members of the Native American Church who were fired for ingesting peyote for sacramental purposes. When they sought unemployment benefits, the State of Oregon rejected their claims on the ground that consumption of peyote was a crime, but the Oregon Supreme Court, applying the Sherbert test, held that the denial of benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause. 494 U.S., at 875, 110 S.Ct. 1595.
This Court then reversed, observing that use of the Sherbert test whenever a person objected on religious grounds to the enforcement of a generally applicable law "would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." 494 U.S., at 888, 110 S.Ct. 1595. The Court therefore held that, under the First Amendment, "neutral, generally applicable laws may be applied to religious practices even when not supported by a compelling governmental interest." City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 514, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997).
Congress responded to Smith by enacting RFRA. "[L]aws [that are] 'neutral' toward religion," Congress found, "may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(2); see also § 2000bb(a)(4). In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." § 2000bb-1(a).2 If the Government substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion, under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government "demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." § 2000bb-1(b).3
As enacted in 1993, RFRA applied to both the Federal Government and the States, but the constitutional authority invoked for regulating federal and state agencies differed. As applied to a federal agency, RFRA is based on the enumerated power that supports the particular agency's work,4 but in attempting to regulate the States and their subdivisions, Congress relied on its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the First Amendment. 521 U.S., at 516-517, 117 S.Ct. 2157. In City of Boerne, however, we held that Congress had overstepped its Section 5 authority because "[t]he stringent test RFRA demands" "far exceed[ed] any pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct under the Free Exercise Clause as interpreted in Smith." Id., at 533-534, 117 S.Ct. 2157. See also id., at 532, 117 S.Ct. 2157.
Following our decision in City of Boerne, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. That statute, enacted under Congress's Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category of governmental actions. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 715-716, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005). And, what is most relevant for present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA's definition of the "exercise of religion." See § 2000bb-2(4) (importing RLUIPA definition). Before RLUIPA, RFRA's definition made reference to the First Amendment. See § 2000bb-2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining "exercise of religion" as "the exercise of religion under the First Amendment"). In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the "exercise of religion" to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." § 2000cc-5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept "be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution." § 2000cc-3(g).5
B
At issue in these cases are HHS regulations promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010(ACA), 124 Stat. 119. ACA generally requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer "a group health plan or group health insurance coverage" that provides "minimum essential coverage." 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(f)(2); §§ 4980H(a), (c)(2). Any covered employer that does not provide such coverage must pay a substantial price. Specifically, if a covered employer provides group health insurance but its plan fails to comply with ACA's group-health-plan requirements, the employer may be required to pay $100 per day for each affected "individual." §§ 4980D(a)-(b). And if the employer decides to stop providing health insurance altogether and at least one full-time employee enrolls in a health plan and qualifies for a subsidy on one of the government-run ACA exchanges, the employer must pay $2,000 per year for each of its full-time employees. §§ 4980H(a), (c)(1).
Unless an exception applies, ACA requires an employer's group health plan or group-health-insurance coverage to furnish "preventive care and screenings" for women without "any cost sharing requirements." 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). Congress itself, however, did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered. Instead, Congress authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a component of HHS, to make that important and sensitive decision. Ibid. The HRSA in turn consulted the Institute of Medicine, a nonprofit group of volunteer advisers, in determining which preventive services to require. See 77 Fed.Reg. 8725-8726 (2012).
In August 2011, based on the Institute's recommendations, the HRSA promulgated the Women's Preventive Services Guidelines. See id., at 8725-8726, and n. 1; online at http:// hrsa. gov/ womens guidelines (all Internet materials as visited June 26, 2014, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). The Guidelines provide that nonexempt employers are generally required to provide "coverage, without cost sharing" for "[a]ll Food and Drug Administration [ (FDA) ] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling." 77 Fed.Reg. 8725 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although many of the required, FDA-approved methods of contraception work by preventing the fertilization of an egg, four of those methods (those specifically at issue in these cases) may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. See Brief for HHS in No. 13-354, pp. 9-10, n. 4; 6 FDA, Birth Control: Medicines to Help You.7
HHS also authorized the HRSA to establish exemptions from the contraceptive mandate for "religious employers." 45 CFR § 147.131(a). That category encompasses "churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches," as well as "the exclusively religious activities of any religious order." See ibid (citing 26 U.S.C. §§ 6033(a)(3)(A)(i), (iii)). In its Guidelines, HRSA exempted these organizations from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. See http:// hrsa. gov/ womens guidelines.
In addition, HHS has effectively exempted certain religious nonprofit organizations, described under HHS regulations as "eligible organizations," from the contraceptive mandate. See 45 CFR § 147.131(b); 78 Fed.Reg. 39874 (2013). An "eligible organization" means a nonprofit organization that "holds itself out as a religious organization" and "opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services required to be covered... on account of religious objections." 45 CFR § 147.131(b). To qualify for this accommodation, an employer must certify that it is such an organization. § 147.131(b)(4). When a group-health-insurance issuer receives notice that one of its clients has invoked this provision, the issuer must then exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer's plan and provide separate payments for contraceptive services for plan participants without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the eligible organization, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries. § 147.131(c).8 Although this procedure requires the issuer to bear the cost of these services, HHS has determined that this obligation will not impose any net expense on issuers because its cost will be less than or equal to the cost savings resulting from the services. 78 Fed.Reg. 39877.9
In addition to these exemptions for religious organizations, ACA exempts a great many employers from most of its coverage requirements. Employers providing "grandfathered health plans"-those that existed prior to March 23, 2010, and that have not made specified changes after that date-need not comply with many of the Act's requirements, including the contraceptive mandate. 42 U.S.C. §§ 18011(a), (e). And employers with fewer than 50 employees are not required to provide health insurance at all. 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(c)(2).
All told, the contraceptive mandate "presently does not apply to tens of millions of people." 723 F.3d 1114, 1143 (C.A.10 2013). This is attributable, in large part, to grandfathered health plans: Over one-third of the 149 million nonelderly people in America with employer-sponsored health plans were enrolled in grandfathered plans in 2013. Brief for HHS in No. 13-354, at 53; Kaiser Family Foundation & Health Research & Educational Trust, Employer Health Benefits, 2013 Annual Survey 43, 221.10 The count for employees working for firms that do not have to provide insurance at all because they employ fewer than 50 employees is 34 million workers. See The Whitehouse, Health Reform for Small Businesses: The Affordable Care Act Increases Choice and Saving Money for Small Businesses 1.11
II
A
Norman and Elizabeth Hahn and their three sons are devout members of the Mennonite Church, a Christian denomination. The Mennonite Church opposes abortion and believes that "[t]he fetus in its earliest stages... shares humanity with those who conceived it." 12
Fifty years ago, Norman Hahn started a wood-working business in his garage, and since then, this company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, has grown and now has 950 employees. Conestoga is organized under Pennsylvania law as a for-profit corporation. The Hahns exercise sole ownership of the closely held business; they control its board of directors and hold all of its voting shares. One of the Hahn sons serves as the president and CEO.
The Hahns believe that they are required to run their business "in accordance with their religious beliefs and moral principles." 917 F.Supp.2d 394, 402 (E.D.Pa.2013). To that end, the company's mission, as they see it, is to "operate in a professional environment founded upon the highest ethical, moral, and Christian principles." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The company's "Vision and Values Statements" affirms that Conestoga endeavors to "ensur[e] a reasonable profit in [a] manner that reflects [the Hahns'] Christian heritage." App. in No. 13-356, p. 94 (complaint).
As explained in Conestoga's board-adopted "Statement on the Sanctity of Human Life," the Hahns believe that "human life begins at conception."
724 F.3d 377, 382, and n. 5 (C.A.3 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is therefore "against [their] moral conviction to be involved in the termination of human life" after conception, which they believe is a "sin against God to which they are held accountable." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Hahns have accordingly excluded from the group-health-insurance plan they offer to their employees certain contraceptive methods that they consider to be abortifacients. Id., at 382.
The Hahns and Conestoga sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, seeking to enjoin application of ACA's contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health-insurance coverage for four FDA-approved contraceptives that may operate after the fertilization of an egg.13 These include two forms of emergency contraception commonly called "morning after" pills and two types of intrauterine devices.14
In opposing the requirement to provide coverage for the contraceptives to which they object, the Hahns argued that "it is immoral and sinful for [them] to intentionally participate in, pay for, facilitate, or otherwise support these drugs." Ibid. The District Court denied a preliminary injunction, see 917 F.Supp.2d, at 419, and the Third Circuit affirmed in a divided opinion, holding that "for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise" within the meaning of RFRA or the First Amendment. 724 F.3d, at 381. The Third Circuit also rejected the claims brought by the Hahns themselves because it concluded that the HHS "[m]andate does not impose any requirements on the Hahns" in their personal capacity. Id., at 389.
B
David and Barbara Green and their three children are Christians who own and operate two family businesses. Forty-five years ago, David Green started an arts-and-crafts store that has grown into a nationwide chain called Hobby Lobby. There are now 500 Hobby Lobby stores, and the company has more than 13,000 employees. 723 F.3d, at 1122. Hobby Lobby is organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law.
One of David's sons started an affiliated business, Mardel, which operates 35 Christian bookstores and employs close to 400 people. Ibid. Mardel is also organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law.
Though these two businesses have expanded over the years, they remain closely held, and David, Barbara, and their children retain exclusive control of both companies. Ibid. David serves as the CEO of Hobby Lobby, and his three children serve as the president, vice president, and vice CEO. See Brief for Respondents in No. 13-354, p. 8.15
Hobby Lobby's statement of purpose commits the Greens to "[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." App. in No. 13-354, pp. 134-135 (complaint). Each family member has signed a pledge to run the businesses in accordance with the family's religious beliefs and to use the family assets to support Christian ministries. 723 F.3d, at 1122. In accordance with those commitments, Hobby Lobby and Mardel stores close on Sundays, even though the Greens calculate that they lose millions in sales annually by doing so. Id., at 1122; App. in No. 13-354, at 136-137. The businesses refuse to engage in profitable transactions that facilitate or promote alcohol use; they contribute profits to Christian missionaries and ministries; and they buy hundreds of full-page newspaper ads inviting people to "know Jesus as Lord and Savior." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Like the Hahns, the Greens believe that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point. 723 F.3d, at 1122. They specifically object to the same four contraceptive methods as the Hahns and, like the Hahns, they have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved methods of birth control. Id., at 1125. Although their group-health-insurance plan predates the enactment of ACA, it is not a grandfathered plan because Hobby Lobby elected not to retain grandfathered status before the contraceptive mandate was proposed. Id., at 1124.
The Greens, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel sued HHS and other federal agencies and officials to challenge the contraceptive mandate under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause.16 The District Court denied a preliminary injunction, see 870 F.Supp.2d 1278 (W.D.Okla.2012), and the plaintiffs appealed, moving for initial en banc consideration. The Tenth Circuit granted that motion and reversed in a divided opinion. Contrary to the conclusion of the Third Circuit, the Tenth Circuit held that the Greens' two for-profit businesses are "persons" within the meaning of RFRA and therefore may bring suit under that law.
The court then held that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim. 723 F.3d, at 1140-1147. The court concluded that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened the exercise of religion by requiring the companies to choose between "compromis[ing] their religious beliefs" and paying a heavy fee-either "close to $475 million more in taxes every year" if they simply refused to provide coverage for the contraceptives at issue, or "roughly $26 million" annually if they "drop[ped] health-insurance benefits for all employees." Id., at 1141.
The court next held that HHS had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against the Greens' businesses and, in the alternative, that HHS had failed to prove that enforcement of the mandate was the "least restrictive means" of furthering the Government's asserted interests. Id., at 1143-1144 (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks omitted). After concluding that the companies had "demonstrated irreparable harm," the court reversed and remanded for the District Court to consider the remaining factors of the preliminary-injunction test. Id., at 1147.17
We granted certiorari. 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 678, 187 L.Ed.2d 544 (2013).
III
A
RFRA prohibits the "Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" unless the Government "demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-1(a), (b) (emphasis added). The first question that we must address is whether this provision applies to regulations that govern the activities of for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel.
HHS contends that neither these companies nor their owners can even be heard under RFRA. According to HHS, the companies cannot sue because they seek to make a profit for their owners, and the owners cannot be heard because the regulations, at least as a formal matter, apply only to the companies and not to the owners as individuals. HHS's argument would have dramatic consequences.
Consider this Court's decision in Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961) (plurality opinion). In that case, five Orthodox Jewish merchants who ran small retail businesses in Philadelphia challenged a Pennsylvania Sunday closing law as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Because of their faith, these merchants closed their shops on Saturday, and they argued that requiring them to remain shut on Sunday threatened them with financial ruin. The Court entertained their claim (although it ruled against them on the merits), and if a similar claim were raised today under RFRA against a jurisdiction still subject to the Act (for example, the District of Columbia, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(2)), the merchants would be entitled to be heard. According to HHS, however, if these merchants chose to incorporate their businesses-without in any way changing the size or nature of their businesses-they would forfeit all RFRA (and free-exercise) rights. HHS would put these merchants to a difficult choice: either give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits, available to their competitors, of operating as corporations.
As we have seen, RFRA was designed to provide very broad protection for religious liberty. By enacting RFRA, Congress went far beyond what this Court has held is constitutionally required.18 Is there any reason to think that the Congress that enacted such sweeping protection put small-business owners to the choice that HHS suggests? An examination of RFRA's text, to which we turn in the next part of this opinion, reveals that Congress did no such thing.
As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA's definition of "persons." But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations' financial well-being. And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.
In holding that Conestoga, as a "secular, for-profit corporation," lacks RFRA protection, the Third Circuit wrote as follows:
"General business corporations do not, separate and apart from the actions or belief systems of their individual owners or employees, exercise religion. They do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously-motivated actions separate and apart from the intention and direction of their individual actors." 724 F.3d, at 385 (emphasis added).
All of this is true-but quite beside the point. Corporations, "separate and apart from" the human beings who own, run, and are employed by them, cannot do anything at all.
B
1
As we noted above, RFRA applies to "a person's" exercise of religion, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-1(a), (b), and RFRA itself does not define the term "person." We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult "[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise." 1 U.S.C. § 1.
Under the Dictionary Act, "the wor[d] 'person'... include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals." Ibid.; see FCC v. AT & T Inc., 562 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 1177, 1182-1183, 179 L.Ed.2d 132 (2011) ("We have no doubt that 'person,' in a legal setting, often refers to artificial entities. The Dictionary Act makes that clear"). Thus, unless there is something about the RFRA context that "indicates otherwise," the Dictionary Act provides a quick, clear, and affirmative answer to the question whether the companies involved in these cases may be heard.
We see nothing in RFRA that suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition, and HHS makes little effort to argue otherwise. We have entertained RFRA and free-exercise claims brought by nonprofit corporations, see Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (RFRA);
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 694, 181 L.Ed.2d 650 (2012) (Free Exercise); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) (Free Exercise), and HHS concedes that a nonprofit corporation can be a "person" within the meaning of RFRA. See Brief for HHS in No. 13-354, at 17; Reply Brief in No. 13-354, at 7-8.19
This concession effectively dispatches any argument that the term "person" as used in RFRA does not reach the closely held corporations involved in these cases. No known understanding of the term "person" includes some but not all corporations. The term "person" sometimes encompasses artificial persons (as the Dictionary Act instructs), and it sometimes is limited to natural persons. But no conceivable definition of the term includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.20 Cf. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 378, 125 S.Ct. 716, 160 L.Ed.2d 734 (2005) ("To give th[e] same words a different meaning for each category would be to invent a statute rather than interpret one").
2
The principal argument advanced by HHS and the principal dissent regarding RFRA protection for Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel focuses not on the statutory term "person," but on the phrase "exercise of religion." According to HHS and the dissent, these corporations are not protected by RFRA because they cannot exercise religion. Neither HHS nor the dissent, however, provides any persuasive explanation for this conclusion.
Is it because of the corporate form? The corporate form alone cannot provide the explanation because, as we have pointed out, HHS concedes that nonprofit corporations can be protected by RFRA. The dissent suggests that nonprofit corporations are special because furthering their religious "autonomy... often furthers individual religious freedom as well." Post, at 2794 (quoting Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 342, 107 S.Ct. 2862, 97 L.Ed.2d 273 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)). But this principle applies equally to for-profit corporations: Furthering their religious freedom also "furthers individual religious freedom." In these cases, for example, allowing Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the Greens and the Hahns.21
If the corporate form is not enough, what about the profit-making objective? In Braunfeld, 366 U.S. 599, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563, we entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants, and the Court never even hinted that this objective precluded their claims. As the Court explained in a later case, the "exercise of religion" involves "not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts" that are "engaged in for religious reasons." Smith, 494 U.S., at 877, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Business practices that are compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within that definition. Thus, a law that "operates so as to make the practice of... religious beliefs more expensive" in the context of business activities imposes a burden on the exercise of religion. Braunfeld, supra, at 605, 81 S.Ct. 1144; see United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982) (recognizing that "compulsory participation in the social security system interferes with [Amish employers'] free exercise rights").
If, as Braunfeld recognized, a sole proprietorship that seeks to make a profit may assert a free-exercise claim,22 why can't Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel do the same?
Some lower court judges have suggested that RFRA does not protect for-profit corporations because the purpose of such corporations is simply to make money.23 This argument flies in the face of modern corporate law. "Each American jurisdiction today either expressly or by implication authorizes corporations to be formed under its general corporation act for any lawful purpose or business." 1 J. Cox & T. Hazen, Treatise of the Law of Corporations § 4:1, p. 224 (3d ed. 2010) (emphasis added); see 1A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 102 (rev. ed. 2010). While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
On March 24, 1965, a jury in a federal district court found petitioner guilty of violating the Mann Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2421 (1964 ed.), and a formal judgment was entered against him on the same day. Nine days later, on April 2, 1965, a new trial motion was filed by petitioner’s counsel alleging various errors at trial. Since Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 33 expressly requires that a new trial motion not based on newly discovered evidence be filed within five days of the verdict, petitioner’s motion was untimely and the District Court denied it on April 5, 1965. On April 12, 1965, seven days after the denial of the motion and 19 days after the judgment, petitioner through counsel filed a notice of appeal from his conviction. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely, a ruling in accord with the views of several other circuits but in conflict with those of the Tenth Circuit. Compare, e. g., United States v. Bertone, 249 F. 2d 156 (C. A. 3d Cir.), with Smith v. United States, 273 F. 2d 462 (C. A. 10th Cir.). Treating petitioner’s petition for mandamus as one for a writ of certiorari, we granted certiorari, 382 U. S. 890, to consider the timeliness question, left open in Lott v. United States, 367 U. S. 421, 425. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to allow petitioner’s appeal to be heard.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 (a)(2), entitled “Time for Taking Appeal,” provides in relevant part that “[a]n appeal by a defendant may be taken within 10 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from, but if a motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment has been made within the 10-day period an appeal from a judgment of conviction may be taken within 10 days after entry of the order denying the motion.” Plainly petitioner’s appeal was timely if this Rule is literally read since the appeal was filed within 10 days after denial of a new trial motion itself filed within 10 days of the judgment of conviction. To the contrary, the Government argues that a new trial motion, not based on newly discovered evidence, filed more than five days after the verdict and so destined to be rejected as untimely under R.ule 33 should not serve to give defendant an extension of time to appeal since there is no possibility the appeal will be avoided by a grant of the motion. Further support is found by the Government in a number of courts of appeals’ decisions adopting this view, in the history of Rule 37 (a)(2), and in a very recent amendment to that Rule which plainly adopts the Government’s basic approach for the future.
We believe competing interests outweigh the Government’s arguments. The literal language of Rule 37 (a) (2) sustains petitioner and even a perceptive reading of Rules 33 and 37 (a)(2) together would not dispel all doubt. A criminal appeal is at stake and under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 45 (b) the period for taking it may not be extended, while the rare and relatively brief delay in appeal allowed by petitioner’s construction causes very little injury to the Government. In these circumstances a reading that departs from the literal terms of Rule 37 (a)(2) by constricting the opportunity to appeal seems to us inappropriate. Because of our disposition we need not consider a suggestion by the Government, apparently not made to or passed on by the Court of Appeals in this case but first tentatively raised after the grant of certiorari and only later pressed upon us in oral argument, that on the present facts a motion for bail bond filed by petitioner nine days after his conviction may do unintended service as a notice of appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the Court’s judgment for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in O’Neal v. United States, 272 F. 2d 412.
The amendment, approved by the Court on February 28, 1966, and absent disapproval by Congress effective on July 1, 1966, pertinently provides: “If a timely motion in arrest of judgment or for a new trial on any ground other than newly discovered evidence has been made, an appeal from a judgment of conviction may be taken within 10 days after the entry of the order denying the motion.” (Emphasis added.) Thus the effect of the amendment is to embrace prospectively the Government’s view of the interrelationship between Rules 33 and 37 (a)(2). A contemporaneous amendment to Rule 33 would extend the time for filing a new trial motion from five to seven days.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question to be decided in this case is whether tenant farmers eligible for payments under the upland cotton program enacted as part of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 1194, 7 U. S. C. § 1444 (d) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), have standing to challenge the validity of a certain amended regulation promulgated by the respondent Secretary of Agriculture in 1966.
The upland cotton program incorporates a 1938 statute, § 8 (g) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, 52 Stat. 35 and 205, 16 U. S. C. § 590h (g), thereby permitting participants in the program to assign payments only “as security for cash or advances to finance making a crop.” The regulation of the respondent Secretary of Agriculture in effect until 1966 defined “making a crop” to exclude assignments to secure “the payment of the whole or any part of a cash . . . rent for a farm.”' 20 Fed. Reg. 6512 (1955). Following passage of the 1965 Act, however, and before any payments were made under it, the Secretary deleted the exclusion and amended the regulation expressly to define “making a crop” to include assignments to secure “the payment of cash rent for land used [for planting, cultivating, or harvesting]." 31 Fed. Reg. 2815 (1966).
Petitioners, cash-rent tenant farmers suing on behalf of themselves and other farmers similarly situated, filed this action in the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. They sought a declaratory judgment that the amended regulation is invalid and unauthorized by statute, and an injunction prohibiting the respondent federal officials from permitting assignments pursuant to the amended regulation. Their complaint alleged that the petitioners are suffering irreparable injury under the amended regulation, because it provides their landlord “with the opportunity to demand that [they] and all those similarly situated assign the [upland cotton program] benefits in advance as a condition to obtaining a lease to work the land.” As a result, the complaint stated, the tenants are required to obtain financing of all their other farm needs — groceries, clothing, tools, and the like — from the landlord as well, since prior to harvesting the crop they lack cash and any source of credit other than the landlord. He, in turn, the complaint alleges, levies such high prices and rates of interest on these supplies that the tenants’ crop profits are consumed each year in debt payments. Petitioners contend that they can attain á “modest measure of economic independence” if they are able to use their “advance subsidy payments . . . [to] form cooperatives to buy [supplies] at wholesale and reasonable prices in lieu of the excessive prices demanded by [the landlord] of . . . captive consumers with no funds to purchase elsewhere.” Thus, petitioners allege that they suffer injury in fact from the operation of the amended regulation.
The District Court, in an unreported opinion, held that the petitioners “lack standing to maintain this action against these [respondent] governmental officials,” because the latter “have not taken any action which directly invades any legally protected interest of the plaintiffs.” The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting. 398 F. 2d 398. It held that petitioners lacked standing not only because they alleged no invasion of a legally protected interest but also because petitioners “have not shown us, nor have we found, any provision of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 which either expressly or impliedly gives [petitioners] standing to challenge this administrative regulation or gives the Courts authority to review such administrative action.” Id., at 402. We granted certiorari. 395 U. S. 958.
Our decision in Data Processing Service v. Camp, ante, p. 150, leads us to reverse here.
First, there is no doubt that in the context of this litigation the tenant farmers, petitioners here, have the personal stake and interest that impart the concrete adverseness required by Article III.
Second, the tenant farmers are clearly within the zone of interests protected by the Act.
Implicit in the statutory provisions and their legislative history is a congressional intent that the Secretary protect the interests of tenant farmers. Both of the relevant statutes expressly enjoin the Secretary to do so. The Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 states that “[t]he Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to protect the interests of tenants . . . .” 79 Stat. 1196, 7 U. S. C. § 1444 (d) (10) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). Title 7 U. S. C. § 1444 (d) (13) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), as noted earlier, incorporates by reference § 8 (g), as amended, 52 Stat. 35 and 205, 16 U. S. C. § 590h (g). Section 8 (b) of that Act, in turn, provides that “the Secretary shall, as far as practicable, protect the interests of tenants . . . .” 52 Stat. 32, 16 U. S. C. § 590h (b). The legislative history of the “'making a crop” provision, though sparse, similarly , indicates a congressional intent to benefit the tenants. They are persons “aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute” as those words are used in 5 U. S. C. § 702 (1964 ed., Supp. IV).
Third, judicial review of the Secretary’s action is not precluded. The Court of Appeals rested its holding on the view that no provision of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965 “expressly or impliedly . . . gives the Courts authority to review such administrative action.” 398 F. 2d, at 402. Whether agency action is reviewable often poses difficult questions of congressional intent; and the Court must decide if Congress has in express or implied terms precluded judicial review or committed the challenged action entirely to administrative discretion.
The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 701 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), allows judicial review of agency action except where “(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” The amended regulation here under challenge was promulgated under 16 U. S. C. § 590d (3) which authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe such regulations, as he may deem proper to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” Plainly this provision does not expressly preclude judicial review, nor does any other provision in either the 1938 or 1965 Act. Nor does the authority to promulgate such regulations “as he may deem proper” in § 590d (3) constitute a commitment of the task of defining “making a crop” entirely to the discretionary judgment of the Executive Branch without the intervention of the courts. On the contrary, since the only or principal dispute relates to the meaning of the statutory term, the controversy must ultimately be resolved, not on the basis of matters within the special competence of the Secretary, but by judicial application of canons of statutory construction. See Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 363 U. S. 263, 268-270. “The role of the courts should, in particular, be viewed hospitably where . . . the question sought to be reviewed does not significantly engage the agency’s expertise. ‘[Wjhere the only or principal dispute relates to the meaning of the statutory term’. . . [the controversy] presents issues on which courts, and not [administrators], are relatively more expert.” Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U. S. 1, 14 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Therefore the permissive term “as he may deem proper,” by itself, is not to be read as a congressional command which precludes a judicial determination of the correct application of the governing canons.
The question then becomes whether nonreviewability can fairly be inferred. As we said in Data Processing Service, preclusion of judicial review of administrative action adjudicating private rights is not lightly to be inferred. See Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184; Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U. S. 579; Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288; American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94. Indeed, judicial review of such administrative action is the rule, and nonreview-ability an exception which must be demonstrated. In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140, we held that “judicial review of a final agency action by an aggrieved person will not be cut off unless there is persuasive reason to believe that such was the purpose of Congress.” A clear command of the statute will preclude review; and such a command of the statute may be inferred from its purpose. Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U. S. 297. It is, however, “only upon a showing of 'clear and convincing evidence’ of a contrary legislative intent" that the courts should restrict access to judicial review. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, supra, at 141. The right of judicial review is ordinarily inferred where congressional intent to protect the interests of the class of which the plaintiff is a member can be found; in such cases, unless members of the protected class may have judicial review the statutory objectives might not be realized. See the Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258; Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities, supra.
We hold that the statutory scheme at issue here is to be read as evincing a congressional intent that petitioners may have judicial review of the Secretary’s action.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals and of the District Court are vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for a hearing on the merits.
It is so ordered.
The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized by 7 U. S. C. § 1444 (d) (5) (1964 ed., Supp. IV) to pay a farmer in advance of tire growing season up to 50% of the estimated benefits due him. Section 1444 (d) (13) (1964 ed., Supp. IV) authorizes the farmer to assign such benefits subject to the limitations of § 8 (g) added by the 1938 Act, 16 U. S. C. § 590h (g). Section 8 (g) as enacted in 1938 and as it read in 1965 established an exception to the general prohibition against assignment of federal monies in the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U. S. C. § 203. Section 8 (g) provided:
“A payment which may be made to a farmer under this section, may be assigned, without discount, by him in writing as security for cash or advances to finance making a crop. Such assignment shall be signed by the farmer and witnessed by a member of the county or other local committee .... Such assignment shall include the statement that the assignment is not made to pay or secure any preexisting indebtedness. This provision shall not authorize any suit against or impose any liability upon the Secretary ... if payment to the farmer is made without regard to the existence of any such assignment.” 52 Stat. 35 and 205, 16 U. S. C. § 590h (g) (emphasis added).
Section 8 (g) was amended by 80 Stat. 1167 (1966) to permit assignments not only to finance “making a crop” but also to fund “handling or marketing an agricultural commodity, or performing a conservation practice.” 16 U. S. C. § 590h (g) (1964 ed., Supp. IV).
20 Fed. Reg. 6512 (1955) provided:
“Payment may be assigned to finance making a crop. A payment which may be made to a farmer . . . under section 8 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, may be assigned only as security for cash or advances to finance making a crop for the current crop year. To finance making a crop means (a) to finance the planting, cultivating, or harvesting of a crop, including the purchase of equipment required therefor; (b) to provide food, clothing, and other necessities required by the assignor or persons dependent upon the assignor; or (c) to finance the carrying out of soil or water conservation practices. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to authorize an assignment given to secure the payment of the whole or any part of the purchase price of a farm or the payment of the whole or any part of a cash or fixed commodity rent for a farm.”
32 Fed. Reg. 14921 (1967), 7 CFR § 709.3 (1969) now provides:
“Purposes jor which a payment may he assigned.
“(a) A payment which may be made to a producer under any program to which this part is applicable may be assigned only as security for cash or advances to finance making a crop,, handling or marketing an agricultural commodity, or performing a conservation practice, for the current crop year. No assignment may be made to secure or pay any preexisting indebtedness of any nature whatsoever.
“(b) To finance making a crop means (1) to finance the planting, cultivating, or harvesting of a crop, including the purchase of equipment required therefor and the payment of cash rent for land used therefor, or (2) to provide food, clothing, and other necessities required by the producer or persons dependent upon him.
“(c) Nothing contained herein shall be construed to authorize an assignment given to secure the payment of the whole or any part of the purchase price of a farm or the payment of the whole or any part of a fixed commodity rent for a farm.”
The respondents, in addition to the Secretary of Agriculture, are the State Executive Director of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service in Alabama, and the administrator of that Service in the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The complaint also included counts against petitioners’ landlord alleging that he acted improperly to deprive them of their right to receive subsidy payments, and, further, that some of the petitioners had been illegally evicted because of their participation in litigation with respect to the cotton program, and, in the case of one petitioner, because of his candidacy for Alabama Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service county committeeman. The District. Court denied the landlord’s motion to dismiss these counts and transferred them for trial to the Southern District of Alabama. That ruling is not before us.
The complaint stated that some of the petitioners “were denied the right to work the land” when they refused to execute assignments to their landlord. The complaint also alleged that “[p]laintiffs have been tenant farmers on this land from eleven to sixty-one years . . . and [two of them] have been on this land all their lives.”
In connection with the amended regulations, the Secretary issued under § 1444 (d) (10) various rules designed to ensure that tenants receive their fair share of the federal payments. 31 Fed. Reg. 4887-4888; 7 CFR §§ 722.817, 794.3.
See the remarks of Representative Fulmer, 82 Cong. Rec. 844 (1937), and of Senator Adams, id., at 1756. The fact that assignments could be made at all indicated a congressional concern for the fanners’ welfare, in light of the general statutory prohibition on assignment of federal claims embodied in the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U. S. C. § 203. This concern was noted in a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture to the President of the Senate in January 1952, in which the Secretary stated that § 8 (g) “was enacted for the purpose of creating additional credit to farmers to assist them in financing farming operations.” S. Rep. No. 1305, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 3.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 April 1986, petitioner, Shirley Irwin, was fired from his job by the Veterans’ Administration (VA), which was subsequently redesignated as respondent Department of Veterans Affairs. Irwin contacted an equal employment opportunity counselor and filed a complaint with the VA, alleging that the VA had unlawfully discharged him on the basis of his race and physical disability. The VA dismissed Irwin’s complaint, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) affirmed that decision by a letter dated March 19, 1987. The letter, which was sent to both Irwin and his attorney, expressly informed them that Irwin had the right to file a civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., within 30 days of receipt of the EEOC notice. According to Irwin, he did not receive the EEOC’s letter until April 7, 1987, and the letter to his attorney arrived at the attorney’s office on March 23, 1987, while the attorney was out of the country. The attorney did not learn of the EEOC’s action until his return on April 10, 1987.
Irwin filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 6, 1987, 44 days after the EEOC notice was received at his attorney’s office, but 29 days after the date on which he claimed he received the letter. The complaint alleged that the VA discriminated against him because of his race, age, and handicap, in violation of 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq.; 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq.; 87 Stat. 390, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §791 et seq.; and the First and Fifth Amendments. Respondent VA moved to dismiss, asserting, inter alia, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was not filed within 30 days of the EEOC’s decision as specified in 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-16(c). The District Court granted the motion.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 874 F. 2d 1092 (1989). The court held that the 30-day period begins to run on the date that the EEOC right-to-sue letter is delivered to the offices of formally designated counsel or to the claimant, even if counsel himself did not actually receive notice until later. Id., at 1094. The Court of Appeals further determined that the 30-day span allotted under § 2000e-16(c) operates as an absolute jurisdictional limit. Id., at 1096. Accordingly, it reasoned that the District Court could not excuse Irwin’s late filing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction over his untimely claim. Ibid. That holding is in direct conflict with the decisions of four other Courts of Appeals.
We granted certiorari to determine when the 30-day period under §2000e-16(c) begins to run and to resolve the Circuit conflict over whether late-filed claims are jurisdictionally barred. 493 U. S. 1069 (1990).
Section 2000e-16(c) provides that an employment discrimination complaint against the Federal Government under Title VTI must be filed “[wjithin thirty days of receipt of notice of final action taken” by the EEOC. The Court of Appeals determined that a notice of final action is “received” when the EEOC delivers its notice to a claimant or the claimant’s attorney, whichever comes first. Id., at 1094. Petitioner argues that the clock does not begin until the claimant himself has notice of his right to sue.
We conclude that Irwin’s complaint filed in the District Court was untimely. As the Court of Appeals observed, § 2000e-16(c) requires only that the EEOC notification letter be “received”; it does not specify receipt by the claimant rather than by the claimant’s designated representative. There is no question but that petitioner appeared by his attorney in the EEOC proceeding. Under our system of representative litigation, “each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have ‘notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.’” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626, 634 (1962) (quoting Smith v. Ayer, 101 U. S. 320, 326 (1880)). Congress has endorsed this sensible practice in the analogous provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that “[wjhenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney the service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party is ordered by the court.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 5(b). To read the term “receipt” to mean only “actual receipt by the claimant” would render the practice of notification through counsel a meaningless exercise. If Congress intends to depart from the common and established practice of providing notification through counsel, it must do so expressly. See Decker v. Anheuser-Busch, 632 F. 2d 1221, 1224 (CA5 1980).
We also reject Irwin’s contention that there is a material difference between receipt by an attorney and receipt by that attorney’s office for purposes of §2000e-16(c). The lower federal courts have consistently held that notice to an attorney’s office which is acknowledged by a representative of that office qualifies as notice to the client. See Ringgold v. National Maintenance Corp., 796 F. 2d 769 (CA5 1986); Josiah-Faeduwor v. Communications Satellite Corp., 251 U. S. App. D. C. 346, 785 F. 2d 344 (1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b) also permits notice to a litigant to be made by delivery of papers to the litigant’s attorney’s office. The practical effect of a contrary rule would be to encourage factual disputes about when actual notice was received, and thereby create uncertainty in an area of the law where certainty is much to be desired.
The fact that petitioner did not strictly comply with § 2000e-16(c)’s filing deadline does not, however, end our inquiry. Petitioner contends that even if he failed to timely file, his error may be excused under equitable tolling principles. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument on the ground that the filing period contained in § 2000e-16(c) is jurisdictional, and therefore the District Court lacked authority to consider his equitable claims. The court reasoned that §2000e-16(c) applies to suits against the Federal Government and thus is a condition of Congress’ waiver of sovereign immunity. Since waivers of sovereign immunity are traditionally construed narrowly, the court determined that strict compliance with §2000e-16(c) is a necessary predicate to a Title VII suit.
Respondents correctly observe that § 2000e-16(c) is a condition to the waiver of sovereign immunity and thus must be strictly construed. See Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U. S. 310 (1986). But our previous cases dealing with the effect of time limits in suits against the Government have not been entirely consistent, even though the cases may be distinguished on their facts. In United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 94, n. 10 (1985), we stated that we were leaving open the general question whether principles of equitable tolling, waiver, and estoppel apply against the Government when it involves a statutory filing deadline. But, as Justice White points out in his concurrence, post, at 99, nearly 30 years earlier in Soriano v. United States, 352 U. S. 270 (1957), we held the petitioner’s claim to be jurisdictionally barred, saying that “Congress was entitled to assume that the limitation period it prescribed meant just that period and no more.” Id., at 276. More recently, in Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S. 467, 479 (1986), we explained that “we must be careful not to ‘assume the authority to narrow the waiver that Congress intended,’ or construe the waiver ‘unduly restrictively’ ” (citation omitted).
Title 42 U. S. C. §2000e~16(c) provides in relevant part:
“Within thirty days of receipt of notice of final action taken by . . . the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ... an employee or applicant for employment, if aggrieved by the final disposition of his complaint, or by the failure to take final action on his complaint, may file a civil action as provided in section 2000e-5 of this title . . . .”
The phraseology of this particular statutory time limit is probably very similar to some other statutory limitations on suits against the Government, but probably not to all of them. In the present statute, Congress said that “[w]ithin thirty days ... an employee . . . may file a civil action . . . .” In Soriano, supra, at 271, n. 1, Congress provided that “[e]very claim . . . shall be barred unless the petition ... is filed . . . within six years . . . .” An argument can undoubtedly be made that the latter language is more stringent than the former, but we are not persuaded that the difference between them is enough to manifest a different congressional intent with respect to the availability of equitable tolling. Thus a continuing effort on our part to decide each case on an ad hoc basis, as we appear to have done in the past, would have the disadvantage of continuing unpredictability without the corresponding advantage of greater fidelity to the intent of Congress. We think that this case affords us an opportunity to adopt a more general rule to govern the applicability of equitable tolling in suits against the Government.
Time requirements in lawsuits between private litigants are customarily subject to “equitable tolling,” Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U. S. 20, 27 (1989). Indeed, we have held that the statutory time limits applicable to lawsuits against private employers under Title VII are subject to equitable tolling.
A waiver of sovereign immunity “‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. King, 395 U. S. 1, 4 (1969)). Once Congress has made such a waiver, we think that making the rule of equitable tolling applicable to suits against the Government, in the same way that it is applicable to private suits, amounts to little, if any, broadening of the congressional waiver. Such a principle is likely to be a realistic assessment of legislative intent as well as a practically useful principle of interpretation. We therefore hold that the same rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling applicable to suits against private defendants should also apply to suits against the United States. Congress, of course, may provide otherwise if it wishes to do so.
But an examination of the cases in which we have applied the equitable tolling doctrine as between private litigants affords petitioner little help. Federal courts have typically extended equitable relief only sparingly. We have allowed equitable tolling in situations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period, or where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass. We have generally been much less forgiving in receiving late filings where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights. Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U. S. 147, 151 (1984). Because the time limits imposed by Congress in a suit against the Government involve a waiver of sovereign immunity, it is evident that no more favorable tolling doctrine may be employed against the Government than is employed in suits between private litigants.
Petitioner urges that his failure to file in a timely manner should be excused because his lawyer was absent from his office at the time that the EEOC notice was received, and that he thereafter filed within 30 days of the day on which he personally received notice. But the principles of equitable tolling described above do not extend to what is at best a garden variety claim of excusable neglect.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Affirmed.
Justice Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See Martinez v. Orr, 738 F. 2d 1107 (CA10 1984); Milam v. United States Postal Service, 674 F. 2d 860 (CA11 1982); Saltz v. Lehman, 217 U. S. App. D. C. 354, 672 F. 2d 207 (1982); and Boddy v. Dean, 821 F. 2d 346, 350 (CA6 1987).
See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 394 (1982); Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U. S. 345, 349, n. 3 (1983).
See Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424 (1965) (plaintiff timely filed complaint in wrong court); Herb v. Pitcairn, 325 U. S. 77 (1945) (same); American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah., 414 U. S. 538 (1974) (plaintiff’s timely filing of a defective class action tolled the limitations period as to the individual claims of purported class members).
See Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal, 359 U. S. 231 (1959) (adversary’s misrepresentation caused plaintiff to let filing period lapse); Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392 (1946) (same).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, involuntary civil commitments of those alleged to be mentally retarded and of those alleged to be mentally ill are governed by separate statutory procedures. Two differences between these commitment proceedings are at issue in this case. First, at a final commitment hearing, the applicable burden of proof for involuntary commitment based on mental retardation is clear and convincing evidence, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §202B. 160(2) (Michie 1991), while the standard for involuntary commitment based on mental illness is beyond a reasonable doubt, § 202A.076(2). Second, in commitment proceedings for mental retardation, unlike for mental illness, “[g]uardians and immediate family members” of the subject of the proceedings “may participate... as if a party to the proceedings,” with all attendant rights, including the right to present evidence and to appeal. § 202B. 160(3). Respondents are a class of mentally retarded persons committed involuntarily to Kentucky institutions. They argue that these distinctions are irrational and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They claim also that granting close family members and guardians the status of parties violates the Due Process Clause. We reject these contentions and hold the Kentucky statutes constitutional.
I
This case has a long and complicated history. It began in 1982 when respondents filed suit against petitioner, the Kentucky Secretary of the Cabinet for Human Resources, claiming that Kentucky’s failure to provide certain procedural protections before institutionalizing people on the basis of mental retardation violated the Constitution. Kentucky has amended its civil commitment statutes several times since 1982, with each new statute being attacked in court by respondents. As the previous incarnations of this lawsuit have little effect on the issues currently before this Court, we limit our discussion to the current round of the litigation. See Doe v. Cowherd, 770 F. Supp. 354, 355-356 (WD Ky. 1991) (recounting the procedural history).
At issue here are elements of Kentucky’s statutory procedures, enacted in 1990, for the involuntary commitment of the mentally retarded. In many respects the procedures governing commitment of the mentally retarded and the mentally ill are parallel. The statutes recognize a large class of persons who can petition for an individual’s involuntary commitment, whether on grounds of mental retardation or mental illness. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §202B.100(3) (Michie 1991) (mental retardation); §202A.051 (mental illness). Upon filing of the petition, the trial court must appoint counsel to represent the individual in question, unless he retains private counsel. § 202B.210 (mental retardation); § 202A.121 (mental illness). The trial court also must examine the person who filed the petition and, if there is probable cause to believe that the individual who is the subject of the petition should be involuntarily committed, the court must order his examination by two qualified professionals. §§202B.100(5), (6)(c) (mental retardation); §§ 202A.051(5), (6)(c) (mental illness). The subject of the proceeding has the right to retain a professional of his own choosing, who may “witness and participate in any examination” of him. §202B.140 (mental retardation); §202A.066 (mental illness). In cases of commitment for mental retardation, a professional retained by the subject’s “parent or guardian” also must be permitted to witness and participate in any examination. §202B.140.
If both qualified professionals certify that the individual meets the criteria for involuntary commitment, the trial court must conduct a preliminary hearing. § 202B.130 (mental retardation); §202A.061 (mental illness). At the hearing, the court must receive as evidence the reports of these two professionals and any other professional retained under the statute. §202B.160(1) (mental retardation); §202A.076(1) (mental illness). The individual whose commitment is sought may testify and may call and cross-examine witnesses. §202B.160(1) (mental retardation); §202A.076(1) (mental illness). In cases of mental retardation, at both the preliminary hearing and, if there is one, the final hearing, Kentucky law provides particular rights to guardians and immediate family members:
“Guardians and immediate family members of the respondent shall be allowed to attend all hearings, conferences or similar proceedings; may be represented by private counsel, if desired; may participate in the hearings or conferences as if a party to the proceedings; may cross-examine witnesses if desired; and shall have standing to appeal any adverse decision.” § 202B. 160(3)
See also § 202B.230. If the trial court determines that there is probable cause to believe that the subject should be involuntarily committed, it proceeds to a final hearing. §202B.100(8) (mental retardation); §202A.051(9) (mental illness).
At the final hearing, the State, through the county attorney for the county in which the person subject to the proceeding lives, prosecutes the petition, § 202B.019 (mental retardation); § 202A.016 (mental illness); Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-35, and counsel for the person defends against institutionalization, id., at 31,34, 54. At this hearing, “[t]he manner of proceeding and the rules of evidence shall be the same as those in any criminal proceeding.” §202B. 160(2) (mental retardation); §202A.076(2) (mental illness). As in the preliminary hearing, the subject of the proceedings may testify and call and cross-examine witnesses. §202B. 160(2) (mental retardation); §202A.076(2) (mental illness). In proceedings for commitment based on mental retardation, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence, § 202B. 160(2); for mental illness, the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, § 202A.076(2). For commitment of the mentally retarded, four propositions must be proved by clear and convincing evidence: “(1) The person is a mentally retarded person; (2) The person presents a danger or a threat of danger to self, family, or others; (3) The least restrictive alternative mode of treatment presently available requires placement in [a residential treatment center]; and (4) Treatment that can reasonably benefit the person is available in [a residential treatment center].” §202B.040. The criteria for commitment of the mentally ill are in substance identical, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual “is a mentally ill person: (1) Who presents a danger or threat of danger to self, family or others as a result of the mental illness; (2) Who can reasonably benefit from treatment; and (3) For whom hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative mode of treatment presently available.” §202A.026. Appeals from involuntary commitment proceedings are taken in the same manner as other appeals from the trial court. §202B.230 (mental retardation); §202A.141 (mental illness).
After enactment of the 1990 modifications, respondents moved for summary judgment in their pending lawsuit against petitioner. They argued, among other things, that the differences in treatment between the mentally retarded and the mentally ill — the different standards of proof and the right of immediate family members and guardians to participate as parties in commitment proceedings for the mentally retarded but not the mentally ill — violated the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of distinctions that lack a rational basis, and that participation by family members and guardians violated the Due Process Clause. The District Court for the Western District of Kentucky accepted these arguments and granted summary judgment to respondents on these and other grounds not at issue here, 770 F. Supp. 354 (1991), and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, Doe v. Cowherd, 965 F. 2d 109 (1992). We granted Kentucky’s petition for certiorari, 506 U. S. 939 (1992), and now reverse.
II
Respondents contend that, in evaluating the constitutionality of the distinctions drawn by Kentucky’s statutes, we should apply not rational-basis review, but some form of heightened scrutiny. Brief for Respondents 23-32. This claim is not properly presented. Respondents argued before the District Court and the Court of Appeals only that Kentucky’s statutory scheme was subject to rational-basis review, and the courts below ruled on that ground. Indeed, respondents have conceded that they pressed their heightened scrutiny argument for the first time in their merits brief in this Court. Id., at 23 (“[Respondents did not argue this particular issue below...”). Even if respondents were correct that heightened scrutiny applies, it would be inappropriate for us to apply that standard here. Both parties have been litigating this case for years on the theory of rational-basis review, which, as noted below, see infra, at 320, does not require the State to place any evidence in the record, let alone the extensive evidentiary showing that would be required for these statutes to survive heightened scrutiny. It would be imprudent and unfair to inject a new standard at this stage in the litigation. See Tennessee v. Dunlap, 426 U. S. 312, 316, n. 3 (1976); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 215 (1976). We therefore decide this case as it has been' presented to the courts whose judgments are being reviewed.
Ill
We many times have said, and but weeks ago repeated, that rational-basis review in equal protection analysis “is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, 313 (1993). See also, e. g., Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 486 (1970). Nor does it authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.” New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303 (1976) (per curiam). For these reasons, a classification neither involving fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong presumption of validity. See, e. g., Beach Communications, supra, at 314-315; Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 U. S. 450, 462 (1988); Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U. S. 314, 331-332 (1981); Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 314 (1976) (per curiam). Such a classification cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose. See, e. g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U. S. 1, 11 (1992); Dukes, supra, at 303. Further, a legislature that creates these categories need not “actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification.” Nordlinger, supra, at 15. See also, e. g., United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 179 (1980); Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522, 528 (1959). Instead, a classification “must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” Beach Communications, supra, at 313. See also, e. g., Nordlinger, supra, at 11; Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U. S. 478, 485 (1990); Fritz, supra, at 174-179; Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 111 (1979); Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at 484-485.
A State, moreover, has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification. “[A] legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.” Beach Communications, supra, at 315. See also, e.g., Vance v. Bradley, supra, at 111; Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U. S. 794, 812 (1976); Locomotive Firemen v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 393 U. S. 129, 139 (1968). A statute is presumed constitutional, see supra, at 319, and “[t]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it,” Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356, 364 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted), whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record. Finally, courts are compelled under rational-basis review to accept a legislature’s generalizations even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends. A classification does not fail rational-basis review because it “ ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’” Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at 485, quoting Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78 (1911). “The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.” Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 69-70 (1913). See also, e. g., Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Ford, 504 U. S. 648, 651 (1992); Vance v. Bradley, supra, at 108, and n. 26; New Orleans v. Dukes, supra, at 303; Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U. S. 221, 234 (1981). We have applied rational-basis review in previous cases involving the mentally retarded and the mentally ill. See Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432 (1985); Schweiker v. Wilson, supra. In neither case did we purport to apply a different standard of rational-basis review from that just described.
True, even the standard of rationality as we so often have defined it must find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation. That requirement is satisfied here. Kentucky has proffered more than adequate justifications for the differences in treatment between the mentally retarded and the mentally ill.
A
Kentucky argues that a lower standard of proof in commitments for mental retardation follows from the fact that mental retardation is easier to diagnose than is mental illness. That general proposition should cause little surprise, for mental retardation is a developmental disability that becomes apparent before adulthood. See American Psychiatric Assn., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 29 (3d rev. ed. 1987) (hereinafter Manual of Mental Disorders); American Assn, on Mental Retardation, Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Support 5,16-18 (9th ed. 1992) (hereinafter Mental Retardation); S. Brakel, J. Parry, & B. Weiner, The Mentally Disabled and the Law 16-17, 37 (3d ed. 1985) (hereinafter Mentally Disabled); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §202B.010(9) (Michie 1991). By the time the person reaches 18 years of age the documentation and other evidence of the condition have been accumulated for years. Mental illness, on the other hand, may be sudden and may not occur, or at least manifest itself, until adulthood. See, e. g., Manual of Mental Disorders 190 (onset of schizophrenia may occur any time during adulthood); id., at 220, 229 (onset of depression usually is during adulthood). Furthermore, as we recognized in an earlier case, diagnosis of mental illness is difficult. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 430 (1979). See also Mentally Disabled 18. Kentucky’s basic premise that mental retardation is easier to diagnose than is mental illness has a sufficient basis in fact. See, e. g., id., at 16; Ellis & Luckasson, Mentally Retarded Criminal Defendants, 53 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 414, 438-439 (1985).
This difference between the two conditions justifies Kentucky’s decision to assign a lower standard of proof in commitment proceedings involving the mentally retarded. In assigning the burden of proof, Kentucky was determining the “risk of error” faced by the subject of the proceedings. Addington v. Texas, supra, at 423. If diagnosis is more difficult in cases of mental illness than in instances of mental retardation, a higher burden of proof for the former tends to equalize the risks of an erroneous determination that the subject of a commitment proceeding has the condition in question. See G. Keppel, Design and Analysis 65-68 (1973). From the diagnostic standpoint alone, Kentucky’s differential burdens of proof (as well as the other statutory distinction at issue, see infra, at 328-329) are rational.
There is, moreover, a “reasonably conceivable state of facts,” Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, from which Kentucky could conclude that the second prerequisite to commitment — that “[t]he person presents a danger or a threat of danger to self, family, or others,” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §202B.040 (Michie 1991) — is established more easily, as a general rule, in the case of the mentally retarded. Previous instances of violent behavior are an important indicator of future violent tendencies. See, e. g., J. Monahan, The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior 71-72 (1981) (hereinafter Monahan); Kozol, Boucher, & Garofalo, The Diagnosis and Treatment of Dangerousness, 18 Crime & Delinquency 371, 384 (1972). Mental retardation is a permanent, relatively static condition, see Mentally Disabled 37, so a determination of dangerousness may be made with some accuracy based on previous behavior. We deal here with adults only, so almost by definition in the case of the retarded there is an 18-year record upon which to rely.
This is not so with the mentally ill. Manifestations of mental illness may be sudden, and past behavior may not be an adequate predictor of future actions. Prediction of future behavior is complicated as well by the difficulties inherent in diagnosis of mental illness. Developments in the Law — Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1190, 1242-1243 (1974). It is thus no surprise that many psychiatric predictions of future violent behavior by the mentally ill are inaccurate. See, e.g., Steadman, Employing Psychiatric Predictions of Dangerous Behavior: Policy vs. Fact, in Dangerous Behavior: A Problem in Law and Mental Health 123,125-128 (C. Frederick ed. 1978); Monahan 47-49. For these reasons, it would have been plausible for Kentucky to conclude that the dangerousness determination was more accurate as to the mentally retarded than the mentally ill.
A statutory classification fails rational-basis review only when it “ ‘rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State’s objective.’” Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, 439 U. S. 60, 71 (1978), quoting McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 425 (1961). See also, e. g., McDonald v. Board of Election Comm’rs of Chicago, 394 U. S. 802, 809 (1969); Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm’rs for Port of New Orleans, 330 U. S. 552, 556 (1947). Because ease of diagnosis is relevant to two of the four inquiries, it is not “wholly irrelevant” to the achievement of Kentucky’s objective, and thus the statutory difference in the applicable burden of proof survives rational-basis review. In any event, it is plausible for Kentucky to have found that, for purposes of determining the acceptable risk of error, diagnosis and dangerousness are the most critical factors in the commitment decision, so the appropriate burden of proof should be tied to them.
There is a further, more far-reaching rationale justifying the different burdens of proof: The prevailing methods of treatment for the mentally retarded, as a general rule, are much less invasive than are those given the mentally ill. The mentally ill are subjected to medical and psychiatric treatment which may involve intrusive inquiries into the patient’s innermost thoughts, see Meissner & Nicholi, The Psychotherapies: Individual, Family, and Group, in The Harvard Guide to Modern Psychiatry 357-385 (A. Nicholi ed. 1978) (hereinafter Harvard Guide), and use of psychotropic drugs, see Baldessarini, Chemotherapy, in Harvard Guide 387-431; Berger, Medical Treatment of Mental Illness, 200 Science 974 (1978); Mentally Disabled 327-330; Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae in Washington v. Harper, O. T. 1988, No. 88-599, pp. 10-11. By contrast, the mentally retarded in general are not subjected to these medical treatments. Rather, “ ‘because mental retardation is... a learning disability and training impairment rather than an illness,’ ” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 309, n. 1 (1982), quoting Brief for American Psychiatric Association as Amicus Curiae in Youngberg v. Romeo, O. T. 1981, No. 80-1429, p. 4, n. 1, the mentally retarded are provided “habilitation,” which consists of education and training aimed at improving self-care and self-sufficiency skills. See Youngberg, supra, at 309, n. 1; M. Rosen, G. Clark, & M. Kivitz, Habilitation of the Handicapped 47-59 (1977); Mentally Disabled 332.
It is true that the loss of liberty following commitment for mental illness and mental retardation may be similar in many respects; but the different treatment to which a committed individual is subjected provides a rational basis for Kentucky to decide that a greater burden of proof is needed before a person may be committed for mental illness. The procedures required before the government acts often depend on the nature and extent of the burden or deprivation to be imposed. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 423-424. For example, because confinement in prison is punitive and hence more onerous than confinement in a mental hospital, id., at 428, the Due Process Clause subjects the former to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), whereas it requires in the latter case only clear and convincing evidence, Addington v. Texas, supra. It may also be true that some persons committed for mental retardation are subjected to more intrusive treatments while confined. See post, at 342-346 (Souter, J., dissenting). Nonetheless, it would have been plausible for the Kentucky Legislature to believe that most mentally retarded individuals who are committed receive treatment that is different from, and less invasive than, that to which the mentally ill are subjected. “States are not required to convince the courts of the correctness of their legislative judgments.” Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456, 464 (1981). Thus, since “‘the question is at least debatable,’” Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal., 451 U. S. 648, 674 (1981), quoting United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 154 (1938), rational-basis review permits a legislature to use just this sort of generalization.
These distinctions may explain, too, the differences in treatment between the mentally retarded and the mentally ill that have long existed in Anglo-American law. At English common law there was a “marked distinction” in the treatment accorded “idiots” (the mentally retarded) and “lunatics” (the mentally ill). 1 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, The History of English Law 481 (2d ed. 1909) (hereinafter Pollack and Maitland). As Blackstone explained, a retarded person became a ward of the King, who had a duty to preserve the individual’s estate and provide him with “necessaries,” but the King could profit from the wardship. In contrast, the King was required to “provide for the custody and sustentation of [the mentally ill], and preserve their lands and the profits of them,” but the King was prohibited from profiting thereby. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *302-*304. See Pollack and Maitland 481; S. Herr, Rights and Advocacy for Retarded People 9-10 (1983).
Ancient lineage of a legal concept does not give it immunity from attack for lacking a rational basis. That the law has long treated the classes as distinct, however, suggests that there is a commonsense distinction between the mentally retarded and the mentally ill. The differentiation continues to the present day. A large majority of States have separate involuntary commitment laws for the two groups, and many States as well have separate agencies for addressing their needs.
Kentucky’s burden of proof scheme, then, can be explained by differences in the ease of diagnosis and the accuracy of the prediction of future dangerousness and by the nature of the treatment received after commitment. Each of these rationales, standing on its own, would suffice to establish a rational basis for the distinction in question.
B
There is a rational basis also for the other distinction challenged by respondents: that Kentucky allows close relatives and guardians to participate as parties in proceedings to commit the mentally retarded but not the mentally ill. As we have noted, see supra, at 321-322, by definition, mental retardation has its onset during a person’s developmental period. Mental retardation, furthermore, results in “deficits or impairments in adaptive functioning,” that is to say, “the person’s effectiveness in areas such as social skills, communication, and daily living skills, and how well the person meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age by his or her cultural group.” Manual of Mental Disorders 28-29. See also Mental Retardation 5-6, 15-16, 38-41. Based on these facts, Kentucky may have concluded that close relatives and guardians, both of whom likely have intimate knowledge of a mentally retarded person’s abilities and experiences, have valuable insights that should be considered during the involuntary commitment process.
Mental illness, by contrast, may arise or manifest itself with suddenness only after minority, see supra, at 322, when the afflicted person’s immediate family members have no knowledge of the medical condition and have long ceased to provide care and support. Further, determining the proper course of treatment may be far less dependent upon observations made in a household setting. Indeed, we have noted the severe difficulties inherent in psychiatric diagnosis conducted by experts in the field. Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 430. See also Mentally Disabled 18. In addition, adults previously of sound mental health who are diagnosed as mentally ill may have a need for privacy that justifies the State in confining a commitment proceeding to the smallest group compatible with due process. Based on these facts, Kentucky may have concluded that participation as parties by relatives and guardians of the mentally ill would not in most cases have been of sufficient help to the trier of fact to justify the additional burden and complications of granting party status. To be sure, Kentucky could have provided relatives and guardians of the mentally retarded some participation in commitment proceedings by methods short of providing them status as parties. That, however, is irrelevant in rational-basis review. We do not require Kentucky to have chosen the least restrictive means of achieving its legislative end. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 51 (1973). As long as Kentucky “rationally advances a reasonable and identifiable governmental objective, we must disregard” the existence of alternative methods of furthering the objective “that we, as individuals, perhaps would have preferred.” Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U. S., at 235.
IV
We turn now to respondents’ claim that one aspect of the involuntary commitment procedures violates procedural due process. We note at the outset that respondents challenge as violative of due process only those provisions of Kentucky’s comprehensive involuntary commitment procedures that allow participation in the proceedings by guardians and immediate family members. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§202B.140, 202B.160(3), 202B.230 (Michie 1991). Respondents claim that by allowing the participation of persons whose interests may be adverse to those of the individual facing possible involuntary commitment, the statute “skews the balance” against the retarded individual and therefore imposes a burden on him. Brief for Respondents 32-36. Both courts below apparently accepted this argument, almost without explanation. See 965 F. 2d, at 113; 770 F. Supp., at 358. In our view, the claim is without merit.
We evaluate the sufficiency of this procedural rule under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976). There we held that determining the dictates of due process requires consideration of three factors:
“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id., at 335.
We think that application of the Mathews v. Eldridge factors compels the conclusion that participation as parties by close relatives and legal guardians is not a deprivation of due process. Even if parents, close family members, or legal guardians can be said in certain instances to have interests “adverse to [those of] the person facing commitment,” 965 F. 2d, at 113, we simply do not understand how their participation as formal parties in the commitment proceedings increases “the risk of an erroneous deprivation,” 424 U. S., at 335, of respondents’ liberty interest. Rather, for the reasons explained, supra, at 329, these parties often will have valuable information that, if placed before the court, will increase the accuracy of the commitment decision. Kentucky law, moreover, does not allow intervention by persons who lack a personal stake in the outcome of the adjudication. Guardians have a legal obligation to further the interests of their wards, and parents and other close relatives of a mentally retarded person, after living with and caring for the individual for 18 years or more, have an interest in his welfare that the State may acknowledge. See Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602-603 (1979). For example, parents who for 18 years or longer have cared for a retarded child can face changed circumstances resulting from their own advancing age, when the physical, emotional, and financial costs of caring for the adult child may become too burdensome for the child’s best interests to be served by care in their home. There is no support whatever in our cases or our legal tradition for the “statist notion,” id., at 603, that the State’s expertise and concern in these matters is so superior to that of parents and other close family members that the State must slam the courthouse door against those interested enough to intervene. Finally, “the state has a legitimate interest under its parens patriae powers in providing care to its citizens who are unable... to care for themselves,” as well as “authority under its police power to protect the community” from any dangerous mentally retarded persons. Addington, 441 U. S., at 426.
To be sure, if the additional parties involved in the proceedings favor commitment, their participation may increase the chances that the result of the proceeding will be a decision to commit. That fact, however, is beside the point. “The Due Process Clause does not... require a State to adopt one procedure over another on the basis that it may produce results more favorable to” the party challenging the existing procedures. Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437, 451 (1992).
“The function of legal process, as that concept is embodied in the Constitution, and in the realm of factfinding, is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions. Because of the broad spectrum of concerns to which the term must apply, flexibility is necessary to gear the process to the particular need; the quantum and quality of the process due in a particular situation depend upon the need to serve the purpose of minimizing the risk of error.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U. S. 1, 13 (1979).
See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67, 97 (1972) (due process functions to “prevent unfair and mistaken deprivations”). At least to the extent protected by the Due Process Clause, the interest of a person subject to governmental action is in the accurate determination of the matters before the court, not in a result more favorable to him. So long as the accuracy of the adjudication is unaffected, therefore, the Due Process Clause does not prevent a State from allowing the intervention of immediate family members and legal guardians, even if in some instances these parties will have interests adverse to those of the subject of the proceedings. Neither respondents nor their amici have suggested that accuracy would suffer from the intervention allowed by Kentucky law, and as noted above we think quite the opposite is true.
Because allowing guardians and immediate family members to participate as parties in commitment proceedings increases the accuracy of those proceedings and implements the State’s interest in providing family members a voice in the proceedings, without undermining those interests of the individual protected by the Due Process Clause, these Kentucky statutes do not run afoul of due process. “We deal here with issues of unusual delicacy, in an area where professional judgments regarding desirable procedures are constantly and rapidly changing. In such a context, restraint is appropriate on the part of courts called upon to adjudicate whether a particular procedural scheme is adequate under the Constitution.” Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U. S. 816, 855-856 (1977).
V
In sum, there are plausible rationales for each of the statutory distinctions challenged by respondents in this case. It could be that “[t]he assumptions underlying these rationales [are] erroneous, but the very fact that they are ‘arguable’ is sufficient, on rational-basis review, to ‘immunize’ the [legislative] choice from constitutional challenge.” Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 320, quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S., at 112.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is
Reversed.
Justice Souter suggests that this description of the function of burdens of proof is inconsistent with Addington v. Texas,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue before us in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, was properly applied by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, to allow police to transport a suspect to the station house for fingerprinting, without his consent and without probable cause or prior judicial authorization.
A series of burglary-rapes occurred in Punta Gorda, Florida, in 1980. Police found latent fingerprints on the doorknob of the bedroom of one of the victims, fingerprints they believed belonged to the assailant. The police also found a herringbone pattern tennis shoe print near the victim’s front porch. Although they had little specific information to tie petitioner Hayes to the crime, after police interviewed him along with 30 to 40 other men who generally fit the description of the assailant, the investigators came to consider petitioner a principal suspect. They decided to visit petitioner’s home to obtain his fingerprints or, if he was uncooperative, to arrest him. They did not seek a warrant authorizing this procedure.
Arriving at petitioner’s house, the officers spoke to petitioner on his front porch. When he expressed reluctance voluntarily to accompany them to the station for fingerprinting, one of the investigators explained that they would therefore arrest him. Petitioner, in the words of the investigator, then “blurted out” that he would rather go with the officers to the station than be arrested. App. 20. While the officers were on the front porch, they also seized a pair of herringbone pattern tennis shoes in plain view.
Petitioner was then taken to the station house, where he was fingerprinted. When police determined that his prints matched those left at the scene of the crime, petitioner was placed under formal arrest. Before trial, petitioner moved to suppress the fingerprint evidence, claiming it was the fruit of an illegal detention. The trial court denied the motion and admitted the evidence without expressing a reason. Petitioner was convicted of the burglary and sexual battery committed at the scene where the latent fingerprints were found.
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirmed the conviction. 439 So. 2d 896 (1983). The court declined to find consent, reasoning that in view of the threatened arrest it was, “at best, highly questionable” that Hayes voluntarily accompanied the officers to the station. Id., at 898. The court also expressly found that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest petitioner until after they obtained his fingerprints. Id., at 899. Nevertheless, although finding neither consent nor probable cause, the court held, analogizing to the stop-and-frisk rule of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), that the officers could transport petitioner to the station house and take his fingerprints on the basis of their reasonable suspicion that he was involved in the crime. 439 So. 2d, at 899, 904.
The Florida Supreme Court denied review by a four-to-three decision, 447 So. 2d 886 (1983). We granted certiorari to review this application of Terry, 469 U. S. 816 (1984), and we now reverse.
We agree with petitioner that Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969), requires reversal of the judgment below. In Davis, in the course of investigating a rape, police officers brought petitioner Davis to police headquarters on December 3, 1965. He was fingerprinted and briefly questioned before being released. He was later charged and convicted of the rape. An issue there was whether the fingerprints taken on December 3 were the inadmissible fruits of an illegal detention. Concededly, the police at that time were without probable cause for an arrest, there was no warrant, and Davis had not consented to being taken to the station house. The State nevertheless contended that the Fourth Amendment did not forbid an investigative detention for the purpose of fingerprinting, even in the absence of probable cause or a warrant. We rejected that submission, holding that Davis’ detention for the purpose of fingerprinting was subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment and exceeded the permissible limits of those temporary seizures authorized by Terry v. Ohio, supra. This was so even though fingerprinting, because it involves neither repeated harassment nor any of the probing into private life and thoughts that often marks interrogation and search, represents a much less serious intrusion upon personal security than other types of searches and detentions. 394 U. S., at 727. Nor was it a sufficient answer to the Fourth Amendment issue to recognize that fingerprinting is an inherently more reliable and effective crime-solving mechanism than other types of evidence such as lineups and confessions. Ibid. The Court indicated that perhaps under narrowly confined circumstances, a detention for fingerprinting on less than probable cause might comply with the Fourth Amendment, but found it unnecessary to decide that question since no effort was made to employ the procedures necessary to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 728. Rather, Davis had been detained at police headquarters without probable cause to arrest and without authorization by a judicial officer.
Here, as in Davis, there was no probable cause to arrest, no consent to the journey to the police station, and no judicial authorization for such a detention for fingerprinting purposes. Unless later cases have undermined Davis or we now disavow that decision, the judgment below must be reversed.
None of our later cases have undercut the holding in Davis that transportation to and investigative detention at the station house without probable cause or judicial authorization together violate the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, some 10 years later, in Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200 (1979), we refused to extend Terry v. Ohio, supra, to authorize investigative interrogations at police stations on less than probable cause, even though proper warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), had been given. We relied on and reaffirmed the holding in Davis that in the absence of probable cause or a warrant investigative detentions at the police station for fingerprinting purposes could not be squared with the Fourth Amendment, 442 U. S., at 213-216, while at the same time repeating the possibility that the Amendment might permit a narrowly circumscribed procedure for fingerprinting detentions on less than probable cause. Since that time, we have several times revisited and explored the reach of Terry v. Ohio, most recently in United States v. Sharpe, ante, p. 675, and United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221 (1985). But none of these cases have sustained against Fourth Amendment challenge the involuntary removal of a suspect from his home to a police station and his detention there for investigative purposes, whether for interrogation or fingerprinting, absent probable cause or judicial authorization.
Nor are we inclined to forswear Davis. There is no doubt that at some point in the investigative process, police procedures can qualitatively and quantitatively be so intrusive with respect to a suspect’s freedom of movement and privacy interests as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Dunaway, supra, at 212; Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 499 (1983) (plurality opinion). And our view continues to be that the line is crossed when the police, without probable cause or a warrant, forcibly remove a person from his home or other place in which he is entitled to be and transport him to the police station, where he is detained, although briefly, for investigative purposes. We adhere to the view that such seizures, at least where not under judicial supervision, are sufficiently like arrests to invoke the traditional rule that arrests may constitutionally be made only on probable cause.
None of the foregoing implies that a brief detention in the field for the purpose of fingerprinting, where there is only reasonable suspicion not amounting to probable cause, is necessarily impermissible under the Fourth Amendment. In addressing the reach of a Terry stop in Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 146 (1972), we observed that “[a] brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Also, just this Term, we concluded that if there are articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offense, that person may be stopped in order to identify him, to question him briefly, or to detain him briefly while attempting to obtain additional information. United States v. Hensley, supra, at 229, 232, 234. Cf. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975). There is thus support in our cases for the view that the Fourth Amendment would permit seizures for the purpose of fingerprinting, if there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a criminal act, if there is a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will establish or negate the suspect’s connection with that crime, and if the procedure is carried out with dispatch. Cf. United States v. Place, supra. Of course, neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause would suffice to permit the officers to make a warrantless entry into a person’s house for the purpose of obtaining fingerprint identification. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980).
We also do not abandon the suggestion in Davis and Dunaway that under circumscribed procedures, the Fourth Amendment might permit the judiciary to authorize the seizure of a person on less than probable cause and his removal to the police station for the purpose of fingerprinting. We do not, of course, have such a case before us. We do note, however, that some States, in reliance on the suggestion in Davis, have enacted procedures for judicially authorized seizures for the purpose of fingerprinting. The state courts are not in accord on the validity of these efforts to insulate investigative seizures from Fourth Amendment invalidation. Compare People v. Madson, 638 P. 2d 18, 31-32 (Colo. 1981), with State v. Evans, 215 Neb. 433, 438-439, 338 N. W. 2d 788, 792-793 (1983), and In re an Investigation into Death of Abe A., 56 N. Y. 2d 288, 295-296, 437 N. E. 2d 265, 269 (1982).
As we have said, absent probable cause and a warrant, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969), requires the reversal of the judgment of the Florida District Court of Appeal.
It is so ordered.
Justice Blackmun concurs in the judgment.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision in this case.
The Florida District Court of Appeal judged this case on the basis of its determination that the police were without probable cause to arrest and that Hayes did not voluntarily agree to accompany the officers to the police station. Although the State invites us to review the record and hold either that there was probable cause to arrest or that Hayes voluntarily went with the officers to the station, we decline to become involved in these fact-bound issues. We also put aside the State’s suggestion that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, see Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431 (1984), applies in this case. This argument was not presented to or passed upon by any of the state courts and is presented here for the first time. We thus address only the issue decided by the Florida court and presented in the petition for certiorari.
Thus, in United States v. Sharpe, ante, p. 675, where we recently sustained a 20-minute investigatory stop on a highway, we pointed out that the pertinent facts in Dunaway, where we invalidated the detention, were “that (1) the defendant was taken from a private dwelling; (2) he was transported unwillingly to the police station; and (3) he there was subjected to custodial interrogation resulting in a confession.” Ante, at 684, n. 4.
Nor is there any suggestion in this case that there were any exigent circumstances making necessary the removal of Hayes to the station house for the purpose of fingerprinting.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a trustee in bankruptcy may “avoid” (i. e., recover) from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) payments of certain withholding and excise taxes that the debtor made before it filed for bankruptcy. We hold that the funds paid here were not the property of the debtor prior to payment; instead, they were held in trust by the debtor for the IRS. We accordingly conclude that the trustee may not recover the funds.
I
American International Airways, Inc. (AIA), was a commercial airline. As an employer, AIA was required to withhold federal income taxes and to collect Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes from its employees’ wages. 26 U. S. C. § 3402(a) (income taxes); § 3102(a) (FICA taxes). As an airline, it was required to collect excise taxes from its customers for payment to the IRS. § 4291. Because the amount of these taxes is “held to be a special fund in trust for the United States,” § 7501, they are often called “trust-fund taxes.” See, e. g., Slodov v. United States, 436 U. S. 238, 241 (1978). By early 1984, AIA had fallen behind in its payments of its trust-fund taxes to the Government. In February of that year, the IRS ordered AIA to deposit all trust-fund taxes it collected thereafter into a separate bank account. AIA established the account, but did not deposit funds sufficient to cover the entire amount of its trust-fund tax obligations. It nonetheless remained current on these obligations through June 1984, paying the IRS $695,000 from the separate bank account and $946,434 from its general operating funds. AIA and the IRS agreed that all of these payments would be allocated to specific trust-fund tax obligations.
On July 19, 1984, AIA petitioned for relief from its creditors under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq. (1982 ed.). AIA unsuccessfully operated as a debtor in possession for three months. Accordingly, on September 19, the Bankruptcy Court appointed petitioner Harry P. Begier, Jr., trustee, and a plan of liquidation in Chapter 11 was confirmed. Among the powers of a trustee is the power under § 547(b) to avoid certain payments made by the debtor that would “enabl[e] a creditor to receive payment of a greater percentage of his claim against the debtor than he would have received if the transfer had not been made and he had participated in the distribution of the assets of the bankrupt estate.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 177 (1977). Seeking to exercise his avoidance power, Begier filed an adversary action against the Government to recover the entire amount that AIA had paid the IRS for trust-fund taxes during the 90 days before the bankruptcy filing.
The Bankruptcy Court found for the Government in part and for the trustee in part. In re American International Airways, Inc., 83 B. R. 324 (ED Pa. 1988). It refused to permit the trustee to recover any of the money AIA had paid out of the separate account on the theory that AIA had held that money in trust for the IRS. Id., at 327. It allowed the trustee to avoid most of the payments that AIA had made out of its general accounts, however, holding that “only where a tax trust fund is actually established by the debtor and the taxing authority is able to trace funds segregated by the debtor in a trust account established for the purpose of paying the taxes in question would we conclude that such funds are not property of the debtor’s estate.” Id., at 329. The District Court affirmed. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-22-A-26. On appeal by the Government, the Third Circuit reversed, holding that any prepetition payment of trust-fund taxes is a payment of funds that are not the debtor’s property and that such a payment is therefore not an avoidable preference. 878 F. 2d 762 (1989). We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1017 (1990), and we now affirm.
H
>
Equality of distribution among creditors is a central policy of the Bankruptcy Code. According to that policy, creditors of equal priority should receive pro rata shares of the debt-or’s property. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 726(b) (1982 ed.); H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 177-178. Section 547(b) furthers this policy by permitting a trustee in bankruptcy to avoid certain preferential payments made before the debtor files for bankruptcy. This mechanism prevents the debtor from favoring one creditor over others by transferring property shortly before filing for bankruptcy. Of course, if the debtor transfers property that would not have been available for distribution to his creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding, the policy behind the avoidance power is not implicated. The reach of § 547(b)’s avoidance power is therefore limited to transfers of “property of the debtor.”
The Bankruptcy Code does not define “property of the debtor.” Because the purpose of the avoidance provision is to preserve the property includable within the bankruptcy estate—the property available for distribution to creditors — “property of the debtor” subject to the preferential transfer provision is best understood as that property that would have been part of the estate had it not been transferred before the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. For guidance, then, we must turn to § 541, which delineates the scope of “property of the estate” and serves as the postpetition analog to § 547(b)’s “property of the debtor.”
Section 541(a)(1) provides that the “property of the estate” includes “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” Section 541(d) provides:
“Property in which the debtor holds, as of the commencement of the case, only legal title and not an equitable interest . . . becomes property of the estate under subsection (a) of this section only to the extent of the debtor’s legal title to such property, but not to the extent of any equitable interest in such property that the debtor does not hold.”
Because the debtor does not own an equitable interest in property he holds in trust for another, that interest is not “property of the estate.” Nor is such an equitable interest “property of the debtor” for purposes of § 547(b). As the parties agree, then, the issue in this case is whether the money AIA transferred from its general operating accounts to the IRS was property that AIA had held in trust for the IRS.
B
We begin with the language of 26 U. S. C. § 7501, the Internal Revenue Code’s trust-fund tax provision: “Whenever any person is required to collect or withhold any internal revenue tax from any other person and to pay over such tax to the United States, the amount of tax so collected or withheld shall be held to be a special fund in trust for the United States.” The statutory trust extends, then, only to “the amount of tax so collected or withheld.” Begier argues that a trust-fund tax is not “collected or withheld” until specific funds are either sent to the IRS with the relevant return or placed in a segregated fund. AIA neither put the funds paid from its general operating accounts in a separate account nor paid them to the IRS before the beginning of the preference period. Begier therefore contends that no trust was ever created with respect to those funds and that the funds paid to the IRS were therefore property of the debtor.
We disagree. The Internal Revenue Code directs “every person receiving any payment for facilities or services” subject to excise taxes to “collect the amount of the tax from the person making such payment.” § 4291. It also requires that an employer “collec[t]” FICA taxes from its employees “by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid.” § 3102(a) (emphasis added). Both provisions make clear that the act of “collecting” occurs at the time of payment—the recipient’s payment for the service in the case of excise taxes and the employer’s payment of wages in the case of FICA taxes. The mere fact that AIA neither placed the taxes it collected in a segregated fund nor paid them to the IRS does not somehow mean that AIA never collected the taxes in the first place.
The same analysis applies to taxes the Internal Revenue Code requires that employers “withhold.” Section 3402(a) (1) requires that “every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages [the employee’s federal income tax].” (Emphasis added.) Withholding thus occurs at the time of payment to the employee of his net wages. S. Rep. No. 95-1106, p. 33 (1978) (“[A]ssume that a debtor owes an employee $100 for salary on which there is required withholding of $20. If the debtor paid the employee $80, there has been $20 withheld. If, instead, the debtor paid the employee $85, there has been withholding of $15 (which is not property of the debtor’s estate in bankruptcy)”). See Slodov, 436 U. S., at 243 (stating that “[t]here is no general requirement that the withheld sums be segregated from the employer’s general funds,” and thereby necessarily implying that the sums are “withheld” whether or not segregated). The common meaning of “withholding” supports our interpretation. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2627 (1981) (defining “withholding” to mean “the act or procedure of deducting a tax payment from income at the source”) (emphasis added).
Our reading of § 7501 is reinforced by § 7512, which permits the IRS, upon proper notice, to require a taxpayer who has failed timely “to collect, truthfully account for, or pay over [trust-fund taxes],” or who has failed timely “to make deposits, payments, or returns of such tax,” § 7512(a)(1), to “deposit such amount in a separate account in a bank . . . and . . . keep the amount of such taxes in such account until payment over to the United States,” § 7512(b). If we were to read § 7501 to mandate segregation as a prerequisite to the creation of the trust, § 7512’s requirement that funds be segregated in special and limited circumstances would become superfluous. Moreover, petitioner’s suggestion that we read a segregation requirement into § 7501 would mean that an employer could avoid the creation of a trust simply by refusing to segregate. Nothing in § 7501 indicates, however, that Congress wanted the IRS to be protected only insofar as dictated by the debtor’s whim. We conclude, therefore, that AIA created a trust within the meaning of § 7501 at the moment the relevant payments (from customers to AIA for excise taxes and from AIA to its employees for FICA and income taxes) were made.
C
Our holding that a trust for the benefit of the IRS existed is not alone sufficient to answer the question presented by this case: whether the particular dollars that AIA paid to the IRS from its general operating accounts were “property of the debtor.” Only if those particular funds were held in trust for the IRS do they escape characterization as “property of the debtor.” All § 7501 reveals is that AIA at one point created a trust for the IRS; that section provides no rule by which we can decide whether the assets AIA used to pay the IRS were assets belonging to that trust.
In the absence of specific statutory guidance on how we are to determine whether the assets transferred to the IRS were trust property, we might naturally begin with the common-law rules that have been created to answer such questions about other varieties of trusts. Unfortunately, such rules are of limited utility in the context of the trust created by § 7501. Under common-law principles, a trust is created in property; a trust therefore does not come into existence until the settlor identifies an ascertainable interest in property to be the trust res. G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 111 (rev. 2d ed. 1984); 1A W. Fratcher, Scott on Trusts § 76 (4th ed. 1987). A § 7501 trust is radically different from the common-law paradigm, however. That provision states that “the amount of [trust-fund] tax . . . collected or withheld shall be held to be a special fund in trust for the United States.” (Emphasis added.) Unlike a common-law trust, in which the settlor sets aside particular property as the trust res, § 7501 creates a trust in an abstract “amount”—a dollar figure not tied to any particular assets —rather than in the actual dollars withheld. Common-law tracing rules, designed for a system in which particular property is identified as the trust res, are thus unhelpful in this special context.
Federal law delineating the nature of the relationship between the § 7501 trust and preferential transfer rules is limited. The only case in which we have explored that topic at any length is United States v. Randall, 401 U. S. 513 (1971), a case dealing with a postpetition transfer of property to discharge trust-fund tax obligations that the debtor had accrued prepetition. There, a court had ordered a debtor in possession to maintain a separate account for its withheld federal income and FICA taxes, but the debtor did not comply. When the debtor was subsequently adjudicated a bankrupt, the United States sought to recover from the debtor’s general assets the amount of withheld taxes ahead of the expenses of the bankruptcy proceeding. The Government argued that the debtor held the amount of taxes due in trust for the IRS and that this amount could be traced to the funds the debtor had in its accounts when the bankruptcy petition was filed. The trustee maintained that no trust had been created because the debtor had not segregated the funds. The Court declined directly to address either of these contentions. Id., at 515. Rather, the Court simply refused to permit the IRS to recover the taxes ahead of administrative expenses, stating that “the statutory policy of subordinating taxes to costs and expenses of administration would not be served by creating or enforcing trusts which eat up an estate, leaving little or nothing for creditors and court officers whose goods and services created the assets.” Id., at 517.
In 1978, Congress fundamentally restructured bankruptcy law by passing the new Bankruptcy Code. Among the changes Congress decided to make was a modification of the rule this Court had enunciated in Randall under the old Bankruptcy Act. The Senate bill attacked Randall directly, providing in § 541 that trust-fund taxes withheld or collected prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition were not “property of the estate.” See S. Rep. No. 95-1106, at 33. See also ibid. (“These amounts will not be property of the estate regardless of whether such amounts have been segregated from other assets of the debtor by way of a special account, fund, or otherwise, or are deemed to be a special fund in trust pursuant to provisions of applicable tax law”) (footnote omitted). The House bill did not deal explicitly with the problem of trust-fund taxes, but the House Report stated that “property of the estate” would not include property held in trust for another. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 368. Congress was unable to hold a conference, so the Senate and House floor managers met to reach compromises on the differences between the two bills. See 124 Cong. Rec. 32392 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Edwards); Klee, Legislative History of the New Bankruptcy Law, 28 DePaul L. Rev. 941, 953-954 (1979). The compromise reached with respect to the relevant portion of § 541, which applies to postpetition transfers, was embodied in the eventually enacted House amendment and explicitly provided that “in the case of property held in trust, the property of the estate includes the legal title, but not the beneficial interest in the property.” 124 Cong. Rec., at 32417 (remarks of Rep. Edwards). Cf. id., at 32363 (text of House amendment). Accordingly, the Senate language specifying that withheld or collected trust-fund taxes are not part of the bankruptcy estate was deleted as “unnecessary since property of the estate does not include the beneficial interest in property held by the debtor as a trustee. Under [§ 7051], the amounts of withheld taxes are held to be a special fund in trust for the United States.” Id., at 32417 (remarks of Rep. Edwards).
Representative Edwards discussed the effects of the House language on the rule established by Randall, indicating that the House amendment would supplant that rule:
“[A] serious problem exists where ‘trust fund taxes’ withheld from others are held to be property of the estate where the withheld amounts are commingled with other assets of the debtor. The courts should permit the use of reasonable assumptions under which the Internal Revenue Service, and other tax authorities, can demonstrate that amounts of withheld taxes are still in the possession of the debtor at the commencement of the case.” Ibid.
The context of Representative Edwards’ comment makes plain that he was discussing whether a postpetition payment of trust-fund taxes involved “property of the estate.” This focus is not surprising given that Randall, the case Congress was addressing, involved a postpetition demand for payment by the IRS. But Representative Edwards’ discussion also applies to the question whether a pre petition payment is made from “property of the debtor.” We have explained that “property of the debtor” is that property that would have been part of the estate had it not been transferred before the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. Supra, at 58. The same “reasonable assumptions” therefore apply in both contexts.
The strict rule of Randall thus did not survive the adoption of the new Bankruptcy Code. But by requiring the IRS to “demonstrate that amounts of taxes withheld are still in the possession of the debtor at the commencement of the case [i. e., at the filing of the petition],” 124 Cong. Rec., at 32417 (remarks of Rep. Edwards), Congress expected that the IRS would have to show some connection between the § 7501 trust and the assets sought to be applied to a debtor’s trust-fund tax obligations. See United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U. S. 198, 205, n. 10 (1983) (IRS cannot exclude funds from the estate if it cannot trace them to § 7501 trust property). The question in this case is how extensive the required nexus must be. The Bankruptcy Code provides no explicit answer, and Representative Edwards’ admonition that courts should “permit the use of reasonable assumptions” does not add much. The House Report does, however, give sufficient guidance regarding those assumptions to permit us to conclude that the nexus requirement is satisfied here. That Report states:
“A payment of withholding taxes constitutes a payment of money held in trust under Internal Revenue Code § 7501(a), and thus will not be a preference because the beneficiary of the trust, the taxing authority, is in a separate class with respect to those taxes, if they have been properly held for payment, as they will have been if the debtor is able to make the payments.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 373.
Under a literal reading of the above passage, the bankruptcy trustee could not avoid any voluntary prepetition payment of trust-fund taxes, regardless of the source of the funds. As the House Report expressly states, the limitation that the funds must “have been properly held for payment” is satisfied “if the debtor is able to make the payments.” The debtor’s act of voluntarily paying its trust-fund tax obligation therefore is alone sufficient to establish the required nexus between the “amount” held in trust and the funds paid.
We adopt this literal reading. In the absence of any suggestion in the Bankruptcy Code about what tracing rules to apply, we are relegated to the legislative history. The courts are directed to apply “reasonable assumptions” to govern the tracing of funds, and the House Report identifies one such assumption to be that any voluntary prepetition payment of trust-fund taxes out of the debtor’s assets is not a transfer of the debtor’s property. Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code or its legislative history casts doubt on the reasonableness of that assumption. Other rules might be reasonable, too, but the only evidence we have suggests that Congress preferred this one. We see no reason to disregard that evidence.
III
We hold that AIA’s payments of trust-fund taxes to the IRS from its general accounts were not transfers of “property of the debtor,” but were instead transfers of property held in trust for the Government pursuant to § 7501. Such payments therefore cannot be avoided as preferences. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
This case is governed by 11 U. S. C. § 547(b) (1982 ed.), which reads:
“Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the trustee may avoid any transfer of property of the debtor—
“(1) to or for the benefit of a creditor;
“(2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made;
“(3) made while the debtor was insolvent;
“(4) made—
“(A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition; or
“(B) between 90 days and one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor, at the time of such transfer—
“(i) was an insider; and
“(ii) had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent at the time of such transfer; and
“(5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such creditor would receive if—
“(A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title;
“(B) the transfer had not been made; and
“(C) such creditor received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the provisions of this title.”
The statute has been amended to replace “property of the debtor” with “an interest of the debtor in property.” See n. 3, infra. The old version of § 547(b) applies to this case, however, because AIA filed its bankruptcy petition before the effective date of the amendment.
No other Court of Appeals has decided a case that presents the precise issue we decide here. The Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits have, however, resolved against the taxing authorities cases presenting related issues. See In re R & T Roofing Structures & Commercial Framing, Inc., 887 F. 2d 981, 987 (CA9 1989) (rejecting the Government’s argument that assets the IRS seized from a debtor to satisfy a trust-fund tax obligation before the debtor filed its bankruptcy petition were assets held in trust for the Government under 26 U. S. C. § 7501, and therefore deciding that the transfer effected by the seizure involved “property of the debtor” and was not exempt from avoidance); Drabkin v. District of Columbia, 263 U. S. App. D. C. 122, 125, 824 F. 2d 1102, 1105 (1987) (reaching a similar conclusion with respect to a voluntary payment of withheld District of Columbia employee income taxes in a case governed by a provision of local law that “essentially mirror[ed]” § 7501).
To the extent the 1984 amendments to § 547(b) are relevant, they confirm our view that § 541 guides our analysis of what property is “property of the debtor” for purposes of § 547(b). Among the changes was the substitution of “an interest of the debtor in property” for “property of the debtor.” 11 U. S. C. § 547(b) (1988 ed.). Section 547(b) thus now mirrors § 541's definition of “property of the estate” as certain “interests of the debtor in property.” 11 U. S. C. § 541(a)(1) (1988 ed.). The Senate Report introducing a predecessor to the bill that amended § 547(b) described the new language as a “clarifying change.” S. Rep. No. 98-65, p. 81 (1983). We therefore read both the older language (“property of the debtor”) and the current language (“an interest of the debtor in property”) as coextensive with “interests of the debtor in property” as that term is used in 11 U. S. C. § 541(a)(1) (1988 ed.).
The general common-law rule that a trust is not created absent a designation of particular property obviously does not invalidate § 7501's creation of a trust in the “amount” of withheld taxes. The common law of trusts is not binding on Congress.
Because of the absence of a conference and the key roles played by Representative Edwards and his counterpart floor manager Senator DeConcini, we have treated their floor statements on the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 as persuasive evidence of congressional intent. See, e. g., Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, 471 U. S. 343, 351 (1985). Cf. 124 Cong. Rec. 32391 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Rousselot) (expressing view that remarks of floor manager of the Act have “the effect of being a conference report”).
Petitioner’s claim that this legislative history is irrelevant because the House Bill was not enacted is in error. The exact language to which the quoted portion of the House Report refers was enacted into law. Compare §647(b) with H. R. 8200, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., § 547(b) (1977). The version of § 541 that was eventually enacted is different from the original House bill, but only in that it makes explicit rather than implicit that “property of the estate” does not include the beneficiary’s equitable interest in property held in trust by the debtor. Compare § 541(d) with H. R. 8200, supra, § 541(a)(1).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PeR Curiam.
This action was brought before a three-judge court convened in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 and § 2284. The object of the action is an injunction against the enforcement of a provision which, in 1935, was added to a statute of Illinois and which requires that a petition to form and to nominate candidates for a new political party be signed by at least 25,000 qualified voters, “Provided, that included in the aggregate total of twenty-five thousand (25,000) signatures are the signatures of two hundred (200) qualified voters from each of at least fifty (50) counties within the State.” Ill. Rev. Stat. c. 46, § 10 — 2 (1947). Appellants are the “Progressive Party,” its nominees for United States Senator, Presidential Electors, and State offices, and several Illinois voters. Appellees are the Governor, the Auditor of Public Accounts, and the Secretary of State of Illinois, members of the Boards of Election Commissioners of various cities, and the County Clerks of various counties. The District Court found want of jurisdiction and denied the injunction. 80 F. Supp. 725. Appellants invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253.
The action arises from the finding of the State Officers Electoral Board that appellants had not obtained the requisite number of signatures from the requisite number of counties and its consequent ruling that their nominating petition was “not sufficient in law to entitle the said candidates’ names to appear on the ballot.” The appellants’ claim to equitable relief against this ruling is based upon the peculiar distribution of population among Illinois’ 102 counties. They allege that 52% of the State’s registered voters are residents of Cook County alone, 87 % are residents of the 49 most populous counties, and only 13% reside in the 53 least populous counties. Under these circumstances, they say, the Illinois statute is so discriminatory in its application as to amount to a violation of the due-process, equal-protection, and privileges- and-immunities clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Article I, §§ 2 and 4, Article II, § 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
It is clear that the requirement of two hundred signatures from at least fifty counties gives to the voters of the less populous counties of Illinois the power completely to block the nomination of candidates whose support is confined to geographically limited areas. But the State is entitled to deem this power not disproportionate: of 25,000 signatures required, only 9,800, or 39%, need be distributed; the remaining 61% may be obtained from a single county. And Cook County, the largest, contains not more than 52% of the State’s voters. It is allowable State policy to require that candidates for state-wide office should have support not limited to a concentrated locality. This is not a unique policy. See New York Laws 1896, c. 909, § 57, now N. Y. Elec. Law § 137 (4); 113 Laws of Ohio 349, Gen. Code § 4785-91 (1929), now Ohio Code Ann. (Cum. Supp. 1947) §4785-91; Mass. Acts, 1943, c. 334, § 2, now Mass. Ann. Laws c. 53, § 6 (1945). To assume that political power is a function exclusively of numbers is to disregard the practicalities of government. Thus, the Constitution protects the interests of the smaller against the greater by giving in the Senate entirely unequal representation to populations. It would be strange indeed, and doctrinaire, for this Court, applying such broad constitutional concepts as due process and equal protection of the laws, to deny a State the power to assure a proper diffusion of political initiative as between its thinly populated counties and those having concentrated masses, in view of the fact that the latter have practical opportunities for exerting their political weight at the polls not available to the former. The Constitution — a practical instrument of government— makes no such demands on the States. Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549, and Colegrove v. Barrett, 330 U. S. 804.
On the record before us, we need not pass upon purely local questions, also urged by appellants, having no federal constitutional aspect.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Rutledge.
In its facts and legal issues this case is closely analogous to Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549. It presents serious constitutional questions crucial to the validity of Illinois election procedures and their application to the imminently impending general election. That a bare majority of this Court resolve them one way and three others hold opposing views only emphasizes their substantial character and supreme importance. These qualities are not diminished by the fact that the Attorney General of Illinois, appearing for the three members of the so-called “State Certifying Board,” has conceded in his brief the validity of appellants' position and at the bar of this Court has confessed error in the decision of the District Court. Nor is it insignificant or irrelevant that the application of the statutory procedures made by the state officials in practical effect denies to a substantial body of qualified voters the right to exercise their suffrage in behalf of candidates of their choice.
Forced by the exigencies of their situation, appellants have invoked federal equity jurisdiction in vindication of their rights. They seek injunctive relief, in effect, to compel placing the names of their candidates upon the ballot for the general election to be held on November 2. For present purposes we may assume that appellants have acted with all possible dispatch. Even so, we find ourselves confronted on the eve of the election with the alternatives of denying the relief sought or of directing the issuance of an injunction.
This choice, in my opinion, presents the crucial question and the only one necessarily or properly now to be decided. Beyond the constitutional questions it poses delicate problems concerning the propriety of granting the relief in the prevailing circumstances. Even if we assume that appellants’ constitutional rights have been violated, the questions arise whether, in those circumstances, the equity arm of the. federal courts can now be extended to give effective relief; and whether the relief, if given, might not do more harm than good, might not indeed either disrupt the Illinois election altogether or disfranchise more persons than have been disfranchised by the application of the questioned Illinois procedures.
Every reason existing in Colegrove v. Green, supra, which seemed to me compelling to require this Court to decline to exercise its equity jurisdiction and to decide the constitutional questions is present here. See the opinion concurring in the result, 328 U. S. at 564. Indeed the circumstances are more exigent and therefore more compelling to that conclusion.
We are on the eve of the national election. But twelve days remain. Necessarily some of these would be consumed in remanding the cause to the District Court and in its consideration, formulation and issuance of an injunction in essentially specific terms. The ballots, as certified by the state officials, are in process of printing and distribution. Absentee ballots have been distributed. Illinois is one of the more populous states. Millions of ballots will be required, not only in the state but in Cook County alone. It is true that, on the short record before us and in the necessarily brief time available for preparing both the record and the briefs, appellees who oppose granting the relief have not made an absolutely conclusive factual showing that new ballots, containing the names of appellants’ candidates, could not possibly be printed and distributed for use at the election. But they suggest with good reason that this could not be done. The task would be gigantic. Even with the mobilization of every possible resource, it is gravely doubtful that it could be accomplished. The risk would be very large that it could not be done. Even if it could for all except absentee voters, they would be disfranchised. Issuance of the injunction sought would invalidate the ballots already prepared, including the absentee ballots, and those now in course of preparation.
The sum of these considerations, without regard to others not now necessary to state, forces me to conclude that the relief sought could be had at this late stage in the electoral process only at the gravest risk of disrupting that process completely in Illinois or of disfranchising Illinois voters in perhaps much greater numbers than those whose interests appellants represent. That is a risk which, in my judgment, federal courts of equity should not undertake and indeed are not free to undertake within the historic limits of their equity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, I express no opinion concerning the constitutional and other questions presented. As in Colegrove v. Green, supra, I think the case is one in which, for the reasons stated, this Court may properly, and should, decline to exercise its jurisdiction in equity. Accordingly, but solely for this reason, I agree that the judgment refusing injunctive relief should be affirmed.
The State Certifying Board is composed of the Governor, the Auditor of Public Accounts and the Secretary of State, and petitions for the formation of new state-wide political parties are filed with this board. (Ill. Rev. Stat. c. 46 [1947] §§ 10 — 2, 10 — 4.) On the filing of timely objection to such petitions, the certifying board transmits the petitions and the objections to the State Officers Electoral Board, which is not a party to this action. After passing on the objection, the State Officers Electoral Board informs the State Certifying Board of its ruling, and the certifying board is required to “abide by and comply with the ruling so made to all intents and purposes.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. c. 46 [1947] § 10 — 10.) Where objection is not made, or where it is made and overruled, the new party and the names of its candidates are certified by the State Certifying Board to the several county clerks; the clerks or the local boards of election commissioners, both groups being parties to this action, thereupon are required to print ballots containing the names of the candidates thus certified. (Ill. Rev. Stat. c. 46 [1947] § 10 — 14.)
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We review the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Dakota, holding that local police violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, when they conducted a routine inventory search of an automobile lawfully impounded by police for violations of municipal parking ordinances.
(1)
Local ordinances prohibit parking in certain areas of downtown Vermillion, S. D., between the hours of 2 a. m. and 6 a. m. During the early morning hours of December 10, 1973, a Vermillion police officer observed respondent’s unoccupied vehicle illegally parked in the restricted zone. At approximately 3 a. m., the officer issued an overtime parking ticket and placed it on the car’s windshield. The citation warned:
“Vehicles in violation of any parking ordinance may be towed from the area.”
At approximately 10 o’clock on the same morning, another officer issued a second ticket for an overtime parking violation. These circumstances were routinely reported to police headquarters, and after the vehicle was inspected, the car was towed to the city impound lot.
From outside the car at the impound lot, a police officer observed a watch on the dashboard and other items of personal property located on the back seat and back floorboard. At the officer's direction, the car door was then unlocked and, using a standard inventory form pursuant to standard police procedures, the officer inventoried the contents of the car, including the contents of the glove compartment, which was unlocked. There he found marihuana contained in a plastic bag. All items, including the contraband, were removed to the police department for safekeeping. During the late afternoon of December 10, respondent appeared at the police department to claim his property. The marihuana was retained by police.
Respondent was subsequently arrested on charges of possession of marihuana. His motion to suppress the evidence yielded by the inventory search was denied; he was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to a fine of $100 and 14 days’ incarceration in the county jail. On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the conviction. 89 S. D. -, 228 N. W. 2d 152. The court concluded that the evidence had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. We granted certiorari, 423 U. S. 923 (1975), and we reverse.
(2)
This Court has traditionally drawn a distinction between automobiles and homes or offices in relation to the Fourth Amendment. Although automobiles are “effects” and thus within the reach of the Fourth Amendment, Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, 439 (1973), war-rantless examinations of automobiles have been upheld in circumstances in which a search of a home or office would not. Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 589 (1974); Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, at 439-440; Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 48 (1970).
The reason for this well-settled distinction is twofold. First, the inherent mobility of automobiles creates circumstances of such exigency that, as a practical necessity, rigorous enforcement of the warrant requirement is impossible. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153-154 (1925); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 459-460 (1971). But the Court has also upheld warrant-less searches where no immediate danger was presented that the car would be removed from the jurisdiction. Chambers v. Maroney, supra, at 51-52; Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58 (1967). Besides the element of mobility, less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the expectation of privacy with respect to one’s automobile is significantly less than that relating to one’s home or office. In discharging their varied responsibilities for ensuring the public safety, law enforcement officials are necessarily brought into frequent contact with automobiles. Most of this contact is distinctly noncriminal in nature. Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, at 442. Automobiles, unlike homes, are subjected to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls, including periodic inspection and licensing requirements. As an everyday occurrence, police stop and examine vehicles when license plates or inspection stickers have expired, or if other violations, such as exhaust fumes or excessive noise, are noted, or if headlights or other safety equipment are not in proper working order.
The expectation of privacy as to automobiles is further diminished by the obviously public nature of automobile travel. Only two Terms ago, the Court noted:
“One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of personal effects. ... It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.” Cardwell v. Lewis, supra, at 590.
In the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called “community caretaking functions,” Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, at 441, automobiles are frequently taken into police custody. Vehicle accidents present one such occasion. To permit the uninterrupted flow of traffic and in some circumstances to preserve evidence, disabled or damaged vehicles will often be removed from the highways or streets at the behest of police engaged solely in caretaking and traffic-control activities. Police will also frequently remove and impound automobiles which violate parking ordinances and which thereby jeopardize both the public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic. The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.
When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles’ contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody, United States v. Mitchell, 458 F. 2d 960, 961 (CA9 1972); the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, United States v. Kelehar, 470 F. 2d 176, 178 (CA5 1972); and the protection of the police from potential danger, Cooper v. California, supra, at 61-62. The practice has been viewed as essential to respond to incidents of theft or vandalism. See Cobbler v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 520, 522, 184 S. E. 2d 781, 782 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 1073 (1972); Warrix v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 368, 376, 184 N. W. 2d 189, 194 (1971). In addition, police frequently attempt to determine whether a vehicle has been stolen and thereafter abandoned.
These caretaking procedures have almost uniformly been upheld by the state courts, which by virtue of the localized nature of traffic regulation have had considerable occasion to deal with the issue. Applying the Fourth Amendment standard of “reasonableness,” the state courts have overwhelmingly concluded that, even if an inventory is characterized as a “search,” the intrusion is constitutionally permissible. See, e. g., City of St. Paul v. Myles, 298 Minn. 298, 300-301, 218 N. W. 2d 697, 699 (1974); State v. Tully, 166 Conn. 126, 136, 348 A. 2d 603, 609 (1974); People v. Trusty, 183 Colo. 291, 296-297, 516 P. 2d 423, 425-426 (1973); People v. Sullivan, 29 N. Y. 2d 69, 73, 272 N. E. 2d 464, 466 (1971); Cobbler v. Commonwealth, supra; Warrix v. State, supra; State v. Wallen, 185 Neb. 44, 173 N. W. 2d 372, cert. denied, 399 U. S. 912 (1970); State v. Criscola, 21 Utah 2d 272, 444 P. 2d 517 (1968); State v. Montague, 73 Wash. 2d 381, 438 P. 2d 571 (1968); People v. Clark, 32 Ill. App. 3d 898, 336 N. E. 2d 892 (1975); State v. Achter, 512 S. W. 2d 894 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974); Bennett v. State, 507 P. 2d 1252 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973); People v. Willis, 46 Mich. App. 436, 208 N. W. 2d 204 (1973); State v. All, 17 N. C. App. 284, 193 S. E. 2d 770, cert. denied, 414 U. S. 866 (1973); Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969). Even the seminal state decision relied on by the South Dakota Supreme Court in reaching the contrary result, Mozzetti v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 3d 699, 484 P. 2d 84 (1971), expressly approved police caretaking activities resulting in the securing of property within the officer’s plain view.
The majority of the Federal Courts of Appeals have likewise sustained inventory procedures as reasonable police intrusions. As Judge Wisdom has observed: See also Cabbler v. Superintendent, 528 F. 2d 1142 (CA4 1975), cert. pending, No. 75-1463; Barker v. Johnson, 484 F. 2d 941 (CA6 1973); United States v. Mitchell, 458 F. 2d 960 (CA9 1972); United States v. Lipscomb, 435 F. 2d 795 (CA5 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 980 (1971); United States v. Pennington, 441 F. 2d 249 (CA5), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 854 (1971); United States v. Boyd, 436 F. 2d 1203 (CA5 1971); Cotton v. United States, 371 F. 2d 385 (CA9 1967). Accord, Lowe v. Hopper, 400 F. Supp. 970, 976-977 (SD Ga. 1975); United States v. Spitalieri, 391 F. Supp, 167, 169-170 (ND Ohio 1975); United States v. Smith, 340 F. Supp. 1023 (Conn. 1972); United States v. Fuller, 277 F. Supp. 97 (DC 1967), conviction aff'd, 139 U. S. App. D. C. 375, 433 F. 2d 533 (1970). These cases have recognized that standard inventories often include an examination of the glove compartment, since it is a customary place for documents of ownership and registration, United States v. Pennington, supra, at 251, as well as a place for the temporary storage of valuables.
“[W]hen the police take custody of any sort of container [such as] an automobile ... it is reasonable to search the container to itemize the property to be held by the police. [This reflects] the underlying principle that the fourth amendment proscribes only unreasonable searches.” United States v. Gravitt, 484 F. 2d 375, 378 (CA5 1973), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1135 (1974) (emphasis in original).
(3)
The decisions of this Court point unmistakably to the conclusion reached by both federal and state courts that inventories pursuant to standard police procedures are reasonable. In the first such case, Mr. Justice Black made plain the nature of the inquiry before us:
“But the question here is not whether the search was authorized by state law. The question is rather whether the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Cooper v. California, 386 U. S., at 61 (emphasis added).
And, in his last writing on the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Justice Black said:
“[T]he Fourth Amendment does not require that every search be made pursuant to a warrant. It prohibits only ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The relevant test is not the reasonableness 0/ the opportunity to procure a warrant, but the reasonableness of the seizure under all the circumstances. The test of reasonableness cannot be fixed by per se rules; each case must be decided on its own facts.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S., at 509-510 (concurring and dissenting) (emphasis added).
In applying the reasonableness standard adopted by the Framers, this Court has consistently sustained police intrusions into automobiles impounded or otherwise in lawful police custody where the process is aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents. In Cooper v. California, supra, the Court upheld the inventory of a car impounded under the authority of a state forfeiture statute. Even though the inventory was conducted in a distinctly criminal setting and carried out a week after the car had been impounded, the Court nonetheless found that the car search, including examination of the glove compartment where contraband was found, was reasonable under the circumstances. This conclusion was reached despite the fact that no warrant had issued and probable cause to search for the contraband in the vehicle had not been established. The Court said in language explicitly applicable here:
“It 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 following Term, the Court in Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234 (1968), upheld the introduction of evidence, seized by an officer who, after conducting an inventory search of a car and while taking means to safeguard it, observed a car registration card lying on the metal stripping of the car door. Rejecting the argument that a warrant was necessary, the Court held that the intrusion was justifiable since it was “taken to protect the car while it was in police custody.” Id., at 236.
Finally, in Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, the Court upheld a warrantless search of an automobile towed to a private garage even though no probable cause existed to believe that the vehicle contained fruits of a crime. The sole justification for the warrantless incursion was that it was incident to the caretaking function of the local police to protect the community’s safety. Indeed, the protective search was instituted solely because local police “were under the impression” that the incapacitated driver, a Chicago police officer, was required to carry his service revolver at all times; the police had reasonable grounds to believe a weapon might be in the car, and thus available to vandals. 413 U. S., at 436. The Court carefully noted that the protective search was carried out in accordance with standard procedures in the local police department, ibid., a factor tending to ensure that the intrusion would be limited in scope to the extent necessary to carry out the caretaking function. See United States v. Spitalieri, 391 F. Supp., at 169. In reaching this result, the Court in Cady distinguished Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364 (1964), on the grounds that the holding, invalidating a car search conducted after a vagrancy arrest, “stands only for the proposition that the search challenged there could not be justified as one incident to an arrest.” 413 U. S., at 444. Preston therefore did not raise the issue of the constitutionality of a protective inventory of a car lawfully within police custody.
The holdings in Cooper, Harris, and Cady point the way to the correct resolution of this case. None of the three cases, of course, involves the precise situation presented here; but, as in all Fourth Amendment cases, we are obliged to look to all the facts and circumstances of this case in light of the principles set forth in these prior decisions.
“[W]hether a search and seizure is unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case . . . .” Cooper v. California, 386 U. S., at 59.
The Vermillion police were indisputably engaged in a caretaking search of a lawfully impounded automobile. Cf. United States v. Lawson, 487 F. 2d 468, 471 (CA8 1973). The inventory was conducted only after the car had been impounded for multiple parking violations. The owner, having left his car illegally parked for an extended period, and thus subject to impoundment, was not present to make other arrangements for the safekeeping of his belongings. The inventory itself was prompted by the presence in plain view of a number of valuables inside the car. As in Cady, there is no suggestion whatever that this standard procedure, essentially like that followed throughout the country, was a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive.
On this record we conclude that in following standard police procedures, prevailing throughout the country and approved by the overwhelming majority of courts, the conduct of the police was not “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.
The judgment of the South Dakota Supreme Court is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
At respondent’s trial, the officer who conducted the inventory testified as follows:
“Q. And why did you inventory this car?
“A, Mainly for safekeeping, because we have had a lot of trouble in the past of people getting into the impound lot and breaking into cars and stealing stuff out of them.
“Q. Do you know whether the vehicles that were broken into . . . were locked or unlocked?
“A. Both of them were locked, they would be locked.” Record 74. In describing the impound lot, the officer stated:
“A. It’s the old county highway yard. It has a wooden fence partially around part of it, and kind of a dilapidated wire fence, a makeshift fence.” Id., at 73.
In Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 623 (1967), and See v. City of Seattle, 387 U. S. 641 (1967), the Court held that a warrant was required to effect an unoonsented administrative entry into and inspection of private dwellings or commercial premises to ascertain health or safety conditions. In contrast, this procedure has never been held applicable to automobile inspections for safety purposes.
The New York Court of Appeals has noted that in New York City alone, 108,332 cars were towed away for traffic violations during 1969. People v. Sullivan, 29 N. Y. 2d 69, 71, 272 N. E. 2d 464, 465 (1971).
In contrast to state officials engaged in everyday caretaking functions:
“The contact with vehicles by federal law enforcement officers usually, if not always, involves the detection or investigation of crimes unrelated to the operation of a vehicle.” Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, 440 (1973).
In analyzing the issue of reasonableness vel non, the courts have not sought to determine whether a protective inventory was justified by “probable cause.” The standard of probable cause is peculiarly related to criminal investigations, not routine, noncriminal procedures. See generally Note, Warrantless Searches and Seizures of Automobiles, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 835, 850-851 (1974). The probable-cause approach is unhelpful when analysis centers upon the reasonableness of routine administrative caretaking functions, particularly when no claim is made that the protective procedures are a subterfuge for criminal investigations.
In view of the noncriminal context of inventory searches, and the inapplicability in such a setting of the requirement of probable cause, courts have held — and quite correctly — that search warrants are not required, linked as the warrant requirement textually is to the probable-cause concept. We have frequently observed that the warrant requirement assures that legal inferences and conclusions as to probable cause will be drawn by a neutral magistrate unrelated to the criminal investigative-enforcement process. With respect to noninvestigative police inventories of automobiles lawfully within governmental custody, however, the policies underlying the warrant requirement, to which Mr. Justice Powell refers, are inapplicable.
Given the benign noncriminal context of the intrusion, see Wyman v. James, 400 U. S. 309, 317 (1971), some courts have concluded that an inventory does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. See, e. g., People v. Sullivan, supra, at 77, 272 N. E. 2d, at 469; People v. Willis, 46 Mich. App. 436, 208 N. W. 2d 204 (1973); State v. Wallen, 185 Neb. 44, 49-50, 173 N. W. 2d 372, 376, cert. denied, 399 U. S. 912 (1970). Other courts have expressed doubts as to whether the intrusion is classifiable as a search. State v. All, 17 N. C. App. 284, 286, 193 S. E. 2d 770, 772, cert. denied, 414 U. S. 866 (1973). Petitioner, however, has expressly abandoned the contention that the inventory in this case is exempt from the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5.
In Cooper, the owner had been arrested on narcotics-charges, and the car was taken into custody pursuant to the state forfeiture statute. The search was conducted several months before the forfeiture proceedings were actually instituted.
There was, of course, no certainty at the time of the search that forfeiture proceedings would ever be held. Accordingly, there was no reason for the police to assume automatically that the automobile would eventually be forfeited to the State. Indeed, as the California Court of Appeal stated, “[T]he instant record nowhere discloses that forfeiture proceedings were instituted in respect to defendant’s car . . . .” People v. Cooper, 234 Cal. App. 2d 587, 596, 44 Cal. Rptr. 483, 489 (1965). No reason would therefore appear to limit Cooper to an impoundment pursuant to a forfeiture statute.
The Court expressly noted that the legality of the inventory was not presented, since the evidence was discovered at the point when the officer was taking protective measures to secure the automobile from the elements. But the Court clearly held that the officer acted properly in opening the car for protective reasons.
The inventory was not unreasonable in scope. Respondent's motion to suppress in state court challenged the inventory only as to items inside the car not in plain view. But once the policeman was lawfully inside the car to secure the personal property in plain view, it was not unreasonable to open the unlocked glove compartment, to which vandals would have had ready and unobstructed access once inside the car.
The “consent” theory advanced by the dissent rests on the assumption that the inventory is exclusively for the protection of the car owner. It is not. The protection of the municipality and public officers from claims of lost or stolen property and the protection of the public from vandals who might find a firearm, Cady v. Dombrowski, or as here, contraband drugs, are also crucial.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 controversy here concerned the validity of Patent No. 1,906,260, issued to respondent, May 2, 1933, and its alleged infringement by petitioner. The District Court found the patent to be valid and infringed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 170 F. 2d 34 (1948). Being moved by the petition for certiorari that there was a conflict with Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U. S. 1 (1946), we granted certiorari.
The record, briefs and arguments of counsel lead us to the view that Halliburton, supra, is inapposite. We there held the patent invalid because its language was too broad at the precise point of novelty. In the instant case, the patent has been sustained because of the fact of combination rather than the novelty of any particular element.
After the suit in this cause was initiated in the District Court, petitioner modified his device. The courts below held that this modification was insubstantial and did not place petitioner outside the scope of respondent’s patent.
We will not disturb the concurrent findings upon the issues presented to us in the petition for certiorari. We are not persuaded that the findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that the language of the claims was too broad at the precise point where there was novelty, if there was novelty anywhere.
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:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a federal estate tax case, raising questions under § 2042 (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 2042 (2) (1958 ed.), which requires inclusion in the gross estate of a decedent of amounts received by beneficiaries other than the executor from “insurance under policies on the life of the decedent” if the decedent “possessed at his death any of the incidents of ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other person. . . .” The questions presented in this case are whether certain flight insurance policies payable upon the accidental death of the insured were policies “on the life of the decedent” and whether at his death he had reserved any of the “incidents of ownership” in the policies.
These issues emerge from the following facts. Respondent Ruth M. Noel drove her husband from their home to New York International Airport where he was to take an airplane to Venezuela. Just before taking off, Mr. Noel signed applications for two round-trip flight insurance policies, aggregating 1125,000 and naming his wife as beneficiary. Mrs. Noel testified that she paid the premiums of $2.50 each on the policies and that her husband then instructed the sales clerk to “give them to my wife. They are hers now, I no longer have anything to do with them.” The clerk gave her the policies, which she kept. Less than three hours later Mr. Noel’s plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean and he and all others aboard were killed. Thereafter the companies paid Mrs. Noel the $125,000 face value of the policies, which was not included in the estate tax return filed by his executors. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the proceeds of the policies should have been included and the Tax Court sustained that determination, holding that the flight accident policies were insurance “on the life of the decedent”; that Mr. Noel had possessed exercisable “incidents of ownership” in the policies at his death; arid that the $125,000 paid to Mrs. Noel as beneficiary was therefore includable in the gross estate. 39 T. C. 466. Although agreeing that decedent’s reserved right to assign the policies and to change the beneficiary amounted to “exercisable incidents of ownership within the meaning of the statute,” the Court of Appeals nevertheless reversed, holding that given “its ordinary, plain and generally accepted meaning,” the statutory phrase “policies on the life of the decedent” does not apply to insurance paid on account of accidental death under policies like those here. 332 F. 2d 950. The court’s reason for drawing the distinction was that under a life insurance contract an insurer “agrees to pay a specified sum upon the occurrence of an inevitable event,” whereas accident insurance covers a risk “which is evitable and not likely to occur.” (Emphasis supplied.) 332 F. 2d, at 952. Because of the importance of an authoritative answer to these questions in the administration of the estate tax laws, we granted certiorari to decide them. 379 U. S. 927.
I.
In 1929, 36 years ago, the Board of Tax Appeals, predecessor to the Tax Court, held in Ackerman v. Commis sioner, 15 B. T. A. 635, that “amounts received as accident insurance” because of the death of the insured were includable in the estate of the deceased. The Board of Tax Appeals recognized that “there is a distinction between life insurance and accident insurance, the former insuring against death in any event and the latter . . . against death under certain contingencies . . . .” The Court of Appeals in the case now before us considered this distinction between an “inevitable” and an “evitable” event to be of crucial significance under the statute. The Board of Tax Appeals in Ackerman did not, stating “we fail to see why one is not taken out upon the life of the policy-holder as much as the other. In each case the risk assumed by the insurer is the loss of the insured’s life, and the payment of the insurance money is contingent upon the loss of life.” This view of the Board of Tax Appeals is wholly consistent with the language of the statute itself which makes no distinction between “policies on the life of the decedent” which are payable in all events and those •payable only if death comes in a certain way or within a certain time. Even were the statutory language less clear, since the Board of Tax Appeals’ Ackerman case it has been the settled and consistent administrative practice to include insurance proceeds for accidental death under policies like these in the estates of decedents. The Treasury Regulations remain unchanged from the time of the Ackerman decision and from that day to this Congress has never attempted to limit the scope of that decision or the established administrative construction of § 2042 (2), although it has re-enacted that section and amended it in other respects a number of times. We have held in many cases that such a long-standing administrative interpretation, applying to a substantially reenacted statute, is deemed to have received congressional approval and has the effect of law. See, e. g., National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 140, 146; United States v. Dakota-Montana Oil Co., 288 U. S. 459, 466. We hold here that these insurance policies, whether called “flight accident insurance” or “life insurance,” were in effect insurance taken out on the “life of the decedent” within the meaning of § 2042 (2).
II.
The executors’ second contention is that even if these were policies “on the life of the decedent,” Mrs. Noel owned them completely, and the decedent therefore possessed no exercisable incident of ownership in them at the time of his death so as to make the proceeds includable in his estate. While not clearly spelled out, the contention that the decedent reserved no incident of ownership in the policies rests on three alternative claims: (a) that Mrs. Noel purchased the policies and therefore owned them; (b) that even if her husband owned the policies, he gave them to her, thereby depriving himself of power to assign the policies or to change the beneficiary; and (c) even assuming he had contractual power to assign the policies or make a beneficiary change, this power was illusory as he could not possibly have exercised it in the interval between take-off and the fatal crash in the Atlantic.
(a) The contention that Mrs. Noel bought the policies and therefore owned them rests solely on her testimony that she furnished the money for their purchase, intending thereby to preserve her right to continue as beneficiary. Accepting her claim that she supplied the money to buy the policies for her own benefit (which the Tax Court did not decide), what she bought nonetheless were policy contracts containing agreements between her husband and the companies. The contracts themselves granted to Mr. Noel the right either to assign the policies or to change the beneficiary without her consent. Therefore the contracts she bought by their very terms rebut her claim that she became the complete, unconditional owner of the policies with an irrevocable right to remain the beneficiary.
(b) The contention that Mr. Noel gave or assigned the policies to her and therefore was without power thereafter to assign them or to change the beneficiary stands no better under these facts. The contract terms provided that these policies could not be assigned nor could the benéficiary be changed without a written endorsement on the policies. No such assignment or change of beneficiary was endorsed on these policies, and consequently the power to assign the policies or change the beneficiary remained in the decedent at the time of his death.
(c) Obviously, there was no practical opportunity for the decedent to assign the policies or change the beneficiary between the time he boarded the plane and the time he died. That time was too short and his wife had the policies in her possession at home. These circumstances disabled him for the moment from exercising those “incidents of ownership” over the policies which were undoubtedly his. Death intervened before this temporary disability was removed. But the same could be said about a man owning an ordinary life insurance policy who boarded the plane at the same time or for that matter about any man’s exercise of ownership over his property while aboard an airplane in the three hours before a fatal crash. It would stretch the imagination to think that Congress intended to measure estate tax liability by an individual’s fluctuating, day-by-day, hour-by-hour capacity to dispose of property which he owns. We hold that estate tax liability for policies “with respect to which the decedent possessed at his death any of the incidents of ownership” depends on a general, legal power to exercise ownership, without regard to the owner’s ability to exercise it at a particular moment. Nothing we have said is to be taken as meaning that a policyholder is without power to divest himself of all incidents of ownership over his insurance policies by a proper gift or assignment, so as to bar its inclusion in his gross estate under § 2042 (2). What we do hold is that no such transfer was made of the policies here involved. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, is reversed and the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Ҥ 2042. Proceeds of life insurance.
“The value of the gross estate shall include the value of all property—
“(1) Receivable by the executor.
“To the extent of the amount receivable by the executor as insurance under policies on the life of the decedent.
“(2) Receivable by other beneficiaries.
“To the extent of the amount receivable by all other beneficiaries as insurance under policies on the life of the decedent with respect to which the decedent possessed at his death any of the incidents of ownership, exercisable either alone or in conjunction with any other person. . .
Section 302 (g) of the Revenue Act of 1924, which was applicable in Ackerman, provided that the estate should include all proceeds receivable by other beneficiaries “under policies taken out by the decedent upon his own life.” 43 Stat. 253, 304r-305.
26 CFR § 20.2042-1 (a) (1). See also Treas. Reg. 105 (1939 Code), §81.25; Treas. Reg. 80 (1934 ed.), Art. 25; Treas. Reg. 70 (1926 ed. and 1929 ed.), Art. 25; Treas. Reg. 68 (1924 ed.), Art. 25; Treas. Reg. 63 (1922 ed.), Art. 27; and Treas. Reg. 37 (1921 ed.), Art. 32.
Section 2042 was first enacted as § 402 (f) of the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1097-1098. This section was re-enacted in § 402 (f) of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 278-279; in § 302 (g) of the Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 304r-305, and the Revenue Act of 1926, c. 27, 44 Stat. 9, 70-71; and in § 811 (g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Opinion of the Court by
Mr. Justice Harlan,
announced by Mr. Justice Clark.
These cases involve the validity of railroad tariff provisions exonerating the appellee railroads from liability for stated percentages of damage to shell eggs shipped over their lines. The cases come to us by direct appeal from a judgment of a three-judge district court in Utah, which dismissed an action brought to set aside and enjoin an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission approving such tariff provisions. We noted probable jurisdiction on October 14, 1954.
Claims against the railroads for damage to egg shipments steadily and rapidly increased in the years following 1939, particularly on shipments to the eastern seaboard area. In 1950 the railroads, believing that because of the difficulties of proof they were being exposed to liability for damage for which they were not responsible, filed with the Commission proposed tariff provisions similar in form to those approved by the order under review. After an investigation and hearing, the Commission concluded that egg shipments ordinarily contained substantial amounts of damage for which the railroads were not responsible — namely, (a) damage existing prior to shipment, and (b) damage unavoidably arising in transit because of the inherently fragile nature of eggs. The average amount of such damage was found to be 3% for eggs packaged at railhead points and 5% for those packaged elsewhere. On the basis of this finding, the Commission, although rejecting the higher-percentage provisions proposed by the railroads, found reasonable— and hence authorized the railroads to include in their tariff schedules — the following tolerance provision :
“On eggs placed in packages at rail point of origin of the shipment, no claim shall be allowed where the physical damage to the eggs at destination does not exceed 3% of the contents of the packages containing damaged eggs. Where damage exceeds 3%, claims shall be allowed for all damage in excess of 3%, if investigation develops carrier liability.
“Exception. — Where bona fide certificates of Federal or State egg inspection agencies showing extent of physical damage to eggs determined at rail point of origin of the shipment immediately prior to tender for rail transportation indicate the actual shell damage to be other than 2%, the percentage of actual damage as shown on such certificates, plus 1% shall be used in lieu of 3% specified in this Section.”
An otherwise identical provision applicable to “eggs placed in packages at points other than the rail point of origin” was determined to be reasonable with a tolerance of 5%.
It is claimed that these tariff provisions violate §20 (11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 386, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 20 (11), which provides that any common carrier subject to the Act receiving property for interstate transportation “shall be liable ... for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it ... , and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, or other limitation of any character whatsoever shall exempt such common carrier . . . from the liability hereby imposed . . . .”
The Commission and the court below (one judge dissenting) held that the tolerance provisions did not violate §20 (11) because the pre-shipment and unavoidably-caused damage represented by the tolerances was not damage “caused by” the railroads; hence the tolerance regulations, in providing a means for determining the extent of such damage, did not limit the railroads’ proper liability, but operated simply to eliminate from damage claims the damage for which the railroads were not liable.
The appellants attack the provisions on six principal grounds: (1) the Commission has no jurisdiction over damage claims and hence no power to prescribe regulations governing their disposition; (2) tolerances based on averages necessarily embrace a forbidden limitation of liability since, by definition, some shipments will contain less than the “average” damage, resulting in those cases in the carrier being relieved of its full liability; (3) the railroads are liable for in-transit damage even though “unavoidable” ; (4) the averages found by the Commission are not supported by the evidence; (5) the approval of uniform nation-wide tolerances was unreasonable in light of the wide differences in the egg-damage experience of consignees located in different areas of the country; and (6) the conclusion that the tolerances do not limit liability is not supported by the Commission’s findings. Our agreement with this last contention makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other arguments, and we may assume, though we do not decide, that the tariff provisions are not invalid for any of the other reasons assigned.
The Commission’s justification of the tolerance regulations as not limiting liability rests upon two distinct propositions: (1) that there is present in every case of eggs at destination physical damage not “caused by” the railroads — and hence for which they are not liable under § 20 (11) — in the amount of the specified percentages; and (2) that the deduction of those percentages from damage claims operates merely to prevent liability for such damage from being improperly imposed on the railroads. We shall accept for purposes of discussion the validity of the first proposition. The infirmity we find in the Commission’s report is rather that the second proposition is simply assumed and is supported by no findings upon which we can say that the Commission’s conclusion was reasonably based. Such a conclusion being essential to remove the tolerance provisions from the prohibition of § 20 (11), the lack of findings necessary to justify that conclusion renders invalid the Commission’s order approving the tolerance regulations. See Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, 215. Indeed, so far does the report fail to support the Commission’s conclusion that it tends affirmatively to support precisely the opposite conclusion— namely, that the tolerances do unlawfully limit liability. We know of no better way to illustrate the inadequacies of the report than by showing the manner in which the inferences raised by it and unanswered by the Commission would, if accepted, lead to that opposing conclusion.
In the first place, we are unable to discover in the report any showing that damage claims include — or should reasonably be deemed to include — the exempt damage which is to be deducted from them. At common law, proof that a case of eggs contained a specified amount of damage for which the carrier was not liable would afford no defense to a damage claim not shown to include that damage. To complete the defense, some showing that the damage claimed included the exempt damage would be required, such as evidence that all of the damage had been found and claimed. Similarly, to justify a regulation authorizing the deduction from damage claims of a tolerance representing exempt damage, some basis for inferring that damage claims ordinarily include such damage would seem required, such as a finding that the type of inspection upon which damage claims are based is adequate to reveal substantially all the damage present in a case.
Far from making such a finding, however, the Commission report indicates that damage claims normally do not include all the damage present in a case. As described by the Commission, the customary inspection at destination upon which damage claims are based is simply a visual examination of a layer of 36 eggs at a time, continuing only until a layer in the case with no visible damage is found, at which point none of the succeeding layers is even looked at. Inasmuch as “damage” of the sort represented by the tolerances includes even the most minor shell imperfections, the inference seems inevitable that much damage is overlooked. This inference is strengthened by the Commission’s statement that much of the damage normally present in a case could be found only “by candling and clicking, and could not be detected by the kind of inspection performed at” destination. And that damage claims do not in practice include all damage is further indicated by the Department of' Agriculture studies cited by the Commission in which the damage overlooked by customary inspections at destination was found to range between 3.6% and 7.3%. Indeed, if the inferences suggested by these latter studies be accepted, it would appear that there is ordinarily overlooked in the destination inspection — and hence not included in damage claims — physical damage nearly equal to or greater than the exempt damage represented by the tolerances. If that be true, a further reduction of the claim by the full amount of the tolerance would necessarily operate to “limit” liability by approximately the full amount of the tolerance.
Nor is it an answer to this that the consignee is entitled to make a more thorough inspection than the prevailing practice entails. By in effect requiring a consignee to prove that his damage claim does not include the exempt damage, the tolerances would impose on the consignee the burden of disproving a defense which at common law it would be the carrier’s burden to establish. Whether or not the Commission has power so to alter the burden of proof, there is nothing to indicate that it had any intention of doing so. The Commission seems to have believed that under the prevailing commercial practices the carriers were being exposed to an improper liability and that the tolerances, applied in the same commercial setting, would do no more than remedy that situation. It would pervert the Commission’s purpose to deal realistically with a commercial problem now to seek to justify the tolerances on the ground that it is technically possible for consignees, by departing from the normal commercial practices, to avoid the limitation of liability caused by the tolerances. Especially is this true in the absence of any suggestion in the Commission’s report that such a complete inspection by consignees would be commercially feasible.
Another inadequacy of the Commission’s report arises from its failure to distinguish between different kinds of physical damage in the application of the tolerances. The most favorable evidence supporting the Commission’s conclusions as to the extent of the damage not “caused by” the railroads was a Department of Agriculture study showing that at destination the average case of eggs contains 4.8% “checked” or “stained” eggs and 0.3% broken eggs. Presumably, therefore, the tolerances approved by the Commission represent physical damage in the same proportions — that is, primarily checked and stained eggs with only a nominal percentage of broken eggs. Checked and stained eggs are salable at a reduced price and therefore, unlike broken eggs, represent only a partial loss. The tariff provisions, however, do not differentiate between these types of damage and apparently authorize the deduction of the full tolerance without regard to the nature of the damage claimed. But to permit the offsetting of checked and stained eggs, representing only a partial loss, against broken eggs, representing a total loss, would seem necessarily to limit the railroads’ proper liability under § 20 (11).
A third major respect in which the Commission’s report falls short of establishing that the tolerances will not limit liability results from its failure to consider the relationship between the physical damage represented by the tolerances and the legal loss for which damage claims are asserted. We have thus far assumed that “physical damage” could properly be equated with “loss” and have shown that, even on that assumption, the Commission has not shown the existence of a relationship between the damage represented by the tolerances and that included in damage claims which would justify the deduction authorized by the tariff provisions. In fact, however, it would appear that damage claims are based not on physical damage to individual eggs but rather on the loss of commercial accceptability of a case of eggs as a whole. As the Commission observed, the “commercially sound” case of eggs invariably contains some damage, and it is apparently only when the damage is so great as to make a case commercially unacceptable for its grade that it loses value. When a commercially unsound case is received, the consignee, rather than suffer the presumably greater loss that would result from selling it at a lower grade or as salvage, ordinarily “reconditions” the case by replacing the visibly damaged eggs and, if necessary, the packaging materials. From the character of this process as described by the Commission, it is apparent that the purpose is simply to make the case commercially sound and not to discover and remove all the damage present in the case. The damage claim, if liability is asserted against the carrier, then consists simply of the cost of reconditioning the case — that is, the labor and material costs plus the loss on the damaged eggs removed.
Viewed in the above terms, the probable effect of the tolerances on liability becomes even more apparent. Inasmuch as the highest grade specifications prescribed by the Department of Agriculture permit physical damage of 5%, a case of eggs received at destination with only the tolerance damage of 3% or 5% would presumably be considered “commercially sound” and be salable at the full price. Thus it would seem that presence of the tolerance damage by itself causes the consignee no loss and affords no basis for a damage claim, and that it is only when there is additional damage, making it necessary to recondition the case to make it commercially sound, that there is a loss for which a claim may be asserted. And if the additional damage is caused by the railroad, it necessarily follows that the cost of the reconditioning made necessary only because of that damage is a loss “caused by” the railroad within § 20 (11) , Any reduction of the damage claim in such circumstances would thus relieve the carrier of its proper liability.
The Commission’s report thus leaves us not merely with uncertainty as to the impact of the tolerances, cf. United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 504-505, 510-511, but with the strong impression that they are likely to operate in a forbidden manner. The report contains no answers to the problems we have raised, if indeed the Commission considered them at all. Since the report falls far short of establishing that the tolerances will not operate to limit carrier liability in violation of § 20 (11), the order of the Commission approving the tolerances must be set aside, and the judgment below
Reversed.
28 U. S. C. §§ 1253, 2325. The Secretary of Agriculture’s standing in these proceedings derives from 52 Stat. 36, 7 U. S. C. § 1291 (a) and (b).
Utah Poultry & Farmers Cooperative v. United States, 119 F. Supp. 846.
2841. C. C. 377.
348 U. S. 807.
The Commission found that on eggs shipped to New York the average claim per car increased more than 1800% from 1940 to 1947, 284 I. C. C., at 386, 390, and that the total claims paid in 1947 exceeded 50% of the gross revenue on such shipments, id., at 387.
36 Stat. 552, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 15 (7).
The tariff provisions as originally filed established 4% and 6% tolerances as opposed to the 3% and 5% tolerances found reasonable by the Commission. See 284 I. C. C., at 407-408.
Promptly after the Commission's order, the railroads refiled the tariff provisions with the approved percentages. They were permitted to go into effect on May 2,1952.
It is conceded that §20 (11) codifies the common-law rule making a carrier liable, without proof of negligence, for all damage to the goods transported by it, unless it affirmatively shows that the damage was occasioned by the shipper, acts of God, the public enemy, public authority, or the inherent vice or nature of the commodity. See, e. g., Bills of Lading, 52 I. C. C. 671, 679; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Thompson Mfg. Co., 270 U. S. 416, 421-422; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 506-507, 509. The “unavoidable” damage to eggs is claimed to be within the “inherent vice” exception. The appellants contend, however, that the exception does not include damage induced by external force, however slight or unavoidable, but is limited to loss or damage arising solely from the nature of the property without the intervention of human factors, such as loss from decay, fermentation, evaporation or natural shrinkage. See, e. g., Austin v. Seaboard R. Co., 188 F. 2d 239, 240-241 (C. A. 5th Cir.) ; Akerly v. Railway Exp. Agency, 96 N. H. 396, 400-402, 77 A. 2d 856, 860-861; Jackson & Perkins Co. v. Mushroom Transp. Co., 351 Pa. 583, 590-591, 41 A. 2d 635, 639; Watson Bros. Transp. Co. v. Domenico, 118 Colo. 133, 135-137, 194 P. 2d 323, 325.
The Commission found that the increase of damage claims to “substantial amounts” had occurred principally in connection with shipments to certain points in the eastern seaboard territory — particularly New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston and Newark—and that “Generally there has been no increase in the damage claims on shell eggs moved by rail to other territories.” 284 I. C. C., at 385-386, 392.
2841. C. C., at 395.
2841. C. C., at 393-394. In “candling,” each egg is placed before a light to disclose defects not otherwise detectable; in “clicking,” two eggs are knocked together, the sound revealing shell imperfections.
284 I. C. C., at 396. In answer to the implications of these un-controverted studies, the Commission simply said: “The record does not indicate the handling received by those particular shipments after they were delivered to the consignees. It does indicate, however, based on the number and amount of claims, that the inspection of shipments of eggs arriving at New York is being performed with a view to detecting all damaged eggs. Claims in amounts exceeding 50 percent of the revenue on the entire egg traffic to New York in 1947 do not appear to be based on a cursory inspection.” Ibid. But this speculative reasoning hardly overcomes the Commission’s own explicit finding of the inadequacy of the destination inspections to discover all the damage.
To the contrary, the report notes that, despite the efforts of packers by careful inspection to eliminate all damage, “absolute perfection is commercially impossible” and a substantial amount is overlooked, 284 I. C. C., at 393, and the difficulties would seem even greater under the more adverse conditions prevailing at destination. Nor do the Department of Agriculture test studies upon which the tolerances were based indicate the feasibility of an inspection adequate to uncover all damage. The usual Department of Agriculture grading inspections involve an examination only of 100 eggs from each of 15 cases out of a carload, 284 I. C. C., at 393, and, while the Commission does not clearly say so, apparently the test studies utilized a similar spot-check inspection, from which the total amount of damage was simply inferred. Damage claims, on the other hand, can be asserted only for the damage that is actually found.
284 I. C. C., at 393-394. “Checked” eggs have slight cracks but the membrane is unbroken; “stained” eggs are sound eggs which have been stained by leakage from other eggs, /d., at 384, 385.
2841. C. C., at 393.
284 I. C. C., at 395. The eggs are simply transferred from the damaged case to a new case a whole layer (36 eggs) at a time, in the course of which any obviously damaged eggs are removed and replaced.
2841. C. C., at 385, 399.
284 I. C. C., at 401. Of this 5% (for Grade A or AA eggs), no more than 0.5% may consist of broken eggs. As appears above, however, the proportion of broken eggs represented by the tolerances is well within this limit.
It seems immaterial that in a given case the consignee might remove more damage than the minimum necessary to make the case commercially sound. The cost of the extensive inspection that would be necessary to assure that precisely the right amount of damage is removed — a cost the consignee would presumably be entitled to recover — would defeat the mitigation of damages which is the very purpose of the reconditioning. The carrier can ask no more than that the consignee act reasonably in mitigating damages, and there is no suggestion that the commercially accepted method of reconditioning unsound cases is unreasonable.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that all federal agencies include a detailed statement of environmental consequences — known as an environmental impact statement — “in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U. S. C. § 4332 (2) (C). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that officials of the Department of the Interior (Department) and certain other federal agencies must take additional steps under this section, beyond those already taken, before allowing further development of federal coal reserves in a specific area of the country. For the reasons set forth, we reverse.
I
Respondents, several organizations concerned with the environment, brought this suit in July 1973 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendants in the suit, petitioners here, were the officials of the Department and other federal agencies responsible for issuing coal leases, approving mining plans, granting rights-of-way, and taking the other actions necessary to enable private companies and public utilities to develop coal reserves on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government. Citing widespread interest in the reserves of a region identified as the “Northern Great Plains region,” and an alleged threat from coal-related operations to their members’ enjoyment of the region’s environment, respondents claimed that the federal officials could not allow further development without preparing a “comprehensive environmental impact statement” under § 102 (2) (C) on the entire region. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The District Court, on the basis of extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, held that the complaint stated no claim for relief and granted the petitioners’ motions for summary judgment. Respondents appealed. Shortly after oral argument but before issuing an opinion on the merits, the Court of Appeals in January 1975 issued an injunction — over a dissent — against the Department’s approval of four mining plans in the Powder River Coal Basin, which is one small but coal-rich section of the region that concerns respondents. 166 U. S. App. D. C. 200, 509 F. 2d 533. An impact statement had been prepared on these plans, but it had not been before the District Court and was not before the Court of Appeals. In June 1975 the Court of Appeals ruled on the merits and, for reasons discussed below, reversed the District Court and remanded for further proceedings. 169 U. S. App. D. C. 20, 514 F. 2d 856. The court continued its injunction in force.
The federal officials petitioned for writ of certiorari on October 9, 1975. On November 7, the Court of Appeals refused to dissolve its injunction, and a week later petitioners moved this Court for a stay. On January 12, 1976, we stayed the injunction and granted the petitions for certiorari. 423 U. S. 1047. We have been informed that shortly thereafter the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) approved the four mining plans in the Powder River Coal Basin that had been stayed by the injunction.
II
The record and the opinions of the courts below contain extensive facts about coal development and the geographic area involved in this suit. The facts that we consider essential, however, can be stated briefly.
The Northern Great Plains region identified in respondents’ complaint encompasses portions of four States — northeastern Wyoming, eastern Montana, western North Dakota, and western South Dakota. There is no dispute about its richness in coal, nor about the waxing interest in developing that coal, nor about the crucial role the federal petitioners will play due to the significant percentage of the coal to which they control access. The Department has initiated, in this decade, three studies in areas either inclusive of or included within this region. The North Central Power Study was addressed to the potential for coordinated development of electric power in an area encompassing all or part of 15 States in the North Central United States. It aborted in 1972 for lack of interest on the part of electric utilities. The Montana-Wyoming Aqueducts Study, intended to recommend the best use of water resources for coal development in southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming, was suspended in 1972 with the initiation of the third study, the Northern Great Plains Resources Program (NGPRP).
While the record does not reveal the degree of concern with environmental matters in the first two studies, it is clear that the NGPRP was devoted entirely to the environment. It was carried out by an interagency, federal-state task force with public participation, and was designed “to assess the potential social, economic and environmental impacts” from resource development in five States — Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska. Its primary objective was “to provide an analytical and informational framework for policy and planning decisions at all levels of government” by formulating several “scenarios” showing the probable consequences for the area's environment and culture from the various possible techniques and levels of resource development. The final interim report of the NGPRP was issued August 1, 1975, shortly after the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case.
In addition, since 1973 the Department has engaged in a complete review of its coal-leasing program for the entire Nation. On February 17 of that year the Secretary announced the review and announced also that during study a “short-term leasing policy” would prevail, under which new leasing would be restricted to narrowly defined circumstances and even then allowed only when an environmental impact statement had been prepared if required under NEPA. The purpose of the program review was to study the environmental impact of the Department’s entire range of coal-related activities and to develop a planning system to guide the national leasing program. The impact statement, known as the “Coal Programmatic EIS,” went through several drafts before issuing in final form on September 19, 1975 — shortly before the petitions for certiorari were filed in this case. The Coal Programmatic EIS proposed a new leasing program based on a complex planning system called the Energy Minerals Activity Recommendation System (EMARS), and assessed the prospective environmental impact of the new program as well as the alternatives to it. We have been informed by the parties to this litigation that the Secretary is in the process of implementing the new program.
Against this factual background, we turn now to consider the issues raised by this case in the status in which it reached this Court.
Ill
The major issue remains the one with which the suit began: whether NEPA requires petitioners to prepare an environmental impact statement on the entire Northern Great Plains region. Petitioners, arguing the negative, rely squarely upon the facts of the case and the language of § 102 (2) (C) of NEPA. We find their reliance well placed.
As noted in the first sentence of this opinion, § 102 (2)(C) requires an impact statement “in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” Since no one has suggested that petitioners have proposed legislation on respondents' region, the controlling phrase in this section of the Act, for this case, is “major Federal actions.” Respondents can prevail only if there has been a report or recommendation on a proposal for major federal action with respect to the Northern Great Plains region. Our statement of the relevant facts shows there has been none; instead, all proposals are for actions of either local or national scope.
The local actions are the decisions by the various pe-tioners to issue a lease, approve a mining plan, issue a right-of-way permit, or take other action to allow private activity at some point within the region identified by respondents. Several Courts of Appeals have held that an impact statement must be included in the report or recommendation on a proposal for such action if the private activity to be permitted is one “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” within the meaning of §102(2)(C). See, e. g., Scientists’ Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. AEC, 156 U. S. App. D. C. 395, 404-405, 481 F. 2d 1079, 1088-1089 (1973); Davis v. Morton, 469 F. 2d 593 (CA10 1972). The petitioners do not dispute this requirement in this case, and indeed have prepared impact statements on several proposed actions of this type in the Northern Great Plains during the course of this litigation. Similarly, the federal petitioners agreed at oral argument that § 102 (2) (C) required the Coal Programmatic EIS that was prepared in tandem with the new national coal-leasing program and included as part of the final report on the proposal for adoption of that program. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. Their admission is well made, for the new leasing program is a coherent plan of national scope, and its adoption surely has significant environmental consequences.
But there is no evidence in the record of an action or a proposal for an action of regional scope. The District Court, in fact, expressly found that there was no existing or proposed plan or program on the part of the Federal Government for the regional development of the area described in respondents’ complaint. It found also that the three studies initiated by the Department in areas either included within or inclusive of respondents’ region — that is, the Montana-Wyoming Aqueducts Study, the North Central Power Study, and the NGPRP — were not parts of any plan or program to develop or encourage development of the Northern Great Plains. That court found no evidence that the individual coal development projects undertaken or proposed by private industry and public utilities in that part of the country are integrated into a plan or otherwise interrelated. These findings were not disturbed by the Court of Appeals, and they remain fully supported by the record in this Court.
Quite apart from the fact that the statutory language requires an impact statement only in the event of a proposed action, respondents’ desire for a regional environmental impact statement cannot be met for practical reasons. In the absence of a proposal for a regional plan of development, there is nothing that could be the subject of the analysis envisioned by the statute for an impact statement. Section 102 (2) (C) requires that an impact statement contain, in essence, a detailed statement of the expected adverse environmental consequences of an action, the resource commitments involved in it, and the alternatives to it. Absent an overall plan for regional development, it is impossible to predict the level of coal-related activity that will occur in the region identified by respondents, and thus impossible to analyze the environmental consequences and the resource commitments involved in, and the alternatives to, such activity. A regional plan would define fairly precisely the scope and limits of the proposed development of the region. Where no such plan exists, any attempt to produce an impact statement would be little more than a study along the lines of the NGPRP, containing estimates of potential development and attendant environmental consequences. There would be no factual predicate for the production of an environmental impact statement of the type envisioned by NEPA.
IV
A
The Court of Appeals, in reversing the District Court, did not find that there was a regional plan or program for development of the Northern Great Plains region. It accepted all of the District Court’s findings of fact, but concluded nevertheless that the petitioners “contemplated” a regional plan or program. The court thought that the North Central Power Study, the Montana-Wyoming Aqueducts Study, and the NGPRP all constituted “attempts to control development” by individual companies on a regional scale. It also concluded that the interim report of the NGPRP, then expected to be released at any time, would provide the petitioners with the information needed to formulate the regional plan they had been “contemplating.” The Court therefore remanded with instructions to the petitioners to inform the District Court of their role in the further development of the region within 30 days after the NGPRP interim report issued; if they decided to control that development, an impact statement would be required.
We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in both its factual assumptions and its interpretation of NEPA. We think the court was mistaken in concluding, on the record before it, that the petitioners were “contemplating” a regional development plan or program. It considered the several studies undertaken by the petitioners to represent attempts to control development on a regional scale. This conclusion was based on a finding by the District Court that those studies, as well as the new national coal-leasing policy, were “attempts to control development by individual companies in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.” But in context, that finding meant only that the named studies were efforts to gain background environmental information for subsequent application in the decisionmaking with respect to individual coal-related projects. This is the sense in which the District Court spoke of controlling development consistently with NEPA. Indeed, in the same paragraph containing the language relied upon by the Court of Appeals, the District Court expressly found that the studies were not part of a plan or program to develop or encourage development. See supra, at 400-401.
Moreover, at the time the Court of Appeals ruled there was no indication in the record that the NGPRP was aimed toward a regional plan or program, and subsequent events have shown that this was not its purpose. The interim report of the study, issued shortly after the Court of Appeals ruled, described the effects of several possible rates of coal development but stated in its preface that the alternatives “are for study and comparison only; they do not represent specific plans or proposals.” All parties agreed in this Court that there still exists no proposal for a regional plan or program of development. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 48.
Even had the record justified a finding that a regional program was contemplated by the petitioners, the legal conclusion drawn by the Court of Appeals cannot be squared with the Act. The court recognized that the mere “contemplation” of certain action is not sufficient to require an impact statement. But it believed the statute nevertheless empowers a court to require the preparation of an impact statement to begin at some point prior to the formal recommendation or report on a proposal. The Court of Appeals accordingly devised its own four-part “balancing” test for determining when, during the contemplation of a plan or other type of federal action, an agency must begin a statement. The factors to be considered were identified as the likelihood and imminence of the program’s coming to fruition, the extent to which information is available on the effects of implementing the expected program and on alternatives thereto, the extent to which irretrievable commitments are being made and options precluded “as refinement of the proposal progresses,” and the severity of the environmental effects should the action be implemented.
The Court of Appeals thought that as to two of these factors — the availability of information on the effects of any regional development program, and the severity of those effects — the time already was “ripe” for an impact statement. It deemed the record unclear, however, as to the likelihood of the petitioners’ actually producing a plan to control the development, and surmised that irretrievable commitments were being avoided because petitioners had ceased approving most coal-related projects while the NGPRP study was underway. The court also thought that the imminent release of the NGPRP interim report would provide the officials with sufficient information to define their role in development of the region, and it believed that as soon as the NGPRP was completed the petitioners would begin approving individual projects in the region, thus permitting irrevocable commitments of resources. It was for this reason that the court in its remand required the petitioners to report to the District Court their decision on the federal role with respect to the Northern Great Plains as a region within 30 days after issuance of the NGPRP report.
The Court’s reasoning and action find no support in the language or legislative history of NEPA. The statute clearly states when an impact statement is required, and mentions nothing about a balancing of factors. Rather, as we noted last Term, under the first sentence of § 102 (2) (C) the moment at which an agency-must have a final statement ready “is the time at which it makes a recommendation or report on a proposal for federal action.” Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP, 422 U. S. 289, 320 (1975) (SCRAP II) (emphasis in original). The procedural duty imposed upon agencies by this section is quite precise, and the role of the courts in enforcing that duty is similarly precise. A court has no authority to depart from the statutory language and, by a balancing of court-devised factors, determine a point during the germination process of a potential proposal at which an impact statement should be prepared. Such an assertion of judicial authority would leave the agencies uncertain as to their procedural duties under NEPA, would invite judicial involvement in the day-to-day decisionmaking process of the agencies, and would invite litigation. As the contemplation of a project and the accompanying study thereof do not necessarily result in a proposal for major federal action, it may be assumed that the balancing process devised by the Court of Appeals also would result in the preparation of a good many unnecessary impact statements.
B
Assuming that the Court of Appeals' theory about “contemplation” of regional action would permit a court to require preproposal preparation of an impact statement, the court's injunction against the Secretary’s approval of the four mining plans in the Powder River Basin nevertheless would have been error. The District Court had found that respondents would not have been entitled to an injunction against any individual projects even if their claim of the need for a regional impact statement had been valid, because they had shown no irreparable harm that would result absent such an injunction and the record disclosed that irreparable harm would result to the intervenors who sought to carry out their business ventures and to the public who depended upon their operations. The Court of Appeals made no finding as to the equities at the time it originally entered the injunction; when it continued the injunction following its decision on the merits, it stated only that the “harm” justifying an injunction “matured” whenever an impact statement is due and not filed. But on the Court of Appeals’ own terms there was in fact no harm. First, the Court of Appeals itself held that no regional impact statement was due at that moment, and it was uncertain whether one ever would be due. Second, there had been filed a comprehensive impact statement on the proposed Powder River Basin mining plans themselves, and its adequacy had not been challenged either before the District Court or the Court of Appeals in this case, or anywhere else. Thus, in simple equitable terms there were no grounds for the injunction: the District Court’s finding of irreparable injury to the intervenors and to the public still stood, and there were — on the Court of Appeals’ own terms — no countervailing equities.
y
Our discussion thus far has been addressed primarily to the decision of the Court of Appeals. It remains, however, to consider the contention now urged by respondents. They have not attempted to support the Court of Appeals’ decision. Instead, respondents renew an argument they appear to have made to the Court of Appeals, but which that court did not reach. Respondents insist that, even without a comprehensive federal plan for the development of the Northern Great Plains, a “regional” impact statement nevertheless is required on all coal-related projects in the region because they are intimately related.
There are two ways to view this contention. First, it amounts to an attack on the sufficiency of the impact statements already prepared by the petitioners on the coal-related projects that they have approved or stand ready to approve. As such, we cannot consider it in this proceeding, for the case was not brought as a challenge to a particular impact statement and there is no impact statement in the record. It also is possible to view the respondents’ argument as an attack upon the decision of the petitioners not to prepare one comprehensive impact statement on all proposed projects in the region. This contention properly is before us, for the petitioners have made it clear they do not intend to prepare such a statement.
We begin by stating our general agreement with respondents’ basic premise that § 102 (2) (C) may require a comprehensive impact statement in certain situations where several proposed actions are pending at the same time. NEPA announced a national policy of environmental protection and placed a responsibility upon the Federal Government to further specific environmental goals by “all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy.” § 101 (b), 42 U. S. C. §4331 (b). Section 102 (2)(C) is one of the “action-forcing” provisions intended as a directive to “all agencies to assure consideration of the environmental impact of their actions in decisionmaking.” Conference Report on NEPA, 115 Cong. Rec. 40416 (1969). By requiring an impact statement Congress intended to assure such consideration during the development of a proposal or — as in this case — during the formulation of a position on a proposal submitted by private parties. A comprehensive impact statement may be necessary in some cases for an agency to meet this duty. Thus, when several proposals for coal-related actions that will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impact upon a region are pending concurrently before an agency, their environmental consequences must be considered together. Only through comprehensive consideration of pending proposals can the agency evaluate different courses of action.
Agreement to this extent with respondents’ premise, however, does not require acceptance of their conclusion that all proposed coal-related actions in the Northern Great Plains region are so "related” as to require their analysis in a single comprehensive impact statement. Respondents informed us that the Secretary recently adopted an approach to impact statements on coal-related actions that provides:
“A. As a general proposition, and as determined by the Secretary, when action is proposed involving coal development such as issuing several coal leases or approving mining plans in the same region, such actions will be covered by a single EIS rather than by multiple statements. In such cases, the region covered will be determined by basin boundaries, drainage areas, areas of common reclamation problems, administrative boundaries, areas of economic interdependence, and other relevant factors.” Brief for Respondents 20a.
At another point, the document containing the Secretary’s approach states that a “regional EIS” will be prepared “if a series of proposed actions with interrelated impacts are involved... unless a previous EIS has sufficiently analyzed the impacts of the proposed action(s).” Id., at 20a-21a. Thus, the Department has decided to prepare comprehensive impact statements of the type contemplated by §102(2)(C), although it has not deemed it appropriate to prepare such a statement on all proposed actions in the region identified by-respondents.
Respondents conceded at oral argument that to prevail they must show that petitioners have acted arbitrarily in refusing to prepare one comprehensive statement on this entire region, and we agree. Tr. of Oral Arg. 67. The determination of the region, if any, with respect to which a comprehensive statement is necessary requires the weighing of a number of relevant factors, including the extent of the interrelationship among proposed actions and practical considerations of feasibility. Resolving these issues requires a high level of technical expertise and is properly left to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies. Cf. SCRAP H, 422 U. S., at 325-326. Absent a showing of arbitrary action, we must assume that the agencies have exercised this discretion appropriately. Respondents have made no showing to the contrary.
Respondents’ basic argument is that one comprehensive statement on the Northern Great Plains is required because all coal-related activity in that region is “pro-grammatically,” “geographically,” and “environmentally” related. Both the alleged “programmatic” relationship and the alleged “geographic” relationship resolve, ultimately, into an argument that the region is proper for a comprehensive impact statement because the petitioners themselves have approached environmental study in this area on a regional basis. Respondents point primarily to the NGPRP, which they claim — and petitioners deny — focused on the region described in the complaint. The precise region of the NGPRP is unimportant, for its irrelevance to the delineation of an appropriate area for analysis in a comprehensive impact statement has been well stated by the Secretary:
“Resource studies [like the NGPRP] are one of many analytical tools employed by the Department to inform itself as to general resource availability, resource need and general environmental considerations so that it can intelligently determine the scope of environmental analysis and review specific actions it may take. Simply put, resource studies are a prelude to informed agency planning, and provide the data base on which the Department may decide to take specific actions for which impact statements are prepared. The scope of environmental impact statements seldom coincide with that of a given resource study, since the statements evolve from specific proposals for federal action while the studies simply provide an educational backdrop.” Affidavit of Oct. 28, 1975, App. 191.
As for the alleged “environmental” relationship, respondents contend that the coal-related projects “will produce a wide variety of cumulative environmental impacts” throughout the Northern Great Plains region. They described them as follows: Diminished availability of water, air and water pollution, increases in population and industrial densities, and perhaps even climatic ■changes. Cumulative environmental impacts are, indeed, what require a comprehensive impact statement. But determination of the extent and effect of these factors, and particularly identification of the geographic area within which they may occur, is a task assigned to the special competency of the appropriate agencies. Petitioners dispute respondents’ contentions that the interrelationship of environmental impacts is region-wide and, as respondents’ own submissions indicate, petitioners appear to have determined that the appropriate scope of comprehensive statements should be based on basins, drainage areas, and other factors. See swpra, at 410-411. We cannot say that petitioners’ choices are arbitrary. Even if environmental interrelationships could be shown conclusively to extend across basins and drainage areas, practical considerations of feasibility might well necessitate restricting the scope of comprehensive statements.
In sum, respondents’ contention as to the relationships between all proposed coal-related projects in the Northern Great Plains region does not require that petitioners prepare one comprehensive impact statement covering all before proceeding to approve specific pending applications. As we already have determined that there exists no proposal for regionwide action that could require a regional impact statement, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed, and the judgment of the District Court reinstated and affirmed. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Respondents asserted jurisdiction under 5 U. S. C. §§ 701-706, 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a), and 28 U. S. C. § 1361.
Prior to ruling on motions for summary judgment, the District Court permitted intervention as defendants by several public utilities, coal mining companies, and natural gas companies, by an Indian tribe, and by an individual rancher. Most of these inter-venors have joined in a separate petition for certiorari in No. 75-561, which is decided together with this case.
On the same date the Court of Appeals remanded to the District Court respondents' motion for modification of the injunction to prohibit the Secretary from approving a new mining plan submitted by a coal company, not then a party to the suit, that had been mining coal on leased federal land since 1972. The new mining plan was covered by an impact statement. The Secretary of the Interior approved the plan on November 11. On November 14, the District Court partially enjoined the company from mining under the approved plan.
Department of Interior News Release (Oct. 3, 1972), App. 132.
NGPRP outline, App. 136.
Department of Interior News Release (Feb. 17, 1973), App. 125-127.
The petitioners in No. 75-561 have included in their brief a press release by the Secretary announcing the new program, and a detailed description of the program. Pending full operation thereof, the short-term leasing policy remains in effect.
In the District Court respondents also contended that petitioners had failed to comply with §§ 102 (2) (A) and (D), 42 U. S. C. §§ 4332 (2) (A) and (D), which require an agency to use a specified approach to decisionmaking and to describe alternatives when a proposal involves unresolved conflicts concerning uses of resources. (Subparagraph (D) was redesignated subparagraph (E) by Pub. L. 94-83, 89 Stat. 424.) The District Court ruled against respondents on the count based on these subparagraphs, and it has dropped out of the case.
In an affidavit submitted in support of the application for a stay of the Court of Appeals’ injunction, the Secretary described four impact statements completed by the petitioners on coal-related activity in Montana and Wyoming. One was the multiproject statement on the Powder River Coal Basin that was the subject of that injunction. See supra, at 395-396. Another was on the single mining plan subsequently brought under the injunction as modified by the District Court. See n. 4, swpra. A third covered one leased tract, and apparently was occasioned by an application for approval of a new mining plan on the tract. The fourth, on another single mining plan, has been the subject of litigation, on the merits of which we intimate no view. See Cady v. Morton, 527 F. 2d 786 (CA9 1975).
The Secretary’s affidavit in support of the application for a stay of the Court of Appeals’ injunction confirms that the situation regarding regional planning or a regional development program has not changed. See App. 195-196.
The legislative history of NEPA fully supports our reading of § 102 (2) (C) as to when an impact statement is required. The bill passed by the House contained no provision comparable to § 102 (2) (C) of the Act. The bill that was reported to and, as amended, passed by the Senate did contain the forerunner of § 102 (2)(C). The committee report made clear that the impact statement was required in conjunction with specific proposals for action. S. Rep. No. 91-296, p. 20 (1969). After the House-Senate Conference, the managers on the part of the House, in a separate statement, explained § 102 (2) (C) in language that tracks the statute on the requirement of a proposal. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-765, p. 8 (1969). See also 115 Cong. Rec. 40420 (1969).
Section 102 (2) (C) states that the statement must be a detailed statement on—
“(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
"(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
“ (iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
“(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and
“(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” (Emphasis added.)
In contrast, with both an individual coal-related action and the new national coal-leasing program, an agency deals with specific action of known dimensions. With appropriate allowances for the inexactness of all predictive ventures, the agency can analyze the environmental consequences and describe alternatives as envisioned by §102(2)(C). Of course, since the kind of impact statement required depends upon the kind of “ ‘federal action’ being taken,” Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP, 422 U. S. 289, 322 (1975), the statement on a proposed mining plan or a lease application may bear little resemblance to the statement on the national coal-leasing program. Nevertheless, in each case the bounds of the analysis are defined, which is not the case with coal development in general in the region identified by respondents.
This is not to say that § 102 (2) (C) imposes no duties upon an agency prior to its making a report or recommendation on a proposal for action. The section states that prior to preparing the impact statement the responsible official “shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.” Thus, the section contemplates a consideration of environmental factors by agencies during the evolution of a report or recommendation on a proposal. But the time at which a court enters the process is when the report or recommendation on the proposal is made, and someone protests either the absence or the adequacy of the final impact statement. This is the point at which an agency’s action has reached sufficient maturity to assure that judicial intervention will not hazard unnecessary disruption.
Even had the Court of Appeals determined that a regional impact statement was due at that moment, it still would have erred in enjoining approval of the four mining plans unless it had made a finding that the impact statement covering them inadequately analyzed the environmental impacts of, and the alternatives to, their approval. So long as the statement covering them was adequate, there would have been no reason to enjoin their approval pending preparation of a broader regional statement; that broader statement, when prepared, simply would have taken into consideration the regional environmental effects of the four mining plans once they were in operation, in determining the permissibility of further coal-related operations in the region. See Part V, infra.
Petitioners lodged with this Court a copy of the massive six-volume impact statement on the projects in the Powder River Coal Basin, but it is not part of the record.
The term “action-forcing” was applied to the provisions of what became § 102 (2) throughout their consideration by the Senate. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 91-296, p. 9 (1969); 115 Cong. Rec. 40416, 40419 (1969).
The legislative history of the provision in the Senate, where it originated and where it received the most attention, supports this interpretation. See S. Rep. No. 91-296, supra, at 2, 20-21; 115 Cong. Rec. 29052-29053, 29055, 29058, 40416 (1969). The Conference Report to the House is consistent. See id., at 40923-40928.
At some points in their brief respondents appear to seek a comprehensive impact statement covering contemplated projects in the region as well as those that already have been proposed. The statute, however, speaks solely in terms of proposed actions; it does not require an agency to consider the possible environmental impacts of less imminent actions when preparing the impact statement on proposed actions. Should contemplated actions later reach the stage of actual proposals, impact statements on them will take into account the effect of their approval upon the existing environment; and the condition of that environment presumably will reflect earlier proposed actions and their effects. Cf. n. 26, infra.
Neither the statute nor its legislative history contemplates that a court should substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the environmental consequences of its actions. See Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 453 F. 2d 463, 481 (CA2 1971), cert. denied, 407 U. S. 926 (1972). The only role for a court is to insure that the agency has taken a “hard look” at environmental consequences; it cannot “interject itself within the area of. discretion of the executive as to the choice of the action to be taken.” Natural Resources Defense Council v. Morton, 148 U. S. App. D. C. 5, 16, 458 F. 2d 827, 838 (1972).
The document is an “Executive Summary and Decision Document” signed by the Secretary and dated December 16, 1975. The decision as to impact statements is part of the implementation of the new coal-leasing policy based on staff recommendations following release of the Coal Programmatic EIS. See supra, at 397-398.
Respondents contend that this document represents a significant shift in Department policy since the start of this litigation, but we disagree. Early in the litigation the Department and three other agencies prepared the comprehensive impact statement on proposed actions in the Powder River Coal Basin, see supra, at
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, a defendant in a criminal proceeding in the Circuit Court of Grenada County, Mississippi, was summarily convicted of criminal contempt-by Judge Marshall Perry of that court.
The alleged contempt occurred on January 23, 1967. It occurred after Judge ..Perry directed .the bailiffs and deputies to keep all people entering the courtroom from walking between the space reserved for jurors-and .county officers and the judge, while jurors were.being called, A deputy attempted to route petitioner around the área in question whereupon, according to the orders adjudging petitioner in contempt, he said:
“What the Hell do you mean go around.
“Said Johnson, defendant; then continued to stand and look around over the room, disrupting the court proceedings.”
Judge Perry, however, did not take instant action ón the alleged contempt but only had petitioner removed from the courtroom. The nqxt day, January 24, he ordered that process issue against petitioner directing him to' appear February 1, 1967, an action he later rescinded. On January 27,. 1967, petitioner, an active civil rights worker, asked through his attorney that Judge Perry recuse himself, asserting: .
“a. That Judge Perry is personally prejudiced against the defendant and against the civil rights organizations he represents.
“b. That Judge Perry is personally prejudiced against the lawyers’ organization defending Mr. Johnson, namely the Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights .Under Law.”
The motion was supported by two affidavits of lawyers that Judge Perry, through charges made to grand juries in his courtroom, revealed deep prejudice against civil rights workers and civil rights lawyers.
No hearing was ever granted on that motion.
When petitioner was removed from the courtroom on January 23, 1967, his lawyer, one Rowe, objected to Judge Perry’s action. Judge Perry ordered Rowe arrested and charged with criminal contempt. On January 31, 1967, a federal court in Mississippi issued a temporary restraining order enjoining trial of the contempt charge against Rowe; and we áre advised that that charge has never been further prosecuted.
On February 1, 1967, petitioner filed a petition for removal of the contempt proceedings in his case to the federal court. On November 14, 1968, that court remanded the case to Judge Perry’s court. Thereupon Judge Perry ordered that , a $1,000 bond be posted guaranteeing petitioner’s -appearance on January 27, 1969, to answer the contempt charge.
On January 22, 1969, petitioner and others filed suit in the federal court to enfoin trials of either Negroes or women in the Circuit Court of Grenada County until such time as Negroes and women were not systematically excluded from juries. Judge Perry was named as a defendant. The federal court held a hearing on January 24, 1969, and on January 25, 1969, temporarily enjoined Judge Perry from discrimination “by reason of race, color, or sex” in jury selections.
' Two days later, January 27,1969, Judge Perry adjudged petitioner in contempt and sentenced him to four months, and set bail at $2,000 pending appeal. He denied petitioner’s request for a hearing on the merits and for an opportunity to show why Judge Perry should recuse himself. On appeal the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the contempt but reduced the sentence to one month. 233 So. 2d 116. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 400 U. S. 991.
Instant action may be necessary where the misbehavior is in the presence of the judge and is known to him, and' where immediate corrective steps áre needed to restore order and maintain the dignity and authority of the court. Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 534; Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162, 165. The contempt power is within the judge’s “arsenal of authority”- which we recently described in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337. But there was no iristant action here, a week expiring before removal of the case to the federal court was sought.
Moreover, from this record we cannot be sure that Judge Perry was personally aware of the contemptuous action when it occurred. The State’s version of what happened is described as follows in its motion that petitioner show cause why he should not be punished for contempt:
“[T]he Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff, Howard Hayward seized Robert Johnson and immediately carried him before the Circuit Judge, Marshall Perry, and related to the Judge what had transpired.” (Italics added.)
As we said in In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 275-276,
“If some essential elements of the offense are not personally observed by the judge, so that he must depend upon statements made by others for his knowledge about these essential elements, due process requires . . . that the accused be accorded notice and a fair hearing . . . .”
And see In re Savin, 131 U. S. 267, 277.
It would, therefore, seem that a fair hearing would entail the opportunity to show that the version of the event related to the judge was inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete.
We mention this latter point because our remand will entail a hearing before another judge. In concluding that Judge Perry should have recused himself, we do not rely solely on the affidavits filed by the lawyers reciting intemperate remarks of Judge Perry, concerning civil rights litigants. Beyond all that was the fact that Judge Perry immediately prior to the adjudication of contempt was a defendant in one of petitioner’s civil rights suits and a losing party at that.' From that it is plain that he was so enmeshed in matters involving petitioner as to make it most appropriate for another judge to sit. Trial before “an- unbiased judge” is essential , to due process. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194, 205; Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455, 465.
We accordingly reverse the judgment below and remand the case for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
An alien who fears persecution in his homeland and seeks refugee status in this country is barred from obtaining that relief if he has persecuted others.
“The term ‘refugee’ does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), §101, 66 Stat. 166, as added by Refugee Act of 1980, § 201(a), 94 Stat. 102-103, 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(42).
This so-called “persecutor bar” applies to those seeking asylum, § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), or withholding of removal, § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i). It does not disqualify an alien from receiving a temporary deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, p. 20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 85; 8 CFR § 1208.17(a) (2008).
In this ease the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that the persecutor bar applies even if the alien’s assistance in persecution was coerced or otherwise the product of duress. In so ruling the BIA followed its earlier decisions that found Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U. S. 490 (1981), controlling. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in affirming the agency, relied on its precedent following the same reasoning. We hold that the BIA and the Court of Appeals misapplied Fedorenko. We reverse and remand for the agency to interpret the statute, free from the error, in the first instance.
I
Petitioner in this Court is Daniel Girmai Negusie, a dual national of Eritrea and Ethiopia, his father having been a national of the former and his mother of the latter. Born and educated in Ethiopia, he left there for Eritrea around the age of 18 to see his mother and find employment. The year was 1994. After a few months in Eritrea, state officials took custody of petitioner and others when they were attending a movie. He was forced to perform hard labor for a month and then was conscripted into the military for a time. War broke out between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1998, and he was conscripted again.
When petitioner refused to fight against Ethiopia, his other homeland, the Eritrean Government incarcerated him. Prison guards punished petitioner by beating him with sticks and placing him in the hot sun. He was released after two years and forced to work as a prison guard, a duty he performed on a rotating basis for about four years. It is undisputed that the prisoners he guarded were being persecuted on account of a protected ground — i. e., “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(42). Petitioner testified that he carried a gun, guarded the gate to prevent escape, and kept prisoners from taking showers and obtaining fresh air. He also guarded prisoners to make sure they stayed in the sun, which he knew was a form of punishment. He saw at least one man die after being in the sun for more than two hours. Petitioner testified that he had not shot at or directly punished any prisoner and that he helped prisoners on various occasions. Petitioner escaped from the prison and hid in a container, which was loaded on board a ship heading to the United States. Once here he applied for asylum and withholding of removal.
In a careful opinion the Immigration Judge, W. Wayne Stogner, found that petitioner’s testimony, for the most part, was credible. He concluded that petitioner assisted in persecution by working as an armed guard. The judge determined that although “there’s no evidence to establish that [petitioner] is a malicious person or that he was an aggressive person who mistreated the prisoners,. . . the very fact that he helped [the government] in the prison compound where he had reason to know that they were persecuted constitutes assisting in the persecution of others and bars [petitioner] from” obtaining asylum or withholding of removal. App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a-17a (citing, inter alia, Fedorenko, supra). The judge, however, granted deferral of removal under CAT because petitioner was likely to be tortured if returned to Eritrea.
The BIA affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding. It noted petitioner’s role as an armed guard in a facility where “prisoners were tortured and left to die out in the sun ... on account of a protected ground.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a. The BIA held that “[t]he fact that [petitioner] was compelled to participate as a prison guard, and may not have actively tortured or mistreated anyone, is immaterial.” Ibid. That is because “‘an alien’s motivation and intent are irrelevant to the issue of whether he “assisted” in persecution .... [I]t is the objective effect of an alien’s actions which is controlling.’” Ibid, (quoting Matter of Fedorenko, 19 I. & N. Dec. 57,69 (BIA 1984)). The BIA also affirmed the grant of deferral of removal under CAT.
On petition for review the Court of Appeals agreed with the BIA that whether an alien is compelled to assist in persecution is immaterial for persecutor-bar purposes. Negusie v. Gonzales, 231 Fed. Appx. 325, 326 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Fedorenko, supra, at 512, n. 34). We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. 1255 (2008).
II
Consistent with the rule in Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984), the BIA is entitled to deference in interpreting ambiguous provisions of the INA. The question here is whether an alien who was compelled to assist in persecution can be eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. We conclude that the BIA misapplied our precedent in Fedorenko as mandating that an alien’s motivation and intent are irrelevant to the issue whether an alien assisted in persecution. The agency must confront the same question free of this mistaken legal premise.
A
JHris well settled that “principles of Chevron deference áre applicable to this statutory scheme.” INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U. S. 415, 424 (1999). Congress has charged the Attorney General with administering the INA, and a “ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.” 8 U. S. C. § 1103(a)(1). Judicial deference in the immigration context is of special importance, for executive officials “exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations.” INS v. Abudu, 485 U. S. 94, 110 (1988). The Attorney General’s decision to bar an alien who has participated in persecution “may affect our relations with [the alien’s native] country or its neighbors. The judiciary is not well positioned to shoulder primary responsibility for assessing the likelihood and importance of such diplomatic repercussions.” Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U. S., at 425.
The Attorney General, in turn, has delegated to the BIA the “ ‘discretion and authority conferred upon the Attorney General by law’ ” in the course of “ ‘considering and determining cases before it.’” Ibid, (quoting 8 CFR §3.1(d)(1) (1998)). As a consequence, “the BIA should be accorded Chevron deference as it gives ambiguous statutory terms ‘concrete meaning through a process of case-by-case adjudication.’” Aguirre-Aguirre, supra, at 425 (quoting INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 448-449 (1987)). When the BIA has not spoken on “a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands,” our ordinary rule is to remand to “giv[e] the BIA the opportunity to address the matter in the first instance in light of its own expertise.” INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U. S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (per curiam).
B
The parties disagree over whether coercion or duress is relevant in determining if an alien assisted or otherwise participated in persecution. As there is substance to both contentions, we conclude that the statute has an ambiguity that the agency should address in the first instance.
Petitioner argues that the statute’s plain language makes clear that involuntary acts do not implicate the persecutor bar because “‘persecution’” presumes moral blameworthiness. Brief for Petitioner 23-28. He invokes principles of criminal culpability, concepts of international law, and the rule of lenity. Id., at 28-45. Those arguments may be persuasive in determining whether a particular agency interpretation is reasonable, but they do not demonstrate that the statute is unambiguous. Petitioner all but conceded as much at argument in this Court when he indicated that the BIA has discretion to construe the duress defense in either a narrow or a broad way. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20-24.
The Government, on the other hand, asserts that the statute does not allow petitioner’s construction. “The statutory text,” the Government says, “directly answers that question: there is no exception” for conduct that is coerced because Congress did not include one. Brief for Respondent 11. We disagree. The silence is not conclusive. The question is whether the statutory text mandates that coerced actions must be deemed assistance in persecution. On that point the statute, in its precise terms, is not explicit. Nor is this a case where it is clear that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue. Cf. Cardoza-Fonseca, supra, at 448-449.
The Government, like the BIA and the Court of Appeals, relies on Fedorenko to provide the answer. This reliance is not without some basis, as the Court there held that voluntariness was not required with respect to another persecutor bar. 449 U. S., at 512. To the extent, however, the Government deems Fedorenko to be controlling, it is in error.
In Fedorenko, the Court interpreted the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (DPA), 62 Stat. 1009. The DPA was enacted “to enable European refugees driven from their homelands by the [second world] war to emigrate to the United States without regard to traditional immigration quotas.” 449 U. S., at 495. Section 2(b) of the DPA provides relief to “any displaced person or refugee as defined in Annex I of the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization” of the United Nations (IRO Constitution). 62 Stat. 1009. The IRO Constitution, as codified by Congress, excludes any individual “who can be shown: (a) to have assisted the enemy in persecuting civil populations of countries, Members of the United Nations; or (b) to have voluntarily assisted the enemy forces since the outbreak of the second world war in their operations against the United Nations.” Annex I, Pt. II, §2, 62 Stat. 3051-3052.
The Fedorenko Court held that “an individual’s service as a concentration camp armed guard — whether voluntary or involuntary — made him ineligible for a visa” under §2(q) of the IRO Constitution. 449 U. S., at 512. That Congress did not adopt a voluntariness requirement for §2(q), the Court noted, “is plain from comparing §2(q) with § 2(5), which excludes only those individuals who ‘voluntarily assisted the enemy forces.’ ” Ibid. The Court relied on the principle of statutory construction that “the deliberate omission of the word ‘voluntary’ from §2(o) compels the conclusion that the statute made all those who assisted in persecution of civilians ineligible for visas.” Ibid.
Fedorenko does not compel the same conclusion in the case now before us. The textual structure of the statute in Fedorenko (“voluntary” is in one subsection but not the other) is not part of the statutory framework considered here. Congress did not use the word “voluntary” in any subsection of the persecutor bar, so its omission cannot carry the same significance.
The difference between the statutory scheme in Fedorenko and the one here is confirmed when we “ ‘look not only to the particular statutory language, but to the design of the statute as a whole and to its object and policy.’ ” Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U. S. 1, 16 (2008) (quoting Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 407 (1991)). Both statutes were enacted to reflect principles set forth in international agreements, but the principles differ in significant respects.
As discussed, Congress enacted the DPA in 1948 as part of an international effort to address individuals who were forced to leave their homelands during and after the Second World War. Fedorenko, supra, at 495. The DPA excludes those who “voluntarily assisted the enemy forces since the outbreak of the second world war,” 62 Stat. 3052, as well as all who “assisted the enemy in persecuting civil populations of countries,” id., at 3051. The latter exclusion clause makes no reference to culpability. The exclusion of even those involved in nonculpable, involuntary assistance in Nazi persecution, as an expert testified in Fedorenko, may be “‘[because the crime against humanity that is involved in the concentration camp puts it into a different category.’ ” 449 U. S., at 511, n. 32.
The persecutor bar in this case, by contrast, was enacted as part of the Refugee Act of 1980. Unlike the DPA, which was enacted to address not just the postwar refugee problem but also the Holocaust and its horror, the Refugee Act was designed to provide a general rule for the ongoing treatment of all refugees and displaced persons. As this Court has twice recognized, “‘one of Congress’ primary purposes’ in passing the Refugee Act was to implement the principles agreed to in the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U. S. T. 6224, T. I. A. S. 6577 (1968),” as well as the “United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U. N. T. S. 150 (July 28,1951), reprinted in 19 U. S. T. 6259.” Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U. S., at 427 (quoting Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S., at 436-437).
These authorities illustrate why Fedorenko, which addressed a different statute enacted for a different purpose, does not control the BIA’s interpretation of this persecutor bar. Whatever weight or relevance these various authorities may have in interpreting the statute should be considered by the agency in the first instance, and by any subsequent reviewing court, after our remand.
c
The Government argues that “if there were any ambiguity in the text, the Board’s determination that the bar contains no such exception is reasonable and thus controlling.” Brief for Respondent 11. Whether such an interpretation would be reasonable, and thus owed Chevron deference, is a legitimate question; but it is not now before us. The BIA deemed its interpretation to be mandated by Fedorenko, and that error prevented it from a full consideration of the statutory question here presented.
In denying relief in this case the BIA recited a rule that has developed in its own case law in reliance on Fedorenko: “[A]n alien’s motivation and intent are irrelevant to the issue of whether he ‘assisted’ in persecution.... [I]t is the objective effect of an alien’s actions which is controlling.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a. The rule is based on three earlier decisions: Matter of Laipenieks, 18 I. & N. Dec. 433 (1983); Matter of Fedorenko, 19 I. & N. Dec. 57; and Matter of Rodriguez-Majano, 19 I. & N. Dec. 811 (1988).
In Matter of Laipenieks, the BIA applied the Court’s Fedorenko analysis of the DPA to a different postwar statute, which provided for the deportation of anyone associated with the Nazis who “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated” in persecution based on a protected ground. 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(3)(E)(i). Finding no agency or judicial decision on point, the BIA relied on Fedorenko. It recognized that the unique structure of the Fedorenko statute was not present in § 1182(a)(3)(E)(i), but the BIA nevertheless adopted wholesale the Fedorenko rule: “[A]s in Fedorenko, ... the plain language of [§ 1182(a)(3)(E)(i)] mandates a literal interpretation, and the omission of an intent element compels the conclusion that [§ 1182(a)(3)(E)(i)] makes all those who assisted in the specific persecution deportable.” 18 I. & N. Dec., at 464 (emphasis deleted). In other words, “particular motivations or intent ... is not a relevant factor.” Ibid.
The second decision, Matter of Fedorenko, also dealt with § 1182(a)(3)(E)(i), and it involved'the same alien whose citizenship was revoked by this Court’s Fedorenko decision. This time the agency sought to deport him. Fedorenko responded by requesting suspension of deportation. He argued that, unlike the DPA’s bar on any assistance — voluntary or involuntary — in persecution, see Fedorenko, supra, at 512, the text and structure of § 1182(a)(3)(E)(i) required deportation only of those who voluntarily assisted in persecuting others. The BIA rejected that distinction, noting that it was foreclosed by Matter of Laipenieks: “It may be, as [Fedorenko] argues, that his service at Treblinka was involuntary. ... We need not resolve the issue, however, because as a matter of law [Fedorenko’s] motivations for serving as a guard at Treblinka are immaterial to the question of his deportability under” § 1182(a)(3)(E)(i). 19 I. & N. Dec., at 69-70.
Later, the BIA applied this Court’s Fedorenko rule to the persecutor bar that is at issue in the present case. In Matter of Rodriguez-Majano, the BIA granted relief because the alien’s coerced conduct as a guerrilla was not persecution based on a protected ground. 19 I. & N. Dec., at 815-816. Nevertheless, in reaching its conclusion the BIA incorporated without additional analysis the Fedorenko rule as applied in Matter of Laipenieks and reiterated in Matter of Fedorenko. 19 I. & N. Dec., at 814-815. The BIA reaffirmed that “[t]he participation or assistance of an alien in persecution need not be of his own volition to bar him from relief.” Id., at 814 (citing Fedorenko, 449 U. S. 490).
Our reading of these decisions confirms that the BIA has not exercised its interpretive authority but, instead, has determined that Fedorenko controls. This mistaken assumption stems from a failure to recognize the inapplicability of the principle of statutory construction invoked in Fedorenko, as well as a failure to appreciate the differences in statutory purpose. The BIA is not bound to apply the Fedorenko rule that motive and intent are irrelevant to the persecutor bar at issue in this case. Whether the statute permits such an interpretation based on a different course of reasoning must be determined in the first instance by the agency.
Ill
Having concluded that the BIA has not yet exercised its Chevron discretion to interpret the statute in question, “ ‘ “the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.”’” Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U. S. 183, 186 (2006) (per curiam) (quoting Ventura, 537 U. S., at 16, in turn quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 744 (1985)). This remand rule exists, in part, because “ambiguities in statutes within an agency’s jurisdiction to administer are delegations of authority to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps . . . involves difficult policy choices that agencies are better equipped to make than courts.” National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 980 (2005).
Justice Stevens would have the Court provide a definite answer to the question presented and then remand for further proceedings. That approach, however, is in tension with the “ordinary ‘remand’ rule.” Ventura, supra, at 18; see also Cajun Elec. Power Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 924 F. 2d 1132, 1136 (CADC 1991) (opinion for the court by Silberman, J., joined by R. Ginsburg and Thomas, JJ.) (“[I]f an agency erroneously contends that Congress’ intent has been clearly expressed and has rested on that ground, we remand to require the agency to consider the question afresh in light of the ambiguity we see”). Thomas is illustrative. There, the agency had not determined whether a family may constitute a social group for the purposes of refugee status. The Ninth Circuit held that the family can constitute a protected social group and that the particular family at issue did qualify. 547 U. S., at 184-185. The Solicitor General sought review in this Court on “whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in the first instance and without prior resolution of the questions by the relevant administrative agency, that members of a family can and do constitute a particular social group, within the meaning of the Act.” Id., at 185 (internal quotation marks omitted). He argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision violated the Ventura ordinary remand rule. We agreed and summarily reversed. 547 U. S., at 184-185.
Ventura and Thomas counsel a similar result here. Because of the important differences between the statute before us and the one at issue in Fedorenko, we find it appropriate to remand to the agency for its initial determination of the statutory interpretation question and its application to this case. The agency’s interpretation of the statutory meaning of “persecution” may be explained by a more comprehensive definition, one designed to elaborate on the term in anticipation of a wide range of potential conduct; and that expanded definition in turn may be influenced by how practical, or impractical, the standard would be in terms of its application to specific cases. These matters may have relevance in determining whether its statutory interpretation is a permissible one.
As the Court said in Ventura and reiterated in Thomas, “ ‘[t]he agency can bring its expertise to bear upon the matter; it can evaluate the evidence; it can make an initial determination; and, in doing so, it can, through informed discussion and analysis, help a court later determine whether its decision exceeds the leeway that the law provides.’” 547 U. S., at 186-187 (quoting Ventura, supra, at 17). If the BIA decides to adopt a standard that considers voluntariness to some degree, it may be prudent and necessary for the Immigration Judge to conduct additional factfinding based on the new standard. Those determinations are for the agency to make in the first instance.
* * *
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In the course of enforcing the immigration laws, petitioner Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enters employers’ worksites to determine whether any illegal aliens may be present as employees. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the “factory surveys” involved in this case amounted to a seizure of the entire work forces, and further held that the INS could not question individual employees during any of these surveys unless its agents had a reasonable suspicion that the employee to be questioned was an illegal alien. International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO v. Sureck, 681 F. 2d 624 (1982). We conclude that these factory surveys did not result in the seizure of the entire work forces, and that the individual questioning of the respondents in this case by INS agents concerning their citizenship did not amount to a detention or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Acting pursuant to two warrants, in January and September 1977, the INS conducted a survey of the work force at Southern California Davis Pleating Co. (Davis Pleating) in search of illegal aliens. The warrants were issued on a showing of probable cause by the INS that numerous illegal aliens were employed at Davis Pleating, although neither of the search warrants identified any particular illegal aliens by name. A third factory survey was conducted with the employer’s consent in October 1977, at Mr. Pleat, another garment factory.
At the beginning of the surveys several agents positioned themselves near the buildings’ exits, while other agents dispersed throughout the factory to question most, but not all, employees at their work stations. The agents displayed badges, carried walkie-talkies, and were armed, although at no point during any of the surveys was a weapon ever drawn. Moving systematically through the factory, the agents approached employees and, after identifying themselves, asked them from one to three questions relating to their citizenship. If the employee gave a credible reply that he was a United States citizen, the questioning ended, and the agent moved on to another employee. If the employee gave an unsatisfactory response or admitted that he was an alien, the employee was asked to produce his immigration papers. During the survey, employees continued with their work and were free to walk around within the factory.
Respondents are four employees questioned in one of the three surveys. In 1978 respondents and their union representative, the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union, filed two actions, later consolidated, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California challenging the constitutionality of INS factory surveys and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Respondents argued that the factory surveys violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizures and the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The District Court denied class certification and dismissed the union from the action for lack of standing, App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a-60a. In a series of cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the District Court ruled that respondents had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplaces which conferred standing on them to challenge entry by the INS pursuant to a warrant or owner’s consent. Id., at 49a-52a, 53a-55a, 56a-57a. In its final ruling the District Court addressed respondents’ request for injunctive relief directed at preventing the INS from questioning them personally during any future surveys. The District Court, with no material facts in dispute, found that each of the four respondents was asked a question or questions by an INS agent during one of the factory surveys. Id., at 46a. Reasoning from this Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), that law enforcement officers may ask questions of anyone, the District Court ruled that none of the respondents had been detained under the Fourth Amendment during the factory surveys, either when they were questioned or otherwise. App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a. Accordingly, it granted summary judgment in favor of the INS.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Applying the standard first enunciated by a Member of this Court in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.), the Court of Appeals concluded that the entire work forces were seized for the duration of each survey, which lasted from one to two hours, because the stationing of agents at the doors to the buildings meant that “a reasonable worker ‘would have believed that he was not free to leave.’” 681 F. 2d, at 634 (quoting United States v. Anderson, 663 F. 2d 934, 939 (CA9 1981)). Although the Court of Appeals conceded that the INS had statutory authority to question any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or remain in the United States, see 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. § 1357(a)(1), it further held that under the Fourth Amendment individual employees could be questioned only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that a particular employee being questioned was an alien illegally in the country. 681 F. 2d, at 639-645. A reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a number of illegal aliens were working at a particular factory site was insufficient to justify questioning any individual employee. Id., at 643. Consequently, it also held that the individual questioning of respondents violated the Fourth Amendment because there had been no such reasonable suspicion or probable cause as to any of them.
We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, 461 U. S. 904 (1983), because it has serious implications for the enforcement of the immigration laws and presents a conflict with the decision reached by the Third Circuit in Babula v. INS, 665 F. 2d 293 (1981).
The Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all contact between the police and citizens, but is designed “to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals.” United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 554 (1976). Given the diversity of encounters between police officers and citizens, however, the Court has been cautious in defining the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment on encounters between the police and citizens. As we have noted elsewhere: “Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves ‘seizures’ of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a ‘seizure’ has occurred.” Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 19, n. 16. While applying such a test is relatively straightforward in a situation resembling a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 212-216 (1979), the protection against unreasonable seizures also extends to “seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975). What has evolved from our cases is a determination that an initially consensual encounter between a police officer and a citizen can be transformed into a seizure or detention within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, “if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” Mendenhall, supra, at 554 (footnote omitted); see Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 502 (1983) (plurality opinion).
Although we have yet to rule directly on whether mere questioning of an individual by a police official, without more, can amount to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, our recent decision in Royer, supra, plainly implies that interrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. In Royer, when Drug Enforcement Administration agents found that the respondent matched a drug courier profile, the agents approached the defendant and asked him for his airplane ticket and driver’s license, which the agents then examined. A majority of the Court believed that the request and examination of the documents were "permissible in themselves.” Id., at 501 (plurality opinion); see id., at 523, n. 3 (opinion of Rehnquist, J.). In contrast, a much different situation prevailed in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47 (1979), when two policemen physically detained the defendant to determine his identity, after the defendant refused the officers’ request to identify himself. The Court held that absent some reasonable suspicion of misconduct, the detention of the defendant to determine his identity violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. Id., at 52.
What is apparent from Royer and Brown is that police questioning, by itself, is unlikely to result in a Fourth Amendment violation. While most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response. Cf. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 231-234 (1973). Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, one cannot say that the questioning resulted in a detention under the Fourth Amendment. But if the person refuses to answer and the police take additional steps — such as those taken in Brown— to obtain an answer, then the Fourth Amendment imposes some minimal level of objective justification to validate the detention or seizure. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S., at 554; see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 21.
The Court of Appeals held that “the manner in which the factory surveys were conducted in this case constituted a seizure of the workforce” under the Fourth Amendment. 681 F. 2d, at 634. While the element of surprise and the systematic questioning of individual workers by several INS agents contributed to the court’s holding, the pivotal factor in its decision was the stationing of INS agents near the exits of the factory buildings. According to the Court of Appeals, the stationing of agents near the doors meant that “departures were not to be contemplated,” and thus, workers were “not free to leave.” Ibid. In support of the decision below, respondents argue that the INS created an intimidating psychological environment when it intruded unexpectedly into the workplace with such a show of officers. Besides the stationing of agents near the exits, respondents add that the length of the survey and the failure to inform workers they were free to leave resulted in a Fourth Amendment seizure of the entire work force.
We reject the claim that the entire work forces of the two factories were seized for the duration of the surveys when the INS placed agents near the exits of the factory sites. Ordinarily, when people are at work their freedom to move about has been meaningfully restricted, not by the actions of law enforcement officials, but by the workers’ voluntary obligations to their employers. The record indicates that when these surveys were initiated, the employees were about their ordinary business, operating machinery and performing other job assignments. While the surveys did cause some disruption, including the efforts of some workers to hide, the record also indicates that workers were not prevented by the agents from moving about the factories.
Respondents argue, however, that the stationing of agents near the factory doors showed the INS’s intent to prevent people from leaving. But there is nothing in the record indicating that this is what the agents at the doors actually did. The obvious purpose of the agents’ presence at the factory doors was to insure that all persons in the factories were questioned. The record indicates that the INS agents’ conduct in this case consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present in the factory. This conduct should have given respondents no reason to believe that they would be detained if they gave truthful answers to the questions put to them or if they simply refused to answer. If mere questioning does not constitute a seizure when it occurs inside the factory, it is no more a seizure when it occurs at the exits.
A similar conclusion holds true for all other citizens or aliens lawfully present inside the factory buildings during the surveys. The presence of agents by the exits posed no reasonable threat of detention to these workers while they walked throughout the factories on job assignments. Likewise, the mere possibility that they would be questioned if they sought to leave the buildings should not have resulted in any reasonable apprehension by any of them that they would be seized or detained in any meaningful way. Since most workers could have had no reasonable fear that they would be detained upon leaving, we conclude that the work forces as a whole were not seized.
The Court of Appeals also held that “detentive questioning” of individuals could be conducted only if INS agents could articulate “objective facts providing investigators with a reasonable suspicion that each questioned person, so detained, is an alien illegally in this country.” 681 F. 2d, at 638. Under our analysis, however, since there was no seizure of the work forces by virtue of the method of conducting the factory surveys, the only way the issue of individual questioning could be presented would be if one of the named respondents had in fact been seized or detained. Reviewing the deposition testimony of respondents, we conclude that none were.
The questioning of each respondent by INS agents seems to have been nothing more than a brief encounter. None of the three Davis Pleating employees were questioned during the January survey. During the September survey at Davis Pleating, respondent Delgado was discussing the survey with another employee when two INS agents approached him and asked him where he was from and from what city. When Delgado informed them that he came from Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, the agent made an innocuous observation to his partner and left. App. 94. Respondent Correa's experience in the September survey was similar. Walking from one part of the factory to another, Correa was stopped by an INS agent and asked where she was bom. When she replied “Huntington Park, [California],” the agent walked away and Correa continued about her business. Id., at 115. Respondent Labonte, the third Davis Pleating employee, was tapped on the shoulder and asked in Spanish, “Where are your papers?” Id., at 138. Labonte responded that she had her papers and without any further request from the INS agents, showed the papers to the agents, who then left. Finally, respondent Miramontes, the sole Mr. Pleat employee involved in this case, encountered an agent en route from an office to her worksite. Questioned concerning her citizenship, Miramon-tes replied that she was a resident alien, and on the agent’s request, produced her work permit. The agent then left. Id., at 120-121.
Respondents argue that the manner in which the surveys were conducted and the attendant disruption caused by the surveys created a psychological environment which made them reasonably afraid they were not free to leave. Consequently, when respondents were approached by INS agents and questioned concerning their citizenship and right to work, they were effectively detained under the Fourth Amendment, since they reasonably feared that refusing to answer would have resulted in their arrest. But it was obvious from the beginning of the surveys that the INS agents were only questioning people. Persons such as respondents who simply went about their business in the workplace were not detained in any way; nothing more occurred than that a question was put to them. While persons who attempted to flee or evade the agents may eventually have been detained for questioning, see id., at 50, 81-84, 91-93, respondents did not do so and were not in fact detained. The manner in which respondents were questioned, given its obvious purpose, could hardly result in a reasonable fear that respondents were not free to continue working or to move about the factory. Respondents may only litigate what happened to them, and our review of their description of the encounters with the INS agents satisfies us that the encounters were classic consensual encounters rather than Fourth Amendment seizures. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491 (1983); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (1980).
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Respondents Herman Delgado, Ramona Correa, and Francisca La-bonte worked at Davis Pleating, while Marie Miramontes, the fourth respondent, was employed by Mr. Pleat. Both Delgado and Correa are United States citizens, while Labonte and Miramontes are permanent resident aliens.
The District Court never ruled directly on respondents’ Fifth Amendment claim, apparently reasoning that since respondents’ Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated, their Fifth Amendment right had also not been violated. The Court of Appeals also never ruled on respondents’ Fifth Amendment claim, and we decline to do so.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. In light of its disposition of respondents’ Fourth Amendment claims, the Court of Appeals declined to resolve the union’s appeal from the District Court’s determination that the union lacked standing to raise its members’ Fourth Amendment claims. 681 F. 2d. at 645. n. 24.
Although the issue was the subject of substantial discussion at oral argument, the INS does not contest that respondents have standing to bring this case. They allege the existence of an ongoing policy which violated the Fourth Amendment and which will be applied to their workplace in the future. Cf. Allee v. Medrano, 416 U. S. 802 (1974). Part of their argument is clearly based on the INS’s detention of illegal aliens found working at the two factories. Respondents, however, can only premise their right to injunctive relief on their individual encounters with INS agents during the factory surveys. See infra, at 221.
Contrary to respondents’ assertion, it also makes no difference in this case that the encounters took place inside a factory, a location usually not accessible to the public. The INS officers were lawfully present pursuant to consent or a warrant, and other people were in the area during the INS agents’ questioning. Thus, the same considerations attending contacts between the police and citizens in public places should apply to the questions presented to the individual respondents here.
In her deposition respondent Miramontes described an incident that occurred during the October factory survey at Mr. Pleat, in which an INS agent stationed by an exit attempted to prevent a worker, presumably an illegal alien, from leaving the premises after the survey started. The worker walked out the door and when an agent tried to stop him, the worker pushed the agent aside and ran away. App. 125-126. An ambiguous, isolated incident such as this fails to provide any basis on which to conclude that respondents have shown an INS policy entitling them to in-junctive relief. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976); cf. Allee v. Medrano, supra; Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939).
Respondents Delgado and Labonte both left the building during the INS survey, Delgado to load a truck and Labonte to observe INS activities outside the building. App. 98, 136. Neither of them stated in their depositions that the INS agents in any way restrained them from leaving the building, or even addressed any questions to them upon leaving.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, respondent herein, was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. Jurisdiction before the Board was predicated upon the fact that Reliance, a New York distributor of fuel oil whose operations were local, purchased within the State a “substantial amount” of fuel oil and related products from the Gulf Oil Corporation, a supplier concededly engaged in interstate commerce. Most of the products sold to Reliance by Gulf were delivered to Gulf from without the State of New York and prior to sale and delivery to Reliance were stored, without segregation as to customer, in Gulf’s tanks located within the State. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, Reliance had gross sales in excess of $500,000 and, during the calendar year 1959, it purchased in excess of $650,000 worth of fuel oil and related products from Gulf.
The Board adopted its trial examiner’s findings that the operations of Reliance “affected” commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the unfair labor practices found tended “to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce ...” 129 N. L. R. B. 1166, 1171, 1182. The Court of Appeals reversed, 297 F. 2d 94, because, in its view, the record before the Board did not adequately demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the Board so that it might “take further evidence and make further findings on the manner in which a labor dispute at Reliance affects or tends to affect commerce.” The only issue before this Court is whether on the record before it the Board properly found that it had jurisdiction to enter an order against Reliance; the substantive findings as to the existence of the unfair labor practices are not here in dispute.
Under § 10 (a) of the Act, the Board is empowered “to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice (listed in section 8) affecting commerce.” Section 2 (6) defines “commerce” to mean “trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the . . . States . . and § 2 (7) declares:
“The term 'affecting commerce’ means in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.”
This Court has consistently declared that in passing the National Labor Relations Act, Congress intended to and did vest in the Board the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause. See, e. g., Guss v. Utah Labor Board, 353 U. S. 1, 3; Polish Alliance v. Labor Board, 322 U. S. 643, 647-648; Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601, 607. Compare Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 480. The Act establishes a framework within which the Board is to determine “whether proscribed practices would in particular situations adversely affect commerce when judged by the full reach of the constitutional power of Congress. Whether or no practices may be deemed by Congress to affect interstate commerce is not to be determined by confining judgment to the quantitative effect of the activities immediately before the Board. Appropriate for judgment is the fact that the immediate situation is representative of many others throughout the country, the total incidence of which if left unchecked may well become far-reaching in its harm to commerce.” Polish Alliance v. Labor Board, 322 U. S., at 648. See also Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S., at 607-608.
That activities such as those of Reliance affect commerce and are within the constitutional reach of Congress is beyond doubt. See, e. g., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111. Through the National Labor Relations Act, “. . . Congress has explicitly regulated not merely transactions or goods in interstate commerce but activities which in isolation might be deemed to be merely local but in the interlacings of business across state lines adversely affect such commerce.” Polish Alliance v. Labor Board, 322 U. S., at 648. This being so, the jurisdictional test is met here: the Board properly found that by virtue of Reliance’s purchases from Gulf, Reliance’s operations and the related unfair labor practices “affected” commerce, within the meaning of the Act. The judgment of the Court of Appeals accordingly must be and is reversed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
In 1969 Reliance purchased a few hundred dollars worth of truck parts in New Jersey, but the Board did not rely on such transactions to sustain its assertion of jurisdiction.
Since the Board apparently treated Reliance as a “retail” concern, this amount of gross sales met its self-imposed standard for exercise of jurisdiction. 129 N. L. R. B. 1166, 1170-1171.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
For more than 60 years, New York has had a closed system of primary elections, whereby only enrolled members of a political party may vote in that party’s primary. Under the State’s Election Law, a registered voter enrolls as a party member by depositing an enrollment blank in a locked enrollment box. The last day for enrollment is 30 days before the general election each year. Section 186 of the Election Law provides that the enrollment boxes shall not be opened until the Tuesday following the general election, and party affiliations are then entered on the State’s official registration books. The voter is then duly enrolled as a member of his party and may vote in a subsequent primary election.
The effect of § 186 is to require a voter to enroll in the party of his choice at least 30 days before the general election in November in order to vote in the next subsequent party primary. If a voter fails to meet this deadline, he cannot participate in a party primary until after the following general election. Section 187 provides an exemption from this waiting period for certain classes of voters, including persons who have attained voting age after the last general election, persons too ill to enroll during the previous enrollment period, and persons who moved from one place to another within a single county. Under § 187, these classes of voters may be specially enrolled as members of a party even after the general election has taken place.
The petitioners are New York residents who became eligible to vote when they came of age in 1971. Although they could have registered and enrolled in a political party before the cutoff date in 1971 — October 2 — they failed to do so. Instead, they waited until early December 1971 to register and to deposit their enrollment blanks. At that time, they could not be specially and immediately enrolled in a party under § 187, since they had attained the voting age before, rather than after, the 1971 general election. Hence, pursuant to § 186, their party enrollment could not become effective until after the November 1972 general election. Because of New York’s enrollment scheme, then, the petitioners were not eligible to vote in the presidential primary election held in June 1972.
The petitioners filed these complaints for declaratory relief, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that § 186 unconstitutionally deprived them of their right to vote in the June primary and abridged their freedom to associate with the political party of their choice. The District Court, in an unreported opinion, granted them the declaratory relief sought. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding § 186 constitutional. 458 F. 2d 649. We granted certiorari, but denied the petitioners’ motion for summary reversal, expedited consideration, and a stay. 406 U. S. 957 (1972).
The petitioners argue that, through § 186, New York disenfranchised them by refusing to permit them to vote in the June 1972 primary election on the ground that they had not enrolled in a political party at least 30 days prior to the preceding general election. More specifically, they contend that § 186 has operated to preclude newly registered voters, such as themselves, from participating in the primary election of the party of their choice. According to the petitioners, New York has no “compelling state interest” in its delayed-enrollment scheme so as to justify such disenfranchisement, and hence the scheme must fall. In support of this argument, the petitioners rely on several cases in which this Court has struck down, as violative of the Equal Protection Clause, state statutes that disenfranchised certain groups of people. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89 (1965); Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U. S. 621 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969); Evans v. Common, 398 U. S. 419 (1970); City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204 (1970); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972).
We cannot accept the petitioners’ contention. None of the cases on which they rely is apposite to the situation here. In each of those cases, the State totally denied the electoral franchise to a particular class of residents, and there was no way in which the members of that class could have made themselves eligible to vote. In Carrington, for instance, the Texas Constitution disabled all servicemen from voting in Texas, no matter how long they had lived there. In Kramer, residents who were not property owners or parents were completely precluded from voting in school board elections. In Cipriano and Kolodziejski, the States prohibited non-property owners from ever voting in bond elections. In Evans, Maryland refused to permit residents at the National Institutes of Health, located within its borders, ever to vote in state elections. And in Dunn, Tennessee totally disenfranchised newly arrived residents, i. e., those who had been residents of the State less than a year or residents of the county less than three months before the election.
Section 186 of New York’s Election Law, however, is quite different. It did not absolutely disenfranchise the class to which the petitioners belong — newly registered voters who were eligible to enroll in a party before the previous general election. Rather, the statute merely imposed a time deadline on their enrollment, which they had to meet in order to participate in the next primary. Since the petitioners attained voting age before the October 2, 1971, deadline, they clearly could have registered and enrolled in the party of their choice before that date and been eligible to vote in the June 1972 primary. Indeed, if the petitioners had not been able to enroll by the October 2, 1971, deadline because they did not attain the requisite age until after the 1971 general election, they would have been eligible for special enrollment under § 187. The petitioners do not say why they did not enroll prior to the cutoff date; however, it is clear that they could have done so, but chose not to. Hence, if their plight can be characterized as disenfranchisement at all, it was not caused by § 186, but by their own failure to take timely steps to effect their enrollment.
For the same reason, we reject the petitioners’ argument that § 186 violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment right of free association with the political party of their choice. Since they could have enrolled in a party in time to participate in the June 1972 primary, § 186 did not constitute a ban on their freedom of association, but merely a time limitation on when they had to act in order to participate in their chosen party’s next primary.
Indeed, under the New York law, a person may, if he wishes, vote in a different party primary each year. All he need do is to enroll in a new political party between the prior primary and the October cutoff date. For example, one June he could be a registered Republican and vote in the Republican primary. Before enrollment closed the following October, he could enroll in the Democratic Party. Since that enrollment would be effective after the November general election and before the following February 1, he could then vote in the next Democratic primary. Before the following October, he could register to vote as a Liberal, and so on. Thus, New York’s scheme does not “lock” a voter into an unwanted pre-existing party affiliation from one primary to the next.
The only remaining question, then, is whether the time limitation imposed by § 186 is so severe as itself to constitute an unconstitutionally onerous burden on the petitioners’ exercise of the franchise or on their freedom of political association. As the- dissent acknowledges, the State is certainly justified in imposing some reasonable cutoff point for registration or party enrollment, which citizens must meet in order to participate in the next election. Post, at 765. Hence, our inquiry must be whether the particular deadline before us here is so justified.
The cutoff date for enrollment prescribed by § 186 occurs approximately eight months prior to a presidential primary (held in June) and 11 months prior to a non-presidential primary (held in September). The petitioners argue that this period is unreasonably long, and that it therefore unduly burdens the exercise of their constitutional rights. According to the petitioners, § 186 requires party enrollment before prospective voters have knowledge of the candidates or issues to be involved in the next primary elections. The requirement is especially onerous, the petitioners say, as applied to new voters, who have never before registered to vote or enrolled in a political party.
It is true that the period between the enrollment deadline and the next primary election is lengthy. But that period is not an arbitrary time limit unconnected to any important state goal. The purpose of New York’s delayed-enrollment scheme, we are told, is to inhibit party “raiding,” whereby voters in sympathy with one party designate themselves as voters of another party so as to influence or determine the results of the other party’s primary. This purpose is accomplished, the Court of Appeals found, not only by requiring party enrollment several months in advance of the primary, on the theory that “long-range planning in politics is quite difficult,” 458 F. 2d, at 653, but also by requiring enrollment prior to a general election. The reason for the latter requirement was well stated by the court below:
“[T]he notion of raiding, its potential disruptive impact, and its advantages to one side are not likely to be as apparent to the majority of enrolled voters nor to receive as close attention from the professional politician just prior to a November general election when concerns are elsewhere as would be true during the 'primary season/ which, for the country as a whole, runs from early February until the end of June. New persons have the effrontery or the foresight to enroll as say, ‘Republicans’ so that they can vote in a primary some seven months hence, when they full well intend to vote ‘Democratic’ in only a few weeks. And, it would be the rare politician who could successfully urge his constituents to vote for him or his party in the upcoming general election, while at the same time urging a cross-over enrollment for the purpose of upsetting the opposite party’s primary. Yet the operation of section 186 requires such deliberate inconsistencies if large-scale raiding were to be effective in New York. Because of the statute, it is all but impossible for any group to engage in raiding.” Ibid.
It is clear that preservation of the integrity of the electoral process is a legitimate and valid state goal. Cf. Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, at 345; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U. S. 134, 145 (1972). In the service of that goal, New York has adopted its delayed-enrollment scheme; and an integral part of that scheme is that, in order to participate in a primary election, a person must enroll before the preceding general election. As the Court of Appeals stated: “Allowing enrollment any time after the general election would not have the same deterrent effect on raiding for it would not put the voter in the unseemly position of asking to be enrolled in one party while at the same time intending to vote immediately for another.” 458 F. 2d, at 653. For this reason, New York’s scheme requires an insulating general election between enrollment and the next party primary. The resulting time limitation for enrollment is thus tied to a particularized legitimate purpose, and is in no sense invidious or arbitrary. Cf. Lippitt v. Cipollone, 404 U. S. 1032 (1972).
New York did not prohibit the petitioners from voting in the 1972 primary election or from associating with the political party of their choice. It merely imposed a legitimate time limitation on their enrollment, which they chose to disregard.
Accordingly, the judgment below is
Affirmed.
See N. Y. Election Law § 131. The State’s first comprehensive primary law was enacted in 1911.
Section 186 provides, in pertinent part:
“All enrollment blanks contained in the enrollment box shall remain in such box, and the box shall not be opened nor shall any of the blanks be removed therefrom until the Tuesday following the day of general election in that year. Such box shall then be opened by the board of elections and the blanks contained therein shall be removed therefrom by the board, and the names of the party designated by each voter under such declaration, provided such party continues to be a party, as defined in this law shall be entered by the board, opposite the name of such voter in the appropriate column of the two copies of the register containing enrollment numbers for the election district in which such voter resides. . . . Such enrollment shall be complete before the succeeding first day of February in each year.” This section finds its roots in the 1911 law. Laws 1911, c. 891, § 19.
Section 187 provides, in pertinent part:
“Application for special enrollment, transfer or correction of enrollment. 1. At any time after January first and before the thirtieth day preceding the next fall primary, except during the thirty days preceding a spring primary, and except on the day of a primary, a voter may enroll with a party, transfer his enrollment after moving within a county, and under certain circumstances, correct his enrollment, as hereinafter in this section provided.
“2. A voter may enroll with a party if he did not enroll on the day of the annual enrollment (a) because he became of age after the preceding general election, or (b) because he was naturalized subsequent to ninety days prior to the preceding general election, or (c) because he did not have the necessary residential qualifications as provided by section one hundred fifty, to enable him to enroll in the preceding year, or (d) because of being or having been at all previous times for enrollment a member of the armed forces of the United States as defined in section three hundred three, or (e) because of being the spouse, child or parent of such member of the armed forces and being absent from his or her county of residence at all previous times for enrollment by reason of accompanying or being with such member of the armed forces, or (f) because he was an inmate or patient of a veterans’ bureau hospital located outside the state of New York at all previous times for enrollment, or the spouse, parent or child of such inmate or patient accompanying or being with such inmate or patient at such times, or (g) because he was incapacitated by illnéss during the previous enrollment period thereby preventing him from enrolling.”
The petitioners themselves admit this failure. The present consolidated case originated in two complaints, one by the petitioner Rosario and other named plaintiffs, on behalf of a class, and one by the petitioner Eisner. Paragraph 6 of Rosario’s complaint stated that “[e]aeh of these plaintiffs could have registered and enrolled on or before October 2nd, 1971, the last date of registration for the November 1971 elections. They each did not do so.” Similarly, Eisner’s complaint stated, in paragraph 5: “Plaintiff, Eisner, first became eligible to vote on December 30, 1970, upon the attainment of his twenty-first birthday.” Whether the petitioners failed to enroll before the deadline because of inadvertence, because of lack of interest in the essentially local 1971 general election, or for other reasons is not clear, since none of them advances any explanation for this failure to enroll.
Although the June primary election has been completed and the petitioners will be eligible to vote in the next scheduled New York primary, this case is not moot, since the question the petitioners raise is “ 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).
Not only would the petitioners have been eligible for the 1972 primary, but, since they were eligible in 1971 for special enrollment under § 187, they could have, if they had timely registered and enrolled, participated in the September 14, 1971, primary.
The District Court held that the petitioners’ failure to enroll before the cutoff date was not truly voluntary, because it was not done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. But this argument could well be made any time a State imposes a time limitation or cutoff point for registration or enrollment. The petitioners do not claim that they were unaware of New York’s deadline for enrollment.
The dissent states that “[t]he Court apparently views this statute as a mere 'time deadline’ on petitioners’ enrollment . . . that postpones through the next primary rather than denies altogether petitioners’ voting and associational rights.” Post, at 766. And it argues that our decisions “have never required a permanent ban on the exercise of voting and associational rights before a constitutional breach is incurred.” Post, at 766-767. But the dissent mis-characterizes our view of § 186. We do not uphold the statute on the ground that it is merely a prohibition on voting in one particular primary, rather than a permanent ban on voting. That is neither our point nor the effect of the law. The point is that the statute did not prohibit the petitioners from voting in any election, including the 1972 primary, had they chosen to meet the deadline established by the law.
The petitioners also argue that § 186 establishes a durational residence requirement unconstitutional under Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972), and violates the right to travel under Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969). Since the exemption in § 187 applies only to persons whose new residence is within the same county as their old residence, persons who arrive in New York State or move from one county to another after the cutoff date, and deposit their enrollment blank at that time, are barred by the delayed-enrollment scheme from voting in the next primary election. According to the petitioners, this constitutes an unconstitutional durational residence requirement and is violative of the 1970 amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 84 Stat. 316, 42 U. S. C. § 1973aa-l.
The petitioners, however, lack standing to raise these contentions. They make no claim that they are recently arrived residents of the State or that they have moved from one county to another nor even that they have changed their residence at all within the period relevant here. The petitioners cannot represent a class to which they do not belong.
The petitioners contend that New York already has less drastic means to prevent raiding — means that would accomplish the State’s goal yet would permit the registrant who inadvertently failed to enroll in time to vote in the primary. Specifically, the petitioners point to § 332 of the State’s Election Law, which provides that the party enrollment of any voter may be challenged by any party member and, upon the determination by the chairman of the party’s county committee that the voter is not in sympathy with the principles of the party, may be canceled by a justice of the State Supreme Court after a hearing. That section, however, is clearly too cumbersome to have any real deterrent effect on raiding in a primary. Every challenge to a would-be raider requires a full administrative and judicial inquiry; proof that the challenged voter is not in sympathy with the party’s principles demands inquiry into the voter’s mind; and even if the challenge is successful, it strikes from the enrollment books only one name at a time. In the face of large-scale raiding, § 332 alone would be virtually ineffectual. We agree with the Court of Appeals that “[i]n requiring that the state use to a proper end the means designed to impinge minimally upon fundamental rights, the Constitution does not require that the state choose ineffectual means.” 458 F. 2d, at 654.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This Court has long recognized that meritorious private actions to enforce federal antifraud securities laws are an essential supplement to criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions brought, respectively, by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). See, e. g., Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U. S. 336, 345 (2005); J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 432 (1964). Private securities fraud actions, however, if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively to impose substantial costs on companies and individuals whose conduct conforms to the law. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U. S. 71, 81 (2006). As a check against abusive litigation by private parties, Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 109 Stat. 737.
Exacting pleading requirements are among the control measures Congress included in the PSLRA. The PSLRA requires plaintiffs to state with particularity both the facts constituting the alleged violation, and the facts evidencing scienter, i. e., the defendant’s intention “to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 194, and n. 12 (1976); see 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1), (2). This case concerns the latter requirement. As set out in §21D(b)(2) of the PSLRA, plaintiffs must “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” 15 U. S. C. § 78u-4(b)(2).
Congress left the key term “strong inference” undefined, and Courts of Appeals have divided on its meaning. In the case before us, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the “strong inference” standard would be met if the complaint “allege[d] facts from which, if true, a reasonable person could infer that the defendant acted with the required intent.” 437 F. 3d 588, 602 (2006). That formulation, we conclude, does not capture the stricter demand Congress sought to convey in §21D(b)(2). It does not suffice that a reasonable factfinder plausibly could infer from the complaint’s allegations the requisite state of mind. Rather, to determine whether a complaint’s scienter allegations can survive threshold inspection for sufficiency, a court governed by §21D(b)(2) must engage in a comparative evaluation; it must consider, not only inferences urged by the plaintiff, as the Seventh Circuit did, but also competing inferences rationally drawn from the facts alleged. An inference of fraudulent intent may be plausible, yet less cogent than other, nonculpable explanations for the defendant’s conduct. To qualify as “strong” within the intendment of §21D(b)(2), we hold, an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable — it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.
I
Petitioner Tellabs, Inc., manufactures specialized equipment used in fiber optic networks. During the time period relevant to this case, petitioner Richard Notebaert was Tel-labs’ chief executive officer and president. Respondents (Shareholders) are persons who purchased Tellabs stock between December 11, 2000, and June 19, 2001. They accuse Tellabs and Notebaert (as well as several other Tellabs executives) of engaging in a scheme to deceive the investing public about the true value of Tellabs’ stock. See 437 F. 3d, at 591; App. 94-98.
Beginning on December 11,2000, the Shareholders allege, Notebaert (and by imputation Tellabs) “falsely reassured public investors, in a series of statements... that Tellabs was continuing to enjoy strong demand for its products and earning record revenues,” when, in fact, Notebaert knew the opposite was true. Id., at 94-95, 98. From December 2000 until the spring of 2001, the Shareholders claim, Notebaert knowingly misled the public in four ways. 437 F. 3d, at 596. First, he made statements indicating that demand for Tel-labs’ flagship networking device, the TITAN 5500, was continuing to grow, when, in fact, demand for that product was waning. Id., at 596, 597. Second, Notebaert made statements indicating that the TITAN 6500, Tellabs’ next-generation networking device, was available for delivery, and that demand for that product was strong and growing, when in truth the product was not ready for delivery and demand was weak. Id., at 596, 597-598. Third, he falsely represented Tellabs’ financial results for the fourth quarter of 2000 (and, in connection with those results, condoned the practice of “channel stuffing,” under which Tellabs flooded its customers with unwanted products). Id., at 596, 598. Fourth, Notebaert made a series of overstated revenue projections, when demand for the TITAN 5500 was drying up and production of the TITAN 6500 was behind schedule. Id., at 596, 598-599. Based on Notebaert’s sunny assessments, the Shareholders contend, market analysts recommended that investors buy Tellabs’ stock. See id., at 592.
The first public glimmer that business was not so healthy came in March 2001 when Tellabs modestly reduced its first quarter sales projections. Ibid. In the next months, Tel-labs made progressively more cautious statements about its projected sales. On June 19, 2001, the last day of the class period, Tellabs disclosed that demand for the TITAN 5500 had significantly dropped. Id., at 593. Simultaneously, the company substantially lowered its revenue projections for the second quarter of 2001. The next day, the price of Tellabs stock, which had reached a high of $67 during the period, plunged to a low of $15.87. Ibid.
On December 3,2002, the Shareholders filed a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Ibid. Their complaint stated, inter alia, that Tellabs and Notebaert had engaged in securities fraud in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. §78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5,17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2006), also that Notebaert was a “controlling person” under § 20(a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. §78t(a), and therefore derivatively liable for the company’s fraudulent acts. See App. 98-101, 167-171. Tellabs moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Shareholders had failed to plead their case with the particularity the PSLRA requires. The District Court agreed, and therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice. App. to Pet. for Cert. 80a-117a; see Johnson v. Tellabs, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 941, 945 (ND Ill. 2004).
The Shareholders then amended their complaint, adding references to 27 confidential sources and making further, more specific, allegations concerning Notebaert’s mental state. See 437 F. 3d, at 594; App. 91-93,152-160. The District Court again dismissed, this time with prejudice. 303 F. Supp. 2d, at 971. The Shareholders had sufficiently, pleaded that Notebaert’s statements were misleading, the court determined, id., at 955-961, but they had insufficiently alleged that he acted with scienter, id., at 954-955, 961-969.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in relevant part. 437 F. 3d, at 591. Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals found that the Shareholders had pleaded the misleading character of Notebaert’s statements with sufficient particularity. Id., at 595-600. Unlike the District Court, however, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Shareholders had sufficiently alleged that Notebaert acted with the requisite state of mind. Id., at 603-605.
The Court of Appeals recognized that the PSLRA “unequivocally raise[d] the bar for pleading scienter” by requiring plaintiffs to “plea[d] sufficient facts to create a strong inference of scienter.” Id., at 601 (internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating whether that pleading standard is met, the Seventh Circuit said, “courts [should] examine all of the allegations in the complaint and then... decide whether collectively they establish such an inference.” Ibid. “[W]e will allow the complaint to survive,” the court next and critically stated, “if it alleges facts from which, if true, a reasonable person could infer that the defendant acted with the required intent.... If a reasonable person could not draw such an inference from the alleged facts, the defendants are entitled to dismissal.” Id., at 602.
In adopting its standard for the survival of a complaint, the Seventh Circuit explicitly rejected a stiffer standard adopted by the Sixth Circuit, i. e., that “plaintiff's are entitled only to the most plausible of competing inferences.” Id., at 601, 602 (quoting Fidel v. Farley, 392 F. 3d 220, 227 (2004)). The Sixth Circuit’s standard, the court observed, because it involved an assessment of competing inferences, "could potentially infringe upon plaintiffs’ Seventh Amendment rights.” 437 F. 3d, at 602. We granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement among the Circuits on whether, and to what extent, a court must consider competing inferences in determining whether a securities fraud complaint gives rise to a “strong inference” of scienter. 549 U. S. 1105 (2007).
II
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 forbids the “use or employ, in connection with'the purchase or sale of any security..., [of] any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [SEC] may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” 15 U. S. C. §78j(b). SEC Rule 10b-5 implements § 10(b) by declaring it unlawful:
“(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
“(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made... not misleading, or
“(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business' which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” 17 CFR §240.10b-5.
Section 10(b), this Court has implied from the statute’s text and purpose, affords a right of action to purchasers or sellers of securities injured by its violation. See, e. g., Dura Pharmaceuticals, 544 U. S., at 341. See also id., at 345 (“The securities statutes seek to maintain public confidence in the marketplace... by deterring fraud, in part, through the availability of private securities fraud actions.”); Borak, 377 U. S., at 432 (private securities fraud actions provide “a most effective weapon in the enforcement” of securities laws and are “a necessary supplement to Commission action”). To establish liability under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a private plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” Ernst & Ernst, 425 U. S., at 193-194, and n. 12. ****8
In an ordinary civil action, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). Although the rule encourages brevity, the complaint must say enough to give the defendant “fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Dura Pharmaceuticals, 544 U. S., at 346 (internal quotation marks omitted). Prior to the enactment of the PSLRA, the sufficiency of a complaint for securities fraud was governed not by Rule 8, but by the heightened pleading standard set forth in Rule 9(b). See Greenstone v. Cambex Corp., 975 F. 2d 22, 25 (CA1 1992) (Breyer, J.) (collecting cases). Rule 9(b) applies to “all averments of fraud or mistake”; it requires that “the circumstances constituting fraud... be stated with particularity” but provides that “[mjalice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
Courts of Appeals diverged on the character of the Rule 9(b) inquiry in § 10(b) cases: Could securities fraud plaintiffs allege the requisite mental state “simply by saying that sci-enter existed,” In re GlenFed, Inc. Securities Litigation, 42 F. 3d 1541, 1546-1547 (CA9 1994) (en bane), or were they required to allege with particularity facts giving rise to an inference of scienter? Compare id., at 1546 (“We are not permitted to add new requirements to Rule 9(b) simply because we like the effects of doing so.”), with, e. g., Greenstone, 975 F. 2d, at 25 (were the law to permit a securities fraud complaint simply to allege scienter without supporting facts, “a complaint could evade too easily the ‘particularity’ requirement in Rule 9(b)’s first sentence”). Circuits requiring plaintiffs to allege specific facts indicating scienter expressed that requirement variously. See 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1301.1, pp. 300-302 (3d ed. 2004) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). The Second Circuit’s formulation was the most stringent. Securities fraud plaintiffs in that Circuit were required to “specifically plead those [facts] which they assert give rise to a strong inference that the defendants had” the requisite state of mind. Ross v. A. H. Robins Co., 607 F. 2d 545, 558 (1979) (emphasis added). The “strong inference” formulation was appropriate, the Second Circuit said, to ward off allegations of “fraud by hindsight.” See, e.g., Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F. 3d 1124, 1129 (1994) (quoting Denny v. Barber, 576 F. 2d 465, 470 (CA2 1978) (Friendly, J.)).
Setting a uniform pleading standard for § 10(b) actions was among Congress’ objectives when it enacted the PSLRA. Designed to curb perceived abuses of the § 10(b) private action — “nuisance filings, targeting of deep-pocket defendants, vexatious discovery requests and manipulation by class action lawyers,” Dabit, 547 U. S., at 81 (quoting H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-369, p. 31 (1995) (hereinafter H. R. Conf. Rep.)) — the PSLRA installed both substantive and procedural controls. Notably, Congress prescribed new procedures for the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. This innovation aimed to increase the likelihood that institutional investors — parties more likely to balance the interests of the class with the long-term interests of the company— would serve as lead plaintiffs. See id., at 33-34; S. Rep. No. 104-98, p. 11 (1995). Congress also “limit[ed] recoverable damages and attorney’s fees, provide[d] a ‘safe harbor’ for forward-looking statements,... mandate[d] imposition of sanctions for frivolous litigation, and authorize^] a stay of discovery pending resolution of any motion to dismiss.” Dabit, 547 U. S., at 81. And in §21D(b) of the PSLRA, Congress “impose[d] heightened pleading requirements in actions brought pursuant to § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.” Ibid.
Under the PSLRA’s heightened pleading instructions, any private securities complaint alleging that the defendant made a false or misleading statement must: (1) “specify each statement alleged to have been misleading [and] the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading,” 15 U. S. C. § 78u-4(b)(l); and (2) “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind,” § 78u-4(b)(2). In the instant case, as earlier stated, see supra, at 317, the District Court and the Seventh Circuit agreed that the Shareholders met the first of the two requirements: The complaint sufficiently specified Notebaert’s alleged misleading statements and the reasons why the statements were misleading. 303 F. Supp. 2d, at 955-961; 437 F. 3d, at 596-600. But those courts disagreed on whether the Shareholders, as required by §21D(b)(2), “state[d] with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that [Notebaert] acted with [scienter],” § 78u-4(b)(2). See supra, at 317.
The “strong inference” standard “unequivocally raise[d] the bar for pleading scienter,” 437 F. 3d, at 601, and signaled Congress’ purpose to promote greater uniformity among the Circuits, see H. R. Conf. Rep., p. 41. But “Congress did not... throw much light on what facts... suffice to create [a strong] inference,” or on what “degree of imagination courts can use in divining whether” the requisite inference exists. 437 F. 3d, at 601. While adopting the Second Circuit’s “strong inference” standard, Congress did not codify that Circuit’s case law interpreting the standard. See § 78u-4(b)(2). See also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18. With no clear guide from Congress other than its “in-tension] to strengthen existing pleading requirements,” H. R. Conf. Rep., p. 41, Courts of Appeals have diverged again, this time in construing the term “strong inference.” Among the uncertainties, should courts consider competing inferences in determining whether an inference of scienter is “strong”? See 437 F. 3d, at 601-602 (collecting cases). Our task is to prescribe a workable construction of the “strong inference” standard, a reading geared to the PSLRA’s twin goals: to curb frivolous, lawyer-driven litigation, while preserving investors’ ability to recover on meritorious claims.
Ill
A
We establish the following prescriptions: First, faced with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a § 10(b) action, courts must, as with any motion to dismiss for failure to plead a claim on which relief can be granted, accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. S. 163, 164 (1993). On this point, the parties agree. See Reply Brief 8; Brief for Respondents 26; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8, 20, 21.
Second, courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice. See 5B Wright & Miller § 1357 (3d ed. 2004 and Supp. 2007). The inquiry, as several Courts of Appeals have recognized, is whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard. See, e.g., Abrams v. Baker Hughes Inc., 292 F. 3d 424, 431 (CA5 2002); Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F. 3d 893, 897 (CA9 2002). See also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 25.
Third, in determining whether the pleaded facts give rise to a “strong” inference of scienter, the court must take into account plausible opposing inferences. The Seventh Circuit expressly declined to engage in such a comparative inquiry. A complaint could survive, that court said, as long as it “alleges facts from which, if true, a reasonable person could infer that the defendant acted with the required intent”; in other words, only “[i]f a reasonable person could not draw such an inference from the alleged facts” would the defendant prevail on a motion to dismiss. 437 F. 3d, at 602. But in § 21D(b)(2), Congress did not merely require plaintiffs to “provide a factual basis for [their] scienter allegations,” ibid. (quoting In re Cerner Corp. Securities Litigation, 425 F. 3d 1079, 1084, 1085 (CA8 2005)), i. e., to allege facts from which an inference of scienter rationally could be drawn. Instead, Congress required plaintiffs to plead with particularity facts that give rise to a “strong” — i. e., a powerful or cogent— inference. See American Heritage Dictionary 1717 (4th ed. 2000) (defining “strong” as “[p]ersuasive, effective, and cogent”); 16 Oxford English Dictionary 949 (2d ed. 1989) (defining “strong” as “[powerful to demonstrate or convince” (definition 16b)); cf. 7 id., at 924 (defining “inference” as “a conclusion [drawn] from known or assumed facts or statements”; “reasoning from something known or assumed to something else which follows from it”).
The strength of an inference cannot be decided in a vacuum. The inquiry is inherently comparative: How likely is it that one conclusion, as compared to others, follows from the underlying facts? To determine whether the plaintiff has alleged facts that give rise to the requisite “strong inference” of scienter, a court must consider plausible, non-culpable explanations for the defendant’s conduct, as well as inferences favoring the plaintiff. The inference that the defendant acted with scienter need not be irrefutable, i. e., of the “smoking-gun” genre, or even the “most plausible of competing inferences,” Fidel, 392 F. 3d, at 227 (quoting Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., 251 F. 3d 540, 553 (CA6 2001) (en banc)). Recall in this regard that §21D(b)’s pleading requirements are but one constraint among many the PSLRA installed to screen out frivolous suits, while allowing meritorious actions to move forward. See supra, at 320-321, and n. 4. Yet the inference of scienter must be more than merely “reasonable” or “permissible” — it must be cogent and compelling, thus strong in light of other explanations. A complaint will survive, we hold, only if- a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.
B
Tellabs contends that when competing inferences are considered, Notebaert’s evident lack of pecuniary motive will be dispositive. The Shareholders, Tellabs stresses, did not allege that Notebaert sold any shares during the class period. See Brief for Petitioners 50 (“The absence of any allegations of motive color all the other allegations putatively giving rise to an inference of scienter.”). While it is true that motive can be a relevant consideration, and personal financial gain may weigh heavily in favor of a scienter inference, we agree with the Seventh Circuit that the absence of a motive allegation is not fatal. See 437 F. 3d, at 601. As earlier stated, supra, at 322-323, allegations must be considered collectively; the significance that can be ascribed to an allegation of motive, or lack thereof, depends on the entirety of the complaint.
Tellabs also maintains that several of the Shareholders’ allegations are too vague or ambiguous to contribute to a strong inference of scienter. For example, the Shareholders alleged that Tellabs flooded its customers with unwanted products, a practice known as “channel stuffing.” See supra, at 315. But they failed, Tellabs argues, to specify whether the channel stuffing allegedly known to Notebaert was the illegitimate kind (e. g., writing orders for products customers had not requested) or the legitimate kind (e. g., offering customers discounts as an incentive to buy). Brief for Petitioners 44-46; Reply Brief 8. See also id., at 8-9 (complaint lacks precise dates of reports critical to distinguish legitimate conduct from culpable conduct). But see 437 F. 3d, at 598, 603-604 (pointing to multiple particulars alleged by the Shareholders, including specifications as to timing). We agree that omissions and ambiguities count against inferring scienter, for plaintiffs must “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” §78u-4(b)(2). We reiterate, however, that the court’s job is not to scrutinize each allegation in isolation but to assess all the allegations holistically. See supra, at 322-323; 437 F. 3d, at 601. In sum, the reviewing court must ask: When the allegations are accepted as true and taken collectively, would a reasonable person deem the inference of scienter at least as strong as any opposing inference?
IV
Accounting for its construction of §21D(b)(2), the Seventh Circuit explained’that the court “th[ought] it wis[e] to adopt an approach that [could not] be misunderstood as a usurpation of the jury’s role.” 437 F. 3d, at 602. In our view, the Seventh Circuit’s concern was undue. A court’s comparative assessment of plausible inferences, while constantly assuming the plaintiff’s allegations to be true, we think it plain, does not impinge upon the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial.
Congress, as creator of federal statutory claims, has power to prescribe what must be pleaded to state the claim, just as it has power to determine what must be proved to prevail on the merits. It is the federal lawmaker’s prerogative, therefore, to allow, disallow, or shape the contours of— including the pleading and proof requirements for — § 10(b) private actions. No decision of this Court questions that authority in general, or suggests, in particular, that the Seventh Amendment inhibits Congress from establishing whatever pleading requirements it finds appropriate for federal statutory claims. Cf. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 512-513 (2002); Leatherman, 507 U. S., at 168 (both recognizing that heightened pleading requirements can be established by Federal Rule, citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proe. 9(b), which requires that fraud or mistake be pleaded with particularity).
Our decision in Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. United States, 187 U. S. 315 (1902), is instructive. That case concerned a rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in 1879 pursuant to rulemaking power delegated by Congress. The rule required defendants, in certain contract actions, to file an affidavit “specifically stating..., in precise and distinct terms, the grounds of his defen[s]e.” Id., at 318 (internal quotation marks omitted). The defendant’s affidavit was found insufficient, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff, whose declaration and supporting affidavit had been found satisfactory. Ibid. This Court upheld the District’s rule against the contention that it violated the Seventh Amendment. Id., at 320. Just as the purpose of § 21D(b) is to screen out frivolous complaints, the purpose of the prescription at issue in Fidelity & Deposit Co. was to “preserve the court from frivolous defen[s]es,” ibid. Explaining why the Seventh Amendment was not implicated, this Court said that the heightened pleading rule simply “prescribes the means of making an issue,” and that, when “[t]he issue [was] made as prescribed, the right of trial by jury accrues.” Ibid.; accord Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 310 (1920) (Brandéis, J.) (citing Fidelity & Deposit Co., and reiterating: “It does not infringe the constitutional right to a trial by jury [in a civil case], to require, with a view to formulating the issues, an oath by each party to the facts relied upon.”). See also Walker v. New Mexico & Southern Pacific R. Co., 165 U. S. 593, 596 (1897) (Seventh Amendment “does not attempt to regulate matters of pleading”).
In the instant case, provided that the Shareholders have satisfied the congressionally “prescribe^]... means of making an issue,” Fidelity & Deposit Co., 187 U. S., at 320, the case will fall within the jury’s authority to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve any genuine issues of fact, and make the ultimate determination whether Notebaert and, by imputation, Tellabs acted with scienter. We emphasize, as well, that under our construction of the “strong inference” standard, a plaintiff is not forced to plead more than she would be required to prove at trial. A plaintiff alleging fraud in a § 10(b) action, we hold today, must plead facts rendering an inference of scienter at least as likely as any plausible opposing inference. At trial, she must then prove her case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Stated otherwise, she must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the defendant acted with scienter. See Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U. S. 375, 390 (1983).
* * *
While we reject the Seventh Circuit’s approach to §21D(b)(2), we do not decide whether, under the standard we have described, see supra, at 322-326, the Shareholders’ allegations warrant “a strong inference that [Notebaert and Tellabs] acted with the required state of mind,” 15 U. S. C. § 78u-4(b)(2). Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals had the opportunity to consider the matter in light of the prescriptions we announce today. We therefore vacate the Seventh Circuit’s judgment so that the case may be reexamined in accord with our construction of §21D(b)(2).
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.
The Shareholders brought suit against Tellabs executives other than Notebaert, including Richard Birck, Tellabs’ chairman and former chief executive officer. Because the claims against the other executives, many of which have been dismissed, are not before us, we focus on the allegations as they relate to Notebaert. We refer to the defendant-petitioners collectively as “Tellabs.”
See, e. g., 437 F. 3d 588, 602 (CA7 2006) (decision below); In re Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., 431 F. 3d 36, 49, 51 (CA1 2005); Ottmann v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., 353 F. 3d 338, 347-349 (CA4 2003); Pirraglia v. Novell, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1182, 1187-1188 (CA10 2003); Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F. 3d 893, 896-897 (CA9 2002); Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., 251 F. 3d 540, 553 (CA6 2001) (en banc).
We have previously reserved the question whether reckless behavior is sufficient for civil liability under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. See Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 194, n. 12 (1976). Every Court of Appeals that has considered the issue has held that a plaintiff may meet the scienter requirement by showing that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, though the Circuits differ on the degree of recklessness required. See Ottmann, 353 F. 3d, at 343 (collecting cases). The question whether and when recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement is not presented in this case.
Nothing in the PSLRA, we have previously noted, casts doubt on the conclusion “that private securities litigation [i]s an indispensable tool with which defrauded investors can recover their losses” — a matter crucial to the integrity of domestic capital markets. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U. S. 71, 81 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Justice Scalia objects to this standard on the ground that “[i]f a jade falcon were stolen from a room to which only A and B had access,” it could not “possibly be said there was a ‘strong inference’ that B was the thief.” Post, at 329 (opinion concurring in judgment) (emphasis in original). We suspect, however, that law enforcement officials as well as the owner of the precious falcon would find the inference of guilt as to B quite strong— certainly strong enough to warrant further investigation. Indeed, an inference at least as likely as competing inferences can, in some cases, warrant recovery. See Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80, 84-87, 199 P. 2d 1, 3-5 (1948) (plaintiff wounded by gunshot could recover from two defendants, even though the most he could prove was that each defendant was at least as likely to have injured him as the other); Restatement (Third) of Torts § 28(b), Comment e, p. 504 (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, Apr. 6, 2005) (“Since the publication of the Second Restatement in 1965, courts have generally accepted the alternative-liability principle of [Summers v. Tice, adopted in] §433B(3), while fleshing out its
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 United States claims the city of Monroe, Georgia, did not seek preclearance for majority voting in mayoral elections, as required by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. The Government seeks to enjoin majority voting and to require Monroe to return to the plurality system it had once used. A three-judge District Court for the Middle District of Georgia agreed with the Government and granted summary judgment. 962 P. Supp. 1501 (1997). The District Court rejected Monroe’s claim that the Attorney General’s preelearance of a 1968 statewide law encompassed Monroe’s adoption of a majority system. On Monroe’s motion, this Court stayed enforcement of the judgment. 521 U. S. 1138 (1997). The ease is now on appeal, and the judgment must be reversed.
I
The parties agree upon the facts. Until 1966, Monroe’s city charter did not specify whether a candidate needed a plurality or a majority vote to win a mayoral election. In practice, the city used plurality voting in its elections until 1966 and majority voting thereafter.
In 1966, the General Assembly of Georgia amended the city’s charter to require majority voting in mayoral elections. 1966 Ga. Laws 2459. Because Monroe is a jurisdiction covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the change had to be preeleared. Georgia or Monroe could have sought preelearance by submitting the change to the Attorney General or seeking a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Neither did, so the 1966 charter amendment was not precleared.
In 1968, the General Assembly passed a comprehensive Municipal Election Code (1968 code), which is still in force today. The statute applies to Monroe and all other municipalities in Georgia. Section 34A-1407(a) of the 1968 code has two sentences. The first sentence sets forth a rule of deference to municipal charters:
“If the municipal charter . . . provides that a candidate may be nominated or elected by a plurality . . . , such provision shall prevail.”
The second sentence lays down a state-law default rule for all other cities:
“Otherwise, no candidate shall be ... elected ... [without] a majority of the votes east....” Georgia Municipal Election Code, §34A-1407(a) (1968 code section or § 34A-1407(a)), 1968 Ga. Laws 977, as amended, Ga. Code Ann. § 21-3-407(a) (1993).
Georgia submitted the 1968 code to the Attorney General for preclearance. Its cover letter stated: “ Tn view of the variety of laws which heretofore existed, no effort will be made herein to set forth the prior laws superseded by the Municipal Election Code.’” 962 F. Supp., at 1505. The letter then listed the majority-vote provision as a significant change, noting: “ ‘Whether the majority or plurality rule is in effect in the municipal election will depend upon how the municipality’s charter is written at present or may be written in [the] future ....’” Ibid. The Attorney General objected to other provisions of the 1968 code but did not object to §34A-1407(a), so it was, and is, preeleared. The United States does not dispute this conclusion, nor does it claim Georgia’s submission was misleading, ambiguous, or otherwise defective.
In 1971, the revision of Monroe’s charter. 1971 Ga. Laws 3227. The 1971 charter made explicit provision, for majority voting. Neither Georgia nor Monroe sought to preclear the revisions to the charter.
In 1990, roe’s charter and carried forward the majority-vote requirement. This time, Monroe sent the 1990 charter to the Attorney General for preclearanee, but the cover letter did not mention the majority-vote provision. The Attorney General objected to it nevertheless, interpreting the submission as effecting a change from plurality to majority voting. The Government filed suit against Monroe and city officials in 1994 and prevailed in the District Court.
1 — Í J — 1
The 1968 code must be the centerpiece of this case, for it defers where city charters are specific and provides a default rule where they are not. If a city charter requires plurality voting, the deference rule in the first sentence of the 1968 code section allows the municipal charter provision to take effect. Monroe, however, does not have and has not had a plurality-vote provision in its charter. The first sentence simply does not apply here because no charter provision triggers its rule of deference to municipal law. Thus, the second sentence’s default rule of state law governs, requiring Monroe to use majority voting. Since the Attorney General pre-cleared the default rule, Monroe may implement it.
The District Court reached a contrary conclusion, relying on a single footnote in City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 169-170, n. 6 (1980). As the District Court put it: “The [RomeJ Court’s rationale focused squarely on the notion that [Georgia’s] submission of the 1968 Statewide Code did not put before the Attorney General the propriety of changes in the voting practices of individual cities.” 962 F. Supp., at 1513.
The court’s reliance on the footnote was misplaced. Unlike this ease, which concerns the default rule in the second sentence of the 1968 code section, the City of Rome footnote concerned the deference rule in the first sentence. Rome’s pre-1966 charter had an explicit requirement of plurality voting. When the General Assembly amended Rome’s charter to provide for majority voting, no one sought to preclear this or other changes. “Rome [later] argue[d] that the Attorney General, in preclearing the 1968 Code, [had] thereby approved by reference the City’s 1966 Charter amendments.” City of Rome v. United States, 472 F. Supp. 221, 233 (DC 1979), aff’d, 446 U. S. 156 (1980); see also 472 F. Supp., at 233 (“Rome argues that its Charter, having been amended in 1966 to provide for majority voting, did not provide for plurality voting in 1968, and that therefore the 1968 Code mandated majority voting”). submission
This of the 1968 code did not submit Rome’s 1966 charter for pre-clearance “in an unambiguous and recordable manner.” 446 U. S., at 170, n. 6 (internal quotation marks omitted). Georgia’s submission of the 1968 code “informed the Attorney General only of [Georgia’s] decision to defer to local charters and ordinances regarding majority voting” should a city choose to include a voting provision in its charter as permitted by the deference rule. Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). Georgia’s submission of the 1968 code did not give the Attorney General “an adequate opportunity to determine the purpose of [Rome’s 1966] electoral changes and whether they will adversely affect minority voting.” Id., at 169, n. 6. not even
Indeed, arguably constitute a request for preclearan.ce of the 1966 change to Rome’s charter. Given that the unpreeleared charter amendment was a nullity as a matter of federal law, the 1968 code did not change the law in Rome. Rather, it deferred to the plurality-vote requirement in the pre-1966 charter. In this case, however, the 1968 code is what changed the law in Monroe. Accordingly, unless the Attorney General’s preclearanee of the code was a nullity, there has been no violation of the Voting Rights Act. the
In short, submission of the 1968 code to validate the 1966 municipal electoral changes. City of Rome, in discussing the “decision to defer to local charters,” recognized that the case arose under the rule of deference to municipal law. This rule of deference would not have been interpreted to effect a change in the law, and so it did not put the Attorney General on notice of Rome’s shift to majority voting. Because municipal law was dispositive under the first sentence of the 1968 code section, City of Rome said nothing about the state-law default rule of majority voting in the second sentence.
The instant case, in contrast, is controlled by the default rule of state law set forth in the second sentence. Monroe’s pre-1966 charter, unlike Rome’s, did not require plurality voting and so could not trigger the rule of deference to municipal law in the first sentence. Thus Monroe, unlike Rome, does not need to breathe life into its invalid 1966 charter to circumvent the rule of deference. After one disregards Monroe’s invalid 1966 and 1971 charters, the state-law default rule mandates majority voting.
Cases, such as this one, arising under the default rule satisfy all of the preelearance requirements in City of Rome. The Government does not dispute that Georgia submitted the state-law default rule to the Attorney General in an “unambiguous and recordable manner.” The submission, furthermore, gave the Attorney General “an adequate-opportunity to determine the purpose of the [default-rule] electoral changes and whether they will adversely affect minority voting.” In consequence, by preclearing the 1968 code the Attorney General approved the state-law default rule. The controlling default rule having been precleared, Monroe may cohduet elections under its auspices.
Because the 1968 code disposes of the case on this undisputed factual record, the Court need not address appellants’ other contentions. The judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissing an indictment against the appellees here. 18 U. S. C. § 3731. That indictment, 18 U. S. C. § 1621, charged each appellee with the crime of perjury while testifying in a prior criminal trial. The former trial was on charges of using “third degree” methods to force confessions from prisoners.
In that prior trial, six defendants — the four appellees and two others not here involved — were prosecuted under an indictment, four counts of which charged them, 18 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 51, now 18 U. S. C. § 241, with conspiring “to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate [under color of state law, four citizens of the United States] in the free exercise and enjoyment of the rights and privileges secured . . . and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. . . ,”
The other four counts of the indictment, 18 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 52, now 18 U. S. C. § 242, charged that Williams, Bombaci, Ford, and another not here involved, as police officers acting under state laws, committed substantive crimes by subjecting four persons to deprivation of certain “of the rights, privileges and immunities secured . . . and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,” and that Yuhas and another wilfully aided and abetted in the commission of these substantive offenses.
In the prior trial, during which this indictment charges perjury was committed, Williams was found guilty by a jury of the substantive offenses. His conviction is affirmed today. See No. 365, Williams v. United States, post, p. 97. The jury found Bombaci and Ford not guilty of these offenses and Yuhas not guilty of aiding and abetting in the commission of these offenses. However, the jury was unable to agree on a verdict as to the four counts which charged conspiracy. Later a new indictment was presented which framed once again the conspiracy charges, and this time the appellees in this case were found guilty. The perjury charges now before us are not based on the proceedings in the second conspiracy trial. On appeal from the conviction in the second trial, and before the trial for perjury, the Court of Appeals quashed the conspiracy indictment and reversed. So far as here important, the basis for the reversal was that § 241 did not apply to the general rights extended to all persons by the Fourteenth Amendment. 179 F. 2d 644, 648. This Court, today, affirms the Court of Appeals. No. 26, United States v. Williams, decided today, post, p. 70.
In dismissing the indictment in the case now before us, the District Court held, 93 F. Supp. 922, that since Williams had been convicted in the first trial of the substantive counts based upon his beating certain victims, to convict Williams of perjury for testifying that he had not beaten the victims — which is the gist of the perjury indictment against Williams — would constitute double jeopardy.
The District Court further reasoned that the jury’s finding that Yuhas, Ford and Bombaci had not been guilty of the substantive offenses in the first trial, was a determination of their innocence “whether as principals or accessories,” and therefore none of the three could be found guilty of the charge made by the perjury indictment: testifying falsely that they had not seen or observed Williams beating the victims.
Finally, the District Court reasoned that since the later indictment which repeated the conspiracy charges had been quashed on appeal, there was no jurisdiction to try the defendants on the conspiracy counts in the first criminal trial, and therefore the perjury counts based on the conspiracy counts in the prior case were bad.
The United States in its appeal urges that the District Court erred in all three grounds for quashing the perjury indictment. The federal perjury statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1621, reads as follows:
“Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Its terms cover parties as well as other witnesses. If any incident or judgment of a former trial bars a prosecution for perjury under § 1621, that effect must be imported into the perjury trial by a legal rule distinct from the statute.
I. Former Jeopardy. — The conviction of Williams, at a former trial, for beating certain victims is not former or double jeopardy. Obviously perjury at a former trial is not the same offense as the substantive offense, under 18 U. S. C. § 242, of depriving a person of constitutional rights under color of law. “It is only an identity of offenses which is fatal.” Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640, 644, and cases cited. The trial court does not cite any authority for a contrary position, and appellees concede that the ground for dismissal cannot be sustained. It would be no service to the administration of justice to enlarge the conception of former jeopardy to afford a defendant immunity from prosecution for perjury while giving testimony in his own defense. Appellees' brief treats Williams’ conviction as grounds for estoppel or res judicata.
II. Res Judicata. — Though former jeopardy by trial for the substantive crimes is not available as a defense against this perjury indictment, it could be that acquittal on the substantive charges would operate “to conclude those matters in issue which the verdict determined though the offenses be different.” Sealfon v. United States, 332 U. S. 575, 578.
Petitioner in the Sealfon case was acquitted of a conspiracy charge of defrauding the United States of its governmental function of conserving and rationing sugar. One item of evidence was a letter to an alleged co-conspirator said to furnish a basis for getting sugar illegally. On another indictment for uttering false invoices for the same sugar involved in the conspiracy, Sealfon moved to quash on the ground of res judicata. The motion was denied and Sealfon was convicted. The test of the soundness of the motion was whether the “verdict in the conspiracy trial was a determination favorable to petitioner of the facts essential to conviction of the substantive offense.” P. 578. We thought the acquittal of conspiracy determined that Sealfon did not conspire with Greenberg, the only alleged co-conspirator. Admittedly Sealfon wrote a certain letter. “As we read the records of the two trials, petitioner could be convicted of either offense only on proof that he wrote the letter pursuant to an agreement with Greenberg.” P. 580. The core of the two cases was the same. As the first trial cleared him of sending the letter pursuant to a corrupt agreement, that fact was res judicata. A like basis for res judicata does not exist here.
Ford and Bombaci were acquitted in the former trial on all counts charging substantive crimes. Yuhas was charged and acquitted of aiding and abetting. We shall assume with the District Court that Ford and Bombaci were acquitted also of that charge. 18 U. S. C. § 2 (a). In essence the first prosecution was for arrest and abuse through beatings by police officers Williams, Ford and Bombad, acting under the laws of Florida, with Yuhas aiding and abetting. The perjury charged in this present indictment, allegedly committed at that former trial in which all except Williams were acquitted of the substantive offenses, is that the three acquitted men testified falsely that they had not seen Williams abuse the prisoner. The trial court thought that “Whether they had seen or observed Williams beat the victims was a part and parcel of the charge against them in the substantive counts” of abuse and aiding and abetting the abuse. Ehrlich v. United States, 145 F. 2d 693, was cited. 93 F. Supp. 922.
We do not think the facts bring any of these defendants within the protection of res judicata, as recently expounded in Sealfon. Aiding and abetting means to assist the perpetrator of the crime. The substantive former charge against appellees here was abuse of a prisoner by police officers under color of state law. An acquittal of such a crime or of aiding and abetting was certainly not a determination that Ford, Bombaci or Yuhas did not see Williams assaulting the prisoners.
III. The counts in this indictment which charge that perjury was committed in the first conspiracy trial rely on the same facts to prove the perjury as are detailed above to support the counts of the indictment which charge perjury in the trial of the substantive counts. The trial court in the present case dismissed the counts for perjury committed in the first trial of the conspiracy charge for a different reason than it gave for dismissal of the other perjury counts. In the first trial no verdict was reached by the jury on the conspiracy counts. The trial court in this case, however, relying upon the determination of the Fifth Circuit in the second conspiracy trial, Williams v. United States, 179 F. 2d 644 (now affirmed here, No. 26, United States v. Williams, post, p. 70, decided today), ruled that the former conspiracy indictment did not state an offense, and consequently perjury could not have been committed. The court said it reached this conclusion because the court that tried the conspiracy indictment had “no jurisdiction.” Evidently, the trial court was led to this conclusion by the requirement of the perjury statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1621, that there must be a “competent tribunal” before a false statement is perjurious.
The charge in the conspiracy counts that the appellees, police officers and others, conspired to abuse a prisoner in their hands was based on 18 U. S. C. § 241. The District Court had jurisdiction of offenses against the laws of the United States. 18 U. S. C. § 3231. Hence, it had jurisdiction of the subject matter, to wit, an alleged violation of a federal conspiracy statute, and, of course, of the persons charged. This made the trial take place before “a competent tribunal”: a court authorized to render judgment on the indictment. The circumstance that ultimately it is determined on appeal that the indictment is defective does not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court to determine the case presented by the indictment.
This was held as to a civil proceeding in Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. In that case, a suit in a federal district court for damages against federal officers for violation of plaintiff's rights to due process in arrest and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments was held to give the district court jurisdiction sufficient to call for judgment on the merits, even though that judgment should dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. P. 682. “Jurisdiction is the power to decide a justiciable controversy, and includes questions of law as well as of fact.” Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, 263 U. S. 291, 305. Even the unconstitutionality of the statute under which the proceeding is brought does not oust a court of jurisdiction. Chicot County District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U. S. 371, 376. See also Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U. S. 165; M’Cormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192.
It is true that there are certain essential facts that must exist to give any power to a court. Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co., 147 U. S. 165, 173. As the existence of those facts are so plainly necessary, e. g. process, examples of decisions are rare. Absence of such facts makes the proceedings a nullity. Such a case was Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433. We there held that the Federal Government, in the exercise of its plenary power over bankruptcy, had ousted state courts of all independent power over farmer bankrupts. Therefore any subsequent orders in the state courts were void. Pp. 440-444. In a criminal case we have said that a person convicted by a court without jurisdiction over the place of the crime could be released from restraint by habeas corpus where there were exceptional circumstances such as a conflict of jurisdiction between the state and the Federal Government. Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U. S. 19, 27. The kind of judicial controversies presented for adjudication in the cases cited above in this paragraph were not cognizable by the respective courts. It is absence of such basic facts of jurisdiction that has led courts to say that false testimony in the proceedings is not punishable as perjury. Where perjury charges arise from alleged false statements by the defendant in former trials, whether in that former trial he was also a defendant or only a witness, the same distinctions appear. Where the court of the first trial had no jurisdiction of the kind of judicial controversies presented for adjudication, a number of courts have held that false testimony in those proceedings is not punishable as perjury. So in a case where the court had general jurisdiction of the kind of prosecution, larceny less than felony, but not of the particular proceeding, larceny as a felony, there was no perjury. Johnson v. State, 58 Ga. 397. But where the court in the trial where the alleged perjury occurred had jurisdiction to render judgment on the merits in those proceedings, defects developed dehors the record or in the procedure, sufficient to invalidate any judgment on review, do not make a subsequent conviction for perjury in the former trial impossible.
One can find inconsistent and indeed conflicting rulings among the cases, even from the same jurisdictions, perhaps attributable to the use of the word “jurisdiction” in the heterogeneous situations that occur. The line is narrow and often wavering between errors in the proceedings and lack of jurisdiction. Wharton, Criminal Law (12th ed.), § 1538. Here, however, we have a federal statute enacted in an effort to keep the course of justice free from the pollution of perjury. We have a court empowered to take cognizance of the crime of perjury and decide the issues under that statute. The effect of the alleged false testimony could not result in a miscarriage of justice in this case but the federal statute against perjury is not directed so much at its effects as at its perpetration; at the probable wrong done the administration of justice by false testimony. That statute has led federal courts to uphold charges of perjury despite arguments that the federal court at the trial affected by the perjury could not enter a valid judgment due to lack of diversity jurisdiction, or due to the unconstitutionality of the statute out of which the perjury proceedings arose.
Where a federal court has power, as here, to proceed to a determination on the merits, that is jurisdiction of the proceedings. The District Court has such jurisdiction. Though the trial court or an appellate court may conclude that the statute is wholly unconstitutional, or that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a crime or are not proven, it has proceeded with jurisdiction and false testimony before it under oath is perjury.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissent.
The indictment specified the following “rights and privileges”:
“. . . the right and privilege not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, the right and privilege to be secure in his person while in the custody of the State of Florida, the right and privilege not to be subjected to punishment without due process of law, the right and privilege to be immune, while in the custody of persons acting under color of the laws of the State of Florida, from illegal assault and battery by any person exercising the authority of said State, and the right and privilege to be tried by due process of law and if found guilty to be sentenced and punished in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida; ...”
The specific “rights and privileges” are the same as those listed in note 1.
In the Ehrlich case an acquittal of a charge of violation of the Price Control Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 901 et seq., by collecting more than the sale bills for meat showed was held to bar a perjury charge that Ehrlich had sworn falsely that he had not received any payment for any sale at a price in excess of that shown on the sales slips. It was held that the plea in bar of the second prosecution was good on the ground that the allegedly perjurious words were the basis of the former crime charged and therefore the acquittal barred the perjury prosecution.
A number of other cases are cited in appellees’ brief. They support the rule that an acquittal on facts essential to conviction on the subsequent charge bars a later prosecution. None deal with the situation of Williams who was convicted on the prior trial of abuse under 18 IT. S. C. § 242. He can, of course, claim no bar against prosecution on a theory of estoppel since the facts in the former trial, if applicable to the subsequent one, were found against him. The cases are: United States v. De Angelo, 138 F. 2d 466; United States v. Butler, 38 F. 498; Chitwood v. United States, 178 F. 442; Allen v. United States, 194 F. 664; Youngblood v. United States, 266 F. 795; Kuskulis v. United States, 37 F. 2d 241.
To be present at a crime is not evidence of guilt as an aider or abettor. Hicks v. United States, 150 U. S. 442, 447, 450. Cf. United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 587; 12 A. L. R. 279. The instructions at the trial of the substantive crimes followed this rule. E. g., “I can’t make it too emphatic to you, gentlemen, that mere presence when a crime is committed is, of course, not sufficient to render one guilty as aider or abettor.”
“The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.
“Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.”
E. g., Collins v. State, 78 Ala. 433; Paine’s Case, Yel. 111, 80 Eng. Rep. 76 [1792].
82 A. L. R. 1138.
82 A. L. R. 1137.
West v. United States, 258 F. 413, 416.
Boehm v. United States, 123 F. 2d 791, 809. Cf. Kay v. United States, 303 U. S. 1, 6; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 186, 189; Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273; United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 289-295.
The validity of § 241 has been repeatedly upheld. E. g., United States v. Mosley, 238 U. S. 383, 386; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 293; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 667.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In this case, we decide whether Georgia’s State Senate redistricting plan should have been precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as renumbered and amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. Section 5 requires that before a covered jurisdiction’s new voting “standard, practice, or procedure” goes into effect, it must be precleared by either the Attorney General of the United States or a federal court to ensure that the change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. Whether a voting procedure change should be precleared depends on whether the change “would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, 141 (1976). We therefore must decide whether Georgia’s State Senate redistricting plan is retrogressive as compared to its previous, benchmark districting plan.
I
A
Over the past decade, the propriety of Georgia’s state and congressional districts has been the subject of repeated litigation. In 1991, the Georgia General Assembly began the process of redistricting after the 1990 census. Because Georgia is a covered jurisdiction under §5 of the Voting Rights Act, see Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 905 (1995), Georgia submitted its revised State Senate plan to the United States Department of Justice for preclearance. The plan as enacted into law increased the number of majority-minority districts from the previous Senate plan. The Department of Justice nevertheless refused preclearance because of Georgia’s failure to maximize the number of majority-minority districts. See Johnson v. Miller, 929 F. Supp. 1529, 1537, and n. 23 (SD Ga. 1996). After Georgia made changes to the Senate plan in an attempt to satisfy the United States’ objections, the State again submitted it to the Department of Justice for preclearance. Again, the Department of Justice refused preclearance because the plan did not contain a sufficient number of majority-minority districts. See id., at 1537, 1539. Finally, the United States precleared Georgia’s third redistricting plan, approving it in the spring of 1992. See id., at 1537.
Georgia’s 1992 Senate plan was not challenged in court. See id., at 1533-1534. Its congressional districting plan, however, was challenged as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 (1993). In 1995, we held in Miller v. Johnson that Georgia’s congressional districting plan was unconstitutional because it engaged in “the very racial stereotyping the Fourteenth Amendment forbids” by making race the “predominant, overriding factor explaining” Georgia’s congressional districting decisions. 515 U. S., at 928, 920. And even though it was “safe to say that the congressional plan enacted in the end was required in order to obtain preclearance,” this justification did not permit Georgia to engage in racial gerrymandering. See id., at 921. Georgia’s State Senate districts served as “building blocks” to create the congressional districting plan found unconstitutional in Miller v. Johnson. Johnson v. Miller, 929 F. Supp., at 1533, n. 8 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at 1536.
Georgia recognized that after Miller v. Johnson, its legislative districts were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. See 929 F. Supp., at 1533, 1540. Accordingly, Georgia attempted to cure the perceived constitutional problems with the 1992 State Senate districting plan by passing another plan in 1995. The Department of Justice refused to preclear the 1995 plan, maintaining that it retrogressed from the 1992 plan and that Miller v. Johnson concerned only Georgia’s congressional districts, not Georgia’s State Senate districts. See 929 F. Supp., at 1540-1541.
Private litigants subsequently brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the 1995 Senate plan. See id., at 1533. The three-judge panel of the District Court reviewing the 1995 Senate plan found that “[i]t is clear that a black maximization policy had become an integral part of the section 5 preclearance process... when the Georgia redistricting plans were under review. The net effect of the DOJ’s preclearance objection^]... was to require the State of Georgia to increase the number of majority black districts in its redistricting plans, which were already ameliorative plans, beyond any reasonable concept of non-retrogression.” Id., at 1539-1540. The court noted that in Miller v. Johnson, we specifically disapproved of the Department of Justice’s policy that the maximization of black districts was a part of the § 5 retrogression analysis. See 929 F. Supp., at 1539. Indeed, in Miller, we found that the Department of Justice’s objections to Georgia’s redistrieting plans were “driven by its policy of maximizing majority-black districts.” 515 U. S., at 924. And “[i]n utilizing § 5 to require States to create majority-minority districts wherever possible, the Department of Justice expanded its authority under the statute beyond what Congress intended and we have upheld.” Id., at 925.
The District Court stated that the maximization of majority-minority districts in Georgia “artificially push[ed] the percentage of black voters within some majority black districts as high as possible.” 929 F. Supp., at 1536. The plan that eventually received the Department of Justice’s preclearance in 1992 “represented the General Assembly’s surrender to the black maximization policy of the DOJ.” Id., at 1540. The court then found that the 1995 plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. See id., at 1543.
Under court direction, Georgia and the Department of Justice reached a mediated agreement on the constitutionality of the 1995 Senate plan. Georgia passed a new plan in 1997, and the Department of Justice quickly precleared it. The redrawn map resembled to a large degree the 1992 plan that eventually received preclearance from the Department of Justice, with some changes to accommodate the decision of this Court in Miller v. Johnson, and of the District Court in Johnson v. Miller.
All parties here concede that the 1997 plan is the benchmark plan for this litigation because it was in effect at the time of the 2001 redistricting effort. The 1997 plan drew 56 districts, 11 of them with a total black population of over 50%, and 10 of them with a black voting age population of over 50%. See Record, Doc. No. 148, Pl. Exh. 1C (hereinafter Pl. Exh.). The 2000 census revealed that these numbers had increased so that 13 districts had a black population of at least 50%, with the black voting age population exceeding 50% in 12 of those districts. See 195 F. Supp. 2d 25, 39 (DC 2002).
After the 2000 census, the Georgia General Assembly began the process of redistricting the Senate once again. No party contests that a substantial majority of black voters in Georgia vote Democratic, or that all elected black representatives in the General Assembly are Democrats. The goal of the Democratic leadership — black and white — was to maintain the number of majority-minority districts and also increase the number of Democratic Senate seats. See id., at 41-42. For example, the Director of Georgia’s Legislative Redistricting Office, Linda Meggers, testified that the Senate Black Caucus “ ‘wanted to maintain’ ” the existing majority-minority districts and at the same time “ ‘not waste’ ” votes. Id., at 41.
The Vice Chairman of the Senate Reapportionment Committee, Senator Robert Brown, also testified about the goals of the redistricting effort. Senator Brown, who is black, chaired the subcommittee that developed the Senate plan at issue here. See id., at 42. Senator Brown believed when he designed the Senate plan that as the black voting age population in a district increased beyond what was necessary, it would “pus[h] the whole thing more towards [the] Republican^].” Pl. Exh. 20, at 24. And “correspondingly,” Senator Brown stated, “the more you diminish the power of African-Americans overall.” Ibid. Senator Charles Walker was the majority leader of the Senate. Senator Walker testified that it was important to attempt to maintain a Democratic majority in the Senate because “we [African-Americans] have a better chance to participate in the political process under the Democratic majority than we would have under a Republican majority.” Pl. Exh. 24, at 19. At least 7 of the 11 black members of the Senate could chair committees. See 195 F. Supp. 2d, at 41.
The plan as designed by Senator Brown’s committee kept true to the dual goals of maintaining at least as many majority-minority districts while also attempting to increase Democratic strength in the Senate. Part of the Democrats’ strategy was not only to maintain the number of majority-minority districts, but to increase the number of so-called “influence” districts, where black voters would be able to exert a significant — if not decisive — force in the election process. As the majority leader testified, “in the past, you know, what we would end up doing was packing. You put all blacks in one district and all whites in one district, so what you end up with is [a] black Democratic district and [a] white Republican district. That’s not a good strategy. That does not bring the people together, it divides the population. But if you put people together on voting precincts it brings people together.” Pl. Exh. 24, at 19.
The plan as designed by the Senate “unpacked” the most heavily concentrated majority-minority districts in the benchmark plan, and created a number of new influence districts. The new plan drew 13 districts with a majority-black voting age population, 13 additional districts with a black voting age population of between 30% and 50%, and 4 other districts with a black voting age population of between 25% and 30%. See Pl. Exh. 2C. According to the 2000 census, as compared to the benchmark plan, the new plan reduced by five the number of districts with a black voting age population in excess of 60%. Compare Pl. Exh. ID with Pl. Exh. 2C. Yet it increased the number of majority-black voting age population districts by one, and it increased the number of districts with a black voting age population of between 25% and 50% by four. As compared to the benchmark plan enacted in 1997, the difference is even larger. Under the old census figures, Georgia had 10 Senate districts with a majority-black voting age population, and 8 Senate districts with a black voting age population of between 30% and 50%. See Pl. Exh. 1C. The new plan thus increased the number of districts with a majority black voting age population by three, and increased the number of districts with a black voting age population of between 30% and 50% by another five. Compare Pl. Exh. 1C with Pl. Exh. 2C.
The Senate adopted its new districting plan on August 10, 2001, by a vote of 29 to 26. Ten of the eleven black Senators voted for the plan. 195 F. Supp. 2d, at 55. The Georgia House of Representatives passed the Senate plan by a vote of 101 to 71. Thirty-three of the thirty-four black Representatives voted for the plan. Ibid. No Republican in either the House or the Senate voted for the plan, making the votes of the black legislators necessary for passage. See id., at 41. The Governor signed the Senate plan into law on August 24, 2001, and Georgia subsequently sought to obtain preclearance.
B
Pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a covered jurisdiction like Georgia has the option of either seeking administrative preclearance through the Attorney General of the United States or seeking judicial preclearance by instituting an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that the voting change comports with §5. 42 U. S. C. § 1973c; Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526 (1973). Georgia chose the latter method, filing suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the State Senate plan does not violate § 5.
Georgia, which bears the burden of proof in this action, see Pleasant Grove v. United States, 479 U. S. 462 (1987), attempted to prove that its Senate plan was not retrogressive either in intent or in effect. It submitted detailed evidence documenting in each district the total population, the total black population, the black voting age population, the percentage of black registered voters, and the overall percentage of Democratic votes (i. e., the overall likelihood that voters in a particular district will vote Democratic), among other things. See 195 F. Supp. 2d, at 36; see also Pl. Exhs. 2C, 2D. The State also submitted evidence about how each of these statistics compared to the benchmark districts. See 195 F. Supp. 2d, at 36; see also Pl. Exhs. 1C, ID, IE (revised).
Georgia also submitted testimony from numerous people who had participated in enacting the Senate plan into law, and from United States Congressman John Lewis, who represents the Atlanta area. These witnesses testified that the new Senate plan was designed to increase black voting strength throughout the State as well as to help ensure a continued Democratic majority in the Senate. The State also submitted expert testimony that African-American and non-African-American voters have equal chances of electing their preferred candidate when the black voting age population of a district is at 44.3%. Finally, in response to objections raised by the United States, Georgia submitted more detailed statistical evidence with respect to three proposed Senate districts that the United States found objectionable— Districts 2, 12, and 26 — and two districts that the interve-nors challenged — Districts 15 and 22.
The United States, through the Attorney General, argued in District Court that Georgia’s 2001 Senate redistricting plan should not be precleared. It argued that the plan’s changes to the boundaries of Districts 2, 12, and 26 unlawfully reduced the ability of black voters to elect candidates of their choice. See Brief for Federal Appellees 8; 195 F. Supp. 2d, at 72. The United States noted that in District 2, the black voting age population dropped from 60.58% to 50.31%; in District 12, the black voting age population dropped from 55.43% to 50.66%; and in District 26, the black voting age population dropped from 62.45% to 50.80%. Moreover, in all three of these districts, the percentage of black registered voters dropped to just under 50%. The United States also submitted expert evidence that voting is racially polarized in Senate Districts 2,12, and 26. See id., at 69-71. The United States acknowledged that some limited percentage of whites would vote for a black candidate, but maintained that the percentage was not sufficient for black voters to elect their candidate of choice. See id., at 70-71. The United States also offered testimony from various witnesses, including lay witnesses living in the three districts, who asserted that the new contours of Districts 2,12, and 26 would reduce the opportunity for blacks to elect a candidate of their choice in those districts; Senator Regina Thomas of District 2, the only black Senator who voted against the plan; Senator Eric Johnson, the Republieán leader of the Senate; and some black legislators who voted for the plan but questioned how the plan would affect black voters. See Vols. 25-27 Record, Doc. No. 177, United States Exhs. 707-736 (Depositions). As the District Court stated, “the United States’ evidence was extremely limited in scope — focusing only on three contested districts in the State Senate plan. That evidence was not designed to permit the court to assess the overall impact of [the Senate plan].” 195 F. Supp. 2d, at 37.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, the District Court also permitted four African-American citizens of Georgia to intervene. The intervenors identified two other districts — Districts 15 and 22 — where they alleged retrogression had occurred. The intervenors “presented] little evidence other than proposed alternative plans and an expert report critiquing the State’s expert report.” 195 F. Supp. 2d, at 37.
A three-judge panel of the District Court held that Georgia’s State Senate apportionment violated § 5, and was therefore not entitled to preelearance. See id., at 97. Judge Sullivan, joined by Judge Edwards, concluded that Georgia had “not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the State Senate redistricting plan would not have a retrogressive effect on African American voters” effective exercise of the electoral franchise. Ibid. The court found that Senate Districts 2, 12, and 26 were retrogressive because in each district, a lesser opportunity existed for the black candidate of choice to win election under the new plan than under the benchmark plan. See id., at 93-94. The court found that the reductions in black voting age population in Districts 2, 12, and 26 would “diminish African American voting strength in these districts,” and that Georgia had “failed to present any... evidence” that the retrogression in those districts “will be offset by gains in other districts.” Id., at 88.
Judge Edwards, joined by Judge Sullivan, concurred. Judge Edwards emphasized that §§5 and 2 are “procedurally and substantively distinct provisions.” Id., at 97. He therefore rejected Georgia’s argument that a plan preserving an equal opportunity for minorities to elect candidates of their choice satisfies §5. Judge Edwards also rejected the testimony of the black Georgia politicians who supported the Senate plan. In his view, the testimony did not address whether racial polarization was occurring in Senate Districts 2, 12, and 26. See id., at 101-102.
Judge Oberdorfer dissented. He would have given “greater credence to the political expertise and motivation of Georgia’s African-American political leaders and reasonable inferences drawn from their testimony and the voting data and statistics.” Id., at 102. He noted that this Court has not answered “whether a redistricting plan that preserves or increases the number of districts statewide in which minorities have a fair or reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of choice is entitled to preclearance, or whether every district must remain at or improve on the benchmark probability of victory, even if doing so maintains a minority super-majority far in excess of the level needed for effective exercise of [the] electoral franchise.” Id., at 117.
After the District Court refused to preclear the plan, Georgia enacted another plan, largely similar to the one at issue here, except that it added black voters to Districts 2, 12, and 26. The District Court precleared this plan. See 204 F. Supp. 2d 4 (2002). No party has contested the propriety of the District Court’s preclearance of the Senate plan as amended. Georgia asserts that it will use the plan as originally enacted if it receives preclearance.
We noted probable jurisdiction to consider whether the District Court should have precleared the plan as originally enacted by Georgia in 2001, 637 U. S. 1151 (2003), and now vacate the judgment below.
II
Before addressing the merits of Georgias preclearance claim, we address the State’s argument that the District Court was incorrect in allowing the private litigants to intervene in this lawsuit. Georgia maintains that private parties should not be allowed to intervene in §5 actions because States should not be subjected to the political stratagems of intervenors. While the United States disagrees with Georgia on the propriety of intervention here, the United States argues that this question is moot because the participation of the intervenors did not affect the District Court’s ruling on the merits and the intervenors did not appeal the court’s ruling.
We do not think Georgia’s argument is moot. The inter-venors did not have to appeal because they were prevailing parties below. Moreover, the District Court addressed the evidence that the intervenors submitted, which is now in front of this Court. The issue whether intervenors are proper parties still has relevance in this Court because they argue here that the District Court correctly found that the Senate plan was retrogressive.
The District Court properly found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 governs intervention in this case. Section 5 permits a State to bring “an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. Section 5 does not limit in any way the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to this type of lawsuit, and the statute by its terms does not bar private parties from intervening. In NAACP v. New York, 413 U. S. 345, 365 (1973), we held that in an action under § 5, “intervention in a federal court suit is governed by Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24.”
To support its argument, Georgia relies on Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491 (1977). In Morris, we held that in an administrative preclearance action, the decision to object belongs only to the Attorney General and is not judicially reviewable. See id., at 504-505. But Morris concerned the administrative preclearance process, not the judicial pre-clearance process. Morris itself recognized the difference between administrative preclearance and judicial preclearance. See id., at 503-507.
Here, the District Court granted the motion to intervene because it found that the intervenors’ “analysis of the... Senate redistricting pla[n] identifies interests that are not adequately represented by the existing parties.” App. to Juris. Statement 218a. Private parties may intervene in §5 actions assuming they meet the requirements of Rule 24, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to intervene in this case. See NAACP v. New York, supra, at 367.
III
A
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act “has a limited substantive goal: “‘to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.’” Miller, 515 U. S., at 926 (quoting Beer v. United States, 425 U. S., [at 141]).” Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952, 982-983 (1996). Thus, a plan that merely preserves “current minority voting strength” is entitled to § 5 preclearance. City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U. S. 125, 134, n. 10 (1983); Bush v. Vera, supra, at 983. Indeed, a voting change with a discriminatory but nonretro-gressive purpose or effect does not violate § 5. See Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U. S. 320, 341 (2000). And “no matter how unconstitutional it may be,” a plan that is not retrogressive should be precleared under §5. Id., at 336. “[P]reclearance under §5 affirms nothing but the absence of backsliding.” Id., at 335.
Georgia argues that a plan should be precleared under § 5 if the plan would satisfy §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 1973. We have, however, “consistently understood” § 2 to “combat different evils and, accordingly, to impose very different duties upon the States.” Reno v. Bosier Parish School Bd., 520 U. S. 471, 477 (1997) (Bossier Parish I). For example, while §5 is limited to particular covered jurisdictions, § 2 applies to all States. And the § 2 inquiry differs in significant respects from a § 5 inquiry. In contrast to §5’s retrogression standard, the “essence” of a §2 vote dilution claim is that “a certain electoral law, practice, or structure... cause[s] an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 47 (1986); see also id., at 48-50 (enunciating a three-part test to establish vote dilution); id., at 85-100 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b). Unlike an inquiry under §2, a retrogression inquiry under §5, “by definition, requires a comparison of a jurisdiction’s new voting plan with its existing plan.” Bossier Parish I, supra, at 478. While some parts of the §2 analysis may overlap with the §5 inquiry, the two sections “differ in structure, purpose, and application.” Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 883 (1994) (plurality opinion).
In Bossier Parish I, we specifically held that a violation of § 2 is not an independent reason to deny preclearance under § 5. See 520 U. S., at 477. The reason for this holding was straightforward: “[R]ecognizing §2 violations as a basis for denying §5 preclearance would inevitably make compliance with §5 contingent upon compliance with §2. Doing so would, for all intents and purposes, replace the standards for § 5 with those for § 2.” Ibid.
Georgia here makes the flip side of the argument that failed in Bossier Parish I — compliance with §2 suffices for preclearance under § 5. Yet the argument fails here for the same reasons the argument failed in Bossier Parish I. We refuse to equate a § 2 vote dilution inquiry with the § 5 retrogression standard. Georgia’s argument, like the argument in Bossier Parish I, would “shift the focus of § 5 from nonret-rogression to vote dilution, and [would] change the § 5 benchmark from a jurisdiction’s existing plan to a hypothetical, undiluted plan.” Id., at 480. Instead of showing that the Senate plan is nondilutive under § 2, Georgia must prove that its plan is nonretrogressive under § 5.
B
Georgia argues that even if compliance with §2 does not automatically result in preclearance under § 5, its State Senate plan should be precleared because it does not lead to “a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Beer v. United States, supra, at 141. See, e. g., Brief for Appellant 32, 36.
While we have never determined the meaning of “effective exercise of the electoral franchise,” this case requires us to do so in some detail. First, the United States and the District Court correctly acknowledge that in examining whether the new plan is retrogressive, the inquiry must encompass the entire statewide plan as a whole. See 195 F. Supp. 2d, at 73; Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29. Thus, while the diminution of a minority group’s effective exercise of the electoral franchise in one or two districts may be sufficient to show a violation of § 5, it is only sufficient if the. covered jurisdiction cannot show that the gains in the plan as a whole offset the loss in a particular district.
Second, any assessment of the retrogression of a minority group’s effective exercise of the electoral franchise depends on an examination of all the relevant circumstances, such as the ability of minority voters to elect their candidate of choice, the extent of the minority group’s opportunity to participate in the political process, and the feasibility of creating a nonretrogressive plan. See, e. g., Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1011-1012, 1020-1021 (1994); Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358, 371-372 (1975); Thornburg v. Gingles, supra, at 97-100 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). “No single statistic provides courts with a shortcut to determine whether” a voting change retrogresses from the benchmark. Johnson v. De Grandy, supra, at 1020-1021.
In assessing the totality of the circumstances, a court should not focus solely on the comparative ability of a minority group to elect a candidate of its choice. While this factor is an important one in the § 5 retrogression inquiry, it cannot be dispositive or exclusive. The standard in § 5 is simple— whether the new plan “would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Beer v. United States, 425 U. S., at 141.
The ability of minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice is important but often complex in practice to determine. In order to maximize the electoral success of a minority group, a State may choose to create a certain number of “safe” districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S., at 48-49; id., at 87-89 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Alternatively, a State may choose to create a greater number of districts in which it is likely — although perhaps not quite as likely as under the benchmark plan — that minority voters will be able to elect candidates of their choice. See id., at 88-89 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); cf. Pildes, Is Voting-Rights Law Now at War With Itself? Social Science and Voting Rights in the 2000s, 80 N. C. L. Rev. 1517 (2002).
Section 5 does not dictate that a State must pick one of these methods of redistricting over another. Either option “will present the minority group with its own array of electoral risks and benefits,” and presents “hard choices about what would truly'maximize’ minority electoral success.” Thornburg v. Gingles, supra, at 89 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). On one hand, a smaller number of safe majority-minority districts may virtually guarantee the election of a minority group’s preferred candidate in those districts. Yet even if this concentration of minority voters in a few districts does not constitute the unlawful packing of minority voters, see Voinovich v. Quitter, 507 U. S. 146, 153-154 (1993), such a plan risks isolating minority voters from the rest of the State, and risks narrowing political influence to only a fraction of political districts. Cf. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S., at 648-650. And while such districts may result in more “descriptive representation” because the representatives of choice are more likely to mirror the race of the majority of voters in that district, the representation may be limited to fewer areas. See H. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation 60-91 (1967).
On the other hand, spreading out minority voters over a greater number of districts creates more districts in which minority voters may have the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. Such a strategy has the potential to increase “substantive representation” in more districts, by creating coalitions of voters who together will help to achieve the electoral aspirations of the minority group. See id., at 114. It also, however, creates the risk that the minority group’s preferred candidate may lose. Yet as we stated in Johnson v. De Grandy, supra, at 1020:
“[T]heré are communities in which minority citizens are able to form coalitions with voters from other racial and ethnic groups, having no need to be a majority within a single district in order to elect candidates of their choice. Those candidates may not represent perfection to every minority voter, but minority voters are not immune from the obligation to pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground, the virtue of which is not to be slighted in applying a statute meant to hasten the waning of racism in American politics.”
Section 5 gives States the flexibility to choose one theory of effective representation over the other.
In addition to the comparative ability of a minority group to elect a candidate of its choice, the other highly relevant factor in a retrogression inquiry is the extent to which a new plan changes the minority group’s opportunity to participate in the political process. “ ‘[T]he power to influence the political process is not limited to winning elections.’” Thornburg v. Gingles, supra, at 99 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U. S. 109, 132 (1986)); see also White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 766-767 (1973); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 149-160 (1971); Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S., at 1011-1012.
Thus, a court must examine whether a new plan adds or subtracts “influence districts” — where minority voters may not be able to elect a candidate of choice but can play a substantial, if not decisive, role in the electoral process. Cf. Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 947, n. 21 (1996) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Hays v. Louisiana, 936 F. Supp. 360, 364, n. 17 (WB La. 1996); Johnson v. De Grandy, supra, at 1011-1012; Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S., at 98-100 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). In assessing the comparative weight of these influence districts, it is important to consider “the likelihood that candidates elected without decisive minority support would be willing to take the minority’s interests into account.” Id., at 100 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). In fact, various studies have suggested that the most effective way to maximize minority voting strength may be to create more influence or coalitional districts. See, e. g., Lublin, Racial Redistricting and African-American Representation: A Critique of “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?” 93 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 183,185 (1999) (noting that racial redistricting
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem. Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting-a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And § 4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States-an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty. This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, "an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 309, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, "exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate." Id., at 334, 86 S.Ct. 803. Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were scheduled to expire after five years. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 4(a), 79 Stat. 438.
Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions. By 2009, "the racial gap in voter registration and turnout [was] lower in the States originally covered by § 5 than it [was] nationwide." Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 203-204, 129 S.Ct. 2504, 174 L.Ed.2d 140 (2009). Since that time, Census Bureau data indicate that African-American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by § 5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent. See Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States (Nov. 2012) (Table 4b). At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act's extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, "the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs." Northwest Austin, 557 U.S., at 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504.
I
A
The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870, in the wake of the Civil War. It provides that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and it gives Congress the "power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
"The first century of congressional enforcement of the Amendment, however, can only be regarded as a failure." Id., at 197, 129 S.Ct. 2504. In the 1890s, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia began to enact literacy tests for voter registration and to employ other methods designed to prevent African-Americans from voting. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 310, 86 S.Ct. 803. Congress passed statutes outlawing some of these practices and facilitating litigation against them, but litigation remained slow and expensive, and the States came up with new ways to discriminate as soon as existing ones were struck down. Voter registration of African-Americans barely improved. Id., at 313-314, 86 S.Ct. 803.
Inspired to action by the civil rights movement, Congress responded in 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 was enacted to forbid, in all 50 States, any "standard, practice, or procedure... imposed or applied... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." 79 Stat. 437. The current version forbids any " standard, practice, or procedure" that "results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a). Both the Federal Government and individuals have sued to enforce § 2, see, e.g., Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994), and injunctive relief is available in appropriate cases to block voting laws from going into effect, see 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(d). Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide, and is not at issue in this case.
Other sections targeted only some parts of the country. At the time of the Act's passage, these "covered" jurisdictions were those States or political subdivisions that had maintained a test or device as a prerequisite to voting as of November 1, 1964, and had less than 50 percent voter registration or turnout in the 1964 Presidential election. § 4(b), 79 Stat. 438. Such tests or devices included literacy and knowledge tests, good moral character requirements, the need for vouchers from registered voters, and the like. § 4(c), id., at 438-439. A covered jurisdiction could "bail out" of coverage if it had not used a test or device in the preceding five years "for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." § 4(a), id., at 438. In 1965, the covered States included Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. The additional covered subdivisions included 39 counties in North Carolina and one in Arizona. See 28 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. (2012).
In those jurisdictions, § 4 of the Act banned all such tests or devices. § 4(a), 79 Stat. 438. Section 5 provided that no change in voting procedures could take effect until it was approved by federal authorities in Washington, D.C.-either the Attorney General or a court of three judges. Id., at 439. A jurisdiction could obtain such "preclearance" only by proving that the change had neither "the purpose [nor] the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." Ibid.
Sections 4 and 5 were intended to be temporary; they were set to expire after five years. See § 4(a), id., at 438; Northwest Austin, supra, at 199, 129 S.Ct. 2504. In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, we upheld the 1965 Act against constitutional challenge, explaining that it was justified to address "voting discrimination where it persists on a pervasive scale." 383 U.S., at 308, 86 S.Ct. 803.
In 1970, Congress reauthorized the Act for another five years, and extended the coverage formula in § 4(b) to jurisdictions that had a voting test and less than 50 percent voter registration or turnout as of 1968. Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, §§ 3-4, 84 Stat. 315. That swept in several counties in California, New Hampshire, and New York. See 28 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. Congress also extended the ban in § 4(a) on tests and devices nationwide. § 6, 84 Stat. 315.
In 1975, Congress reauthorized the Act for seven more years, and extended its coverage to jurisdictions that had a voting test and less than 50 percent voter registration or turnout as of 1972. Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, §§ 101, 202, 89 Stat. 400, 401. Congress also amended the definition of "test or device" to include the practice of providing English-only voting materials in places where over five percent of voting-age citizens spoke a single language other than English. § 203, id., at 401-402. As a result of these amendments, the States of Alaska, Arizona, and Texas, as well as several counties in California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota, became covered jurisdictions. See 28 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. Congress correspondingly amended sections 2 and 5 to forbid voting discrimination on the basis of membership in a language minority group, in addition to discrimination on the basis of race or color. §§ 203, 206, 89 Stat. 401, 402. Finally, Congress made the nationwide ban on tests and devices permanent. § 102, id., at 400.
In 1982, Congress reauthorized the Act for 25 years, but did not alter its coverage formula. See Voting Rights Act Amendments, 96 Stat. 131. Congress did, however, amend the bailout provisions, allowing political subdivisions of covered jurisdictions to bail out. Among other prerequisites for bailout, jurisdictions and their subdivisions must not have used a forbidden test or device, failed to receive preclearance, or lost a § 2 suit, in the ten years prior to seeking bailout. § 2, id., at 131-133.
We upheld each of these reauthorizations against constitutional challenge. See Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526, 93 S.Ct. 1702, 36 L.Ed.2d 472 (1973) ; City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 100 S.Ct. 1548, 64 L.Ed.2d 119 (1980) ; Lopez v. Monterey County, 525 U.S. 266, 119 S.Ct. 693, 142 L.Ed.2d 728 (1999).
In 2006, Congress again reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for 25 years, again without change to its coverage formula. Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, 120 Stat. 577. Congress also amended § 5 to prohibit more conduct than before. § 5, id., at 580-581; see Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U.S. 320, 341, 120 S.Ct. 866, 145 L.Ed.2d 845 (2000) (Bossier II ); Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 479, 123 S.Ct. 2498, 156 L.Ed.2d 428 (2003). Section 5 now forbids voting changes with "any discriminatory purpose" as well as voting changes that diminish the ability of citizens, on account of race, color, or language minority status, "to elect their preferred candidates of choice." 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973c(b)-(d).
Shortly after this reauthorization, a Texas utility district brought suit, seeking to bail out from the Act's coverage and, in the alternative, challenging the Act's constitutionality. See Northwest Austin, 557 U.S., at 200-201, 129 S.Ct. 2504. A three-judge District Court explained that only a State or political subdivision was eligible to seek bailout under the statute, and concluded that the utility district was not a political subdivision, a term that encompassed only "counties, parishes, and voter-registering subunits." Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Mukasey, 573 F.Supp.2d 221, 232 (D.D.C.2008). The District Court also rejected the constitutional challenge. Id., at 283.
We reversed. We explained that " 'normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.' " Northwest Austin, supra, at 205, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (quoting Escambia County v. McMillan, 466 U.S. 48, 51, 104 S.Ct. 1577, 80 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984) (per curiam )). Concluding that "underlying constitutional concerns," among other things, "compel[led] a broader reading of the bailout provision," we construed the statute to allow the utility district to seek bailout. Northwest Austin, 557 U.S., at 207, 129 S.Ct. 2504. In doing so we expressed serious doubts about the Act's continued constitutionality.
We explained that § 5 "imposes substantial federalism costs" and "differentiates between the States, despite our historic tradition that all the States enjoy equal sovereignty." Id., at 202, 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (internal quotation marks omitted). We also noted that "[t]hings have changed in the South. Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels." Id., at 202, 129 S.Ct. 2504. Finally, we questioned whether the problems that § 5 meant to address were still "concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance." Id., at 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504.
Eight Members of the Court subscribed to these views, and the remaining Member would have held the Act unconstitutional. Ultimately, however, the Court's construction of the bailout provision left the constitutional issues for another day.
B
Shelby County is located in Alabama, a covered jurisdiction. It has not sought bailout, as the Attorney General has recently objected to voting changes proposed from within the county. See App. 87a-92a. Instead, in 2010, the county sued the Attorney General in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act are facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The District Court ruled against the county and upheld the Act. 811 F.Supp.2d 424, 508 (2011). The court found that the evidence before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify reauthorizing § 5 and continuing the § 4(b) coverage formula.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed. In assessing § 5, the D.C. Circuit considered six primary categories of evidence: Attorney General objections to voting changes, Attorney General requests for more information regarding voting changes, successful § 2 suits in covered jurisdictions, the dispatching of federal observers to monitor elections in covered jurisdictions, § 5 preclearance suits involving covered jurisdictions, and the deterrent effect of § 5. See 679 F.3d 848, 862-863 (2012). After extensive analysis of the record, the court accepted Congress's conclusion that § 2 litigation remained inadequate in the covered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minority voters, and that § 5 was therefore still necessary. Id., at 873.
Turning to § 4, the D.C. Circuit noted that the evidence for singling out the covered jurisdictions was "less robust" and that the issue presented "a close question." Id., at 879. But the court looked to data comparing the number of successful § 2 suits in the different parts of the country. Coupling that evidence with the deterrent effect of § 5, the court concluded that the statute continued "to single out the jurisdictions in which discrimination is concentrated," and thus held that the coverage formula passed constitutional muster. Id., at 883.
Judge Williams dissented. He found "no positive correlation between inclusion in § 4(b)'s coverage formula and low black registration or turnout." Id., at 891. Rather, to the extent there was any correlation, it actually went the other way: "condemnation under § 4(b) is a marker of higher black registration and turnout." Ibid. (emphasis added). Judge Williams also found that "[c]overed jurisdictions have far more black officeholders as a proportion of the black population than do uncovered ones." Id., at 892. As to the evidence of successful § 2 suits, Judge Williams disaggregated the reported cases by State, and concluded that "[t]he five worst uncovered jurisdictions... have worse records than eight of the covered jurisdictions." Id., at 897. He also noted that two covered jurisdictions-Arizona and Alaska-had not had any successful reported § 2 suit brought against them during the entire 24 years covered by the data. Ibid. Judge Williams would have held the coverage formula of § 4(b) "irrational" and unconstitutional. Id., at 885.
We granted certiorari. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 594, 184 L.Ed.2d 389 (2012).
II
In Northwest Austin, we stated that "the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs." 557 U.S., at 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504. And we concluded that "a departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires a showing that a statute's disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem that it targets." Ibid. These basic principles guide our review of the question before us.
A
The Constitution and laws of the United States are "the supreme Law of the Land." U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. State legislation may not contravene federal law. The Federal Government does not, however, have a general right to review and veto state enactments before they go into effect. A proposal to grant such authority to "negative" state laws was considered at the Constitutional Convention, but rejected in favor of allowing state laws to take effect, subject to later challenge under the Supremacy Clause. See 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 21, 164-168 (M. Farrand ed. 1911); 2 id., at 27-29, 390-392.
Outside the strictures of the Supremacy Clause, States retain broad autonomy in structuring their governments and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or citizens. Amdt. 10. This "allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States." Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 2364, 180 L.Ed.2d 269 (2011). But the federal balance "is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
More specifically, " 'the Framers of the Constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.' " Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 461-462, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991) (quoting Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 647, 93 S.Ct. 2842, 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973) ; some internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, the Federal Government retains significant control over federal elections. For instance, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish the time and manner for electing Senators and Representatives. Art. I, § 4, cl. 1; see also Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., --- U.S., at ---- - ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2253 - 2254. But States have "broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised." Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Arizona, ante, at --- U.S., at ---- - ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2257 - 2259. And "[e]ach State has the power to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and the manner in which they shall be chosen." Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 161, 12 S.Ct. 375, 36 L.Ed. 103 (1892). Drawing lines for congressional districts is likewise "primarily the duty and responsibility of the State." Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 934, 940, 181 L.Ed.2d 900 (2012) (per curiam ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Northwest Austin,supra, at 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (citing United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 16, 80 S.Ct. 961, 4 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1960) ; Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845) ; and Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725-726, 19 L.Ed. 227 (1869) ; emphasis added). Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567, 31 S.Ct. 688, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911). Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." Id., at 580, 31 S.Ct. 688.Coyle concerned the admission of new States, and Katzenbach rejected the notion that the principle operated as a bar on differential treatment outside that context. 383 U.S., at 328-329, 86 S.Ct. 803. At the same time, as we made clear in Northwest Austin, the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. 557 U.S., at 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504.
The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It suspends "all changes to state election law-however innocuous-until they have been precleared by federal authorities in Washington, D.C." Id., at 202, 129 S.Ct. 2504. States must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own, subject of course to any injunction in a § 2 action. The Attorney General has 60 days to object to a preclearance request, longer if he requests more information. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 51.9, 51.37. If a State seeks preclearance from a three-judge court, the process can take years.
And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States (and several additional counties). While one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process. Even if a noncovered jurisdiction is sued, there are important differences between those proceedings and preclearance proceedings; the preclearance proceeding "not only switches the burden of proof to the supplicant jurisdiction, but also applies substantive standards quite different from those governing the rest of the nation." 679 F.3d, at 884 (Williams, J., dissenting) (case below).
All this explains why, when we first upheld the Act in 1966, we described it as "stringent" and "potent." Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 308, 315, 337, 86 S.Ct. 803. We recognized that it "may have been an uncommon exercise of congressional power," but concluded that "legislative measures not otherwise appropriate" could be justified by "exceptional conditions." Id., at 334, 86 S.Ct. 803. We have since noted that the Act "authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking," Lopez, 525 U.S., at 282, 119 S.Ct. 693, and represents an "extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government," Presley v. Etowah County Comm'n, 502 U.S. 491, 500-501, 112 S.Ct. 820, 117 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992). As we reiterated in Northwest Austin, the Act constitutes "extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system." 557 U.S., at 211, 129 S.Ct. 2504.
B
In 1966, we found these departures from the basic features of our system of government justified. The "blight of racial discrimination in voting" had "infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century." Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 308, 86 S.Ct. 803. Several States had enacted a variety of requirements and tests "specifically designed to prevent" African-Americans from voting. Id., at 310, 86 S.Ct. 803. Case-by-case litigation had proved inadequate to prevent such racial discrimination in voting, in part because States "merely switched to discriminatory devices not covered by the federal decrees," "enacted difficult new tests," or simply "defied and evaded court orders." Id., at 314, 86 S.Ct. 803. Shortly before enactment of the Voting Rights Act, only 19.4 percent of African-Americans of voting age were registered to vote in Alabama, only 31.8 percent in Louisiana, and only 6.4 percent in Mississippi. Id., at 313, 86 S.Ct. 803. Those figures were roughly 50 percentage points or more below the figures for whites. Ibid.
In short, we concluded that "[u]nder the compulsion of these unique circumstances, Congress responded in a permissibly decisive manner." Id., at 334, 335, 86 S.Ct. 803. We also noted then and have emphasized since that this extraordinary legislation was intended to be temporary, set to expire after five years. Id., at 333, 86 S.Ct. 803; Northwest Austin,supra, at 199, 129 S.Ct. 2504.
At the time, the coverage formula-the means of linking the exercise of the unprecedented authority with the problem that warranted it-made sense. We found that "Congress chose to limit its attention to the geographic areas where immediate action seemed necessary." Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 328, 86 S.Ct. 803. The areas where Congress found "evidence of actual voting discrimination" shared two characteristics: "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." Id., at 330, 86 S.Ct. 803. We explained that "[t]ests 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." Ibid. We therefore concluded that "the coverage formula [was] rational in both practice and theory." Ibid. It accurately reflected those jurisdictions uniquely characterized by voting discrimination "on a pervasive scale," linking coverage to the devices used to effectuate discrimination and to the resulting disenfranchisement. Id., at 308, 86 S.Ct. 803. The formula ensured that the "stringent remedies [were] aimed at areas where voting discrimination ha[d] been most flagrant." Id., at 315, 86 S.Ct. 803.
C
Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Shelby County contends that the preclearance requirement, even without regard to its disparate coverage, is now unconstitutional. Its arguments have a good deal of force. In the covered jurisdictions, "[v]oter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels." Northwest Austin, 557 U.S., at 202, 129 S.Ct. 2504. The tests and devices that blocked access to the ballot have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. See § 6, 84 Stat. 315; § 102, 89 Stat. 400.
Those conclusions are not ours alone. Congress said the same when it reauthorized the Act in 2006, writing that "[s]ignificant progress has been made in eliminating first generation barriers experienced by minority voters, including increased numbers of registered minority voters, minority voter turnout, and minority representation in Congress, State legislatures, and local elected offices." § 2(b)(1), 120 Stat. 577. The House Report elaborated that "the number of African-Americans who are registered and who turn out to cast ballots has increased significantly over the last 40 years, particularly since 1982," and noted that "[i]n some circumstances, minorities register to vote and cast ballots at levels that surpass those of white voters." H.R.Rep. 109-478, at 12 (2006), 2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. 618, 627. That Report also explained that there have been "significant increases in the number of African-Americans serving in elected offices"; more specifically, there has been approximately a 1,000 percent increase since 1965 in the number of African-American elected officials in the six States originally covered by the Voting Rights Act. Id., at 18.
The following chart, compiled from the Senate and House Reports, compares voter registration numbers from 1965 to those from 2004 in the six originally covered States. These are the numbers that were before Congress when it reauthorized the Act in 2006:
1965 2004 White Black Gap White Black Gap Alabama 69.2 19.3 49.9 73.8 72.9 0.9 Georgia 62.[6] 27.4 35.2 63.5 64.2 -0.7 Louisiana 80.5 31.6 48.9 75.1 71.1 4.0 Mississippi 69.9 6.7 63.2 72.3 76.1 -3.8 South 75.7 37.3 38.4 74.4 71.1 3.3 Carolina Virginia 61.1 38.3 22.8 68.2 57.4 10.8
See S.Rep. No. 109-295, p. 11 (2006); H.R.Rep. No. 109-478, at 12. The 2004 figures come from the Census Bureau. Census Bureau data from the most recent election indicate that African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by § 5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent. See Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States (Table 4b). The preclearance statistics are also illuminating. In the first decade after enactment of § 5, the Attorney General objected to 14.2 percent of proposed voting changes. H. R Rep. No. 109-478, at 22. In the last decade before reenactment, the Attorney General objected to a mere 0.16 percent. S.Rep. No. 109-295, at 13.
There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process. See § 2(b)(1), 120 Stat. 577. During the "Freedom Summer" of 1964, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, three men were murdered while working in the area to register African-American voters. See United States v.
Price, 383 U.S. 787, 790, 86 S.Ct. 1152, 16 L.Ed.2d 267 (1966). On "Bloody Sunday" in 1965, in Selma, Alabama, police beat and used tear gas against hundreds marching in support of African-American enfranchisement. See Northwest Austin, supra, at 220, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2504 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Today both of those towns are governed by African-American mayors. Problems remain in these States and others, but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our Nation has made great strides.
Yet the Act has not eased the restrictions in § 5 or narrowed the scope of the coverage formula in § 4(b) along the way. Those extraordinary and unprecedented features were reauthorized-as if nothing had changed. In fact, the Act's unusual remedies have grown even stronger. When Congress reauthorized the Act in 2006, it did so for another 25 years on top of the previous 40-a far cry from the initial five-year period. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a)(8). Congress also expanded the prohibitions in § 5. We had previously interpreted § 5 to prohibit only those redistricting plans that would have the purpose or effect of worsening the position of minority groups. See Bossier II, 528 U.S., at 324, 335-336, 120 S.Ct. 866. In 2006, Congress amended § 5 to prohibit laws that could have favored such groups but did not do so because of a discriminatory purpose, see 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(c), even though we had stated that such broadening of § 5 coverage would "exacerbate the substantial federalism costs that the preclearance procedure already exacts, perhaps to the extent of raising concerns about § 5's constitutionality," Bossier II, supra, at 336, 120 S.Ct. 866 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, Congress expanded § 5 to prohibit any voting law "that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States," on account of race, color, or language minority status, "to elect their preferred candidates of choice." § 1973c(b). In light of those two amendments, the bar that covered jurisdictions must clear has been raised even as the conditions justifying that requirement have dramatically improved.
We have also previously highlighted the concern that "the preclearance requirements in one State [might] be unconstitutional in another." Northwest Austin, 557 U.S., at 203, 129 S.Ct. 2504; see Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S., at 491, 123 S.Ct. 2498 (KENNEDY, J., concurring) ("considerations of race that would doom a redistricting plan under the Fourteenth Amendment or § 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] seem to be what save it under § 5"). Nothing has happened since to alleviate this troubling concern about the current application of § 5.
Respondents do not deny that there have been improvements on the ground, but argue that much of this can be attributed to the deterrent effect of § 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:
|
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.
On January 30, 1961, shortly after returning home from work, the petitioner’s husband suffered a fall that resulted in his death on February 12. On February 20, 1961, the petitioner on behalf of herself and her three minor children filed a claim against her husband’s employer, the respondent, for compensation death benefits under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U. S. C. §§ 901-950. The petitioner alleged that her husband’s fall on January 30 had resulted from a work-connected injury suffered on January 26. A hearing was held before a Department of Labor Deputy Commissioner; and on June 8,1961, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the petitioner’s claim for failure to establish that her husband’s death had resulted from a work-connected injury. The petitioner did not bring an action in District Court to set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s ruling. 33 U. S. C. § 921. Some time after the Deputy Commissioner’s decision, the petitioner discovered an eyewitness to a work-connected injury suffered by her husband on January 30, the same day as his fall at home. On August 22, 1961, the petitioner filed a second compensation action against the respondent — this time alleging that the fall resulted from an injury suffered on January 30.
On September 8,1961, the petitioner began a wrongful-death action in the Northern District of Illinois against' a third party, the Norris Grain Company, alleging that her husband’s fall resulted from the same January 30 injury. On May 3, 1963, a jury rendered a verdict of $30,000 for the petitioner in that lawsuit. The grain company moved for a new trial, and the trial judge ruled that the motion would be granted unless the petitioner consented to a remittitur of $11,000. On May 16, 1963, without consulting the respondent, the petitioner accepted the remittitur. Judgment was entered for $19,000.
On August 29, 1963, a hearing on the petitioner’s second compensation action commenced. On January 27, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner entered findings of fact and an award for the petitioner. The respondent brought an action in District Court to set the award aside. The District Court affirmed, but the Court of Appeals reversed. 369 F. 2d 344. We granted certiorari to consider questions concerning the administration of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 389 U. S. 813.
The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner’s second compensation action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The petitioner contends that that doctrine is displaced in this case by the operation of § 22 of the Act, which provides:
“Upon his own initiative, or upon the application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact by the deputy commissioner, the deputy commissioner may, at any time prior to one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, whether or not a compensation order has been issued, or at any time prior to one year after the rejection of a claim, review a compensation case in accordance with the procedure prescribed [for original claims], and in accordance with such section issue a new compensation order which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase, or decrease such compensation, or award compensation.” 33 U. S. C. § 922. (Emphasis added.)
The petitioner asserts that her second compensation action came under § 22 because it challenged a “determination of fact by the deputy commissioner” in her original compensation action — namely, the finding that her husband’s fall did not result from a work-connected injury. The respondent argues that “a mistake in a determination of fact” in § 22 refers only to clerical errors and matters concerning an employee’s disability, not to matters concerning an employer’s liability. Conceding that nothing in the statutory language supports this reading, the respondent contends that the legislative history reveals Congress’ limited purpose.
Section 22 was first enacted as part of the original Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act in 1927. 44 Stat. 1437. At that time the section provided for review by the Deputy Commissioner only on the ground of a “change in conditions.” The Deputy Commissioner was authorized by the section to “terminate, continue, increase, or decrease” the original compensation award; review was permitted only “during the term of an award.”
From 1930 to 1933, the United States Employees’ Compensation Commission, which was charged with administering the Act, recommended in its annual reports that § 22 be amended to permit review by the Deputy Commissioner at any time. 14th Ann. Rep. of the United States Employees’ Compensation Commission (hereafter USECC) 75 (1930); 15th Ann. Rep. USECC 77 (1931); 16th Ann. Rep. USECC 49 (1932); 17th Ann. Rep. USECC 18 (1933). In 1934 Congress, while not adopting the recommendation entirely, responded by amending § 22 to permit review “any time prior to one year after the date of the last payment of compensation.” 48 Stat. 807. At the same time Congress added a second ground for review by the Deputy Commissioner: “a mistake in a determination of fact.” The purpose of this amendment was to “broaden the grounds on which a deputy commissioner can modify an award” by allowing modification where “a mistake in a determination of fact makes such modification desirable in order to render justice under the act.” S. Rep. No. 588, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 3-4 (1934); H. R. Rep. No. 1244, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1934).
In its annual reports for 1934-1936, the Compensation Commission recommended that § 22 be further amended to apply in cases where the original compensation claim is rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. 18th Ann. Rep. USECC 38 (1934); 19th Ann. Rep. USECC 49 (1935); 20th Ann. Rep. USECC 52 (1936). Congress responded in 1938 by amending § 22 to permit review by the Deputy Commissioner “at any time prior to one year after the rejection of a claim” and to allow the Deputy Commissioner after such review to “award compensation.” 52 Stat. 1167. The purpose of this amendment was to extend “the enlarged authority therein [1934 amendment] provided to cases in which the action of the deputy commissioner has been a rejection of the claim.” S. Rep. No. 1988, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 8 (1938); H. R. Rep. No. 1945, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 8 (1938).
We find nothing in this legislative history to support the respondent’s argument that a “determination of fact” means only some determinations of fact and not others. The respondent points out that the recommendations of the Compensation Commission prior to the 1934 amendment referred to analogous state laws; but those recommendations dealt with the time period in which review was to be available, not with the grounds for review. The respondent has referred us to no decision, state or federal, holding that a statute permitting review of determinations of fact is limited to issues relating to disability. In the absence of persuasive reasons to the contrary, we attribute to the words of a statute their ordinary meaning, and we hold that the petitioner’s second compensation action, filed a few months after the rejection of her original claim, came within the scope of § 22.
The respondent raised two other issues in the Court of Appeals, which that court found unnecessary to reach. These issues have been fully briefed and argued in this Court; and in order to bring this litigation to a close, we dispose of them here.
Section 33 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act permits an individual entitled to compensation to sue a third party for damages. 33 U. S. C. § 933 (a). If no such suit is brought and compensation is accepted from the employer under an award, the rights of the employee against third parties are assigned to the employer. 33 U. S. C. § 933 (b) and (c). If, as in this case, a suit is brought against a third party, the employer is liable in compensation only to the extent that allowable compensation benefits exceed the recovery from the third party. 33 it. S. C. § 933 (f). Section 33 (g) of the Act further provides:
“If compromise with such third person is made by the person entitled to compensation ... of an amount less than the compensation to which such person or representative would be entitled to under this chapter, the employer shall be liable for compensation . . . only if such compromise is made with his written approval.” 33 U. S. C. § 933 (g).
The respondent contends that the petitioner’s acceptance of the judicially ordered remittitur of $11,000 in her third-party lawsuit was a “compromise” within the meaning of § 33 (g). We disagree.
The Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was modeled on the New York employees’ compensation statute. Lawson v. Suwannee S. S. Co., 336 U. S. 198, 205; H. R. Rep. No. 1190, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1926). Under the analogous provision of that act, the New York Court of Appeals has held that a' remittitur is not a compromise.
“Plaintiff’s stipulation consenting to take that portion of the verdict judicially determined as being not excessive, does not fall within any recognized meaning of the word ‘compromise.’ ” Gallagher v. Carol Construction Co., 272 N. Y. 127, 129, 5 N. E. 2d 63, 64.
An order of remittitur is a judicial determination of recoverable damages; it is not an agreement among the parties involving mutual concessions. Section 33 (g) protects the employer against his employee’s accepting too little for his cause of action against a third party. That danger is not present when damages are determined, not by negotiations between the employee and the third party, but rather by the independent evaluation of a trial judge. Cf. Bell v. O’Hearne, 284 F. 2d 777.
Finally, the respondent attacks the Deputy Commissioner’s finding of fact that there was a causal connection between the work-connected injury suffered by the petitioner’s husband on January 30 and his fall at home some two hours later. The Deputy Commissioner’s finding must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U. S. 504. The District Court held that the Deputy Commissioner’s finding was supported by substantial evidence, and we agree. While some of the testimony of the petitioner’s medical expert was arguably inconsistent with other parts of his testimony, it was within the province of the Deputy Commissioner to credit part of the witness’ testimony without accepting it all.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The petitioner’s husband had worked for the Chicago Grain Trimmers Association, Inc. (hereafter respondent) as a grain trimmer since 1934. Grain trimmers load and unload grain-carrying barges and vessels.
It is not entirely clear from the Deputy Commissioner’s decision whether it rested on insufficient proof of a causal nexus between the January 26 injury and the January 30 fall or on insufficient proof that the alleged January 26 injury in fact occurred at all.
The petitioner also contends that (1) the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to administrative compensation cases generally, and (2) if res judicata does apply, her second action did not arise out of the same cause of action as did her first. We do not reach these contentions.
The respondent does not rely on either of the reasons given by the Court of Appeals for holding §22 inapplicable: (1) that the Deputy Commissioner was not aware of Banks’ January 30 injury until more than one year after the petitioner’s original claim was rejected, and (2) that the petitioner’s second compensation action did not dispute the original findings of fact of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner filed her second compensation action within a few months after the original claim was rejected; it is irrelevant that the hearing occurred more than a year later. Candado Stevedoring Corp. v. Willard, 185 F. 2d 232. The question of the causation of the petitioner’s husband’s fall is obviously one of fact, cf. O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U. S. 504; the case cited by the Court of Appeals, Flamm v. Hughes, 329 F. 2d 378, is utterly inapposite since it dealt with the possibility of litigating a question of constitutional law in a § 22 proceeding.
In 1928 the Commission recommended that “an amendment be adopted which will give deputy commissioners the continuing authority to reopen cases that is usually conferred upon compensation boards” because “situations are continually arising in which the action taken by a deputy commissioner in correcting an error in an order may give rise to controversy and result in a failure to do justice to either the employer or the employee.” 12th Ann. Rep. USECC 40 (1928). It is not at all clear just what the Commission thus meant to recommend. In any event this recommendation was not repeated in later annual reports, and there is no evidence that Congress at any time sought to adopt it. (Compare the committee reports to the 1934 amendment to § 22, which contain specific references to the 17th Ann. Rep. USECC (1933). S. Rep. No. 588, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1934); H. R. Rep. No. 1244, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1934).)
Congress also added authority for the Deputy Commissioner to “reinstate” compensation as well as to terminate, continue, increase, or decrease it.
It is true that the statute as enacted in 1927, permitting review only “on the ground of a change in conditions,” might have supported a distinction between issues of disability and liability. But after the 1934 and 1938 amendments, permitting review of “a determination of fact” and authorizing the Deputy Commissioner to “award compensation” even where the original claim is rejected, the asserted distinction can draw no support from the statutory language.
It is irrelevant for purposes of § 22 that the petitioner labeled her second action a claim for compensation rather than an application for review so long as the action in fact comes within the scope of the section. Candado Stevedoring Corp. v. Willard, 185 F. 2d 232.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.